What I think Sony has going for them already:
-aquired Konica Minolta technology
-strong brand presence in other markets where they compete with Canon
-a huge selection of Zeiss lenses (considering the time frame)
-potential cost leader in industry
Surprises:
-Sony has always been about forcing consumers to buy Sony everything (sony receiver, sony speakers, sony magicstick memory, etc). This latest camera uses CF cards. A bold move in a different direction (like iTunes for PC).
Final thoughts:
-looks like Sony is really making a run for it. Alot of R&D costs went into their efforts (Heck, they even had a merger/acquisition deal with a major camera company). Companies don't purchase that kind of technology for a few small products- they do it to create an entire line up of equipment (hence, Alpha).
-If Sony prevails as a market cost leader, expect to see the costs of Canon and Nikon products fall. This could make entry into prosumer/professional photography market much easier = more competition.
-Finally, I'm still mad at Sony over the DRM rootkit disaster. I will continue to boycott all Sony products so long as they abuse the protection of intellectual property rights via DRM viruses.
I just don't trust Sony. They tinker too much with their own unique technologies, jack up the prices on those technologies, and cry and complain when the universal standard is as good or better and cheaper than their garbage.
Always good to see more competition and innovation.
I wonder if this will motivate Nikon to get back into manufacturing their own sensors?
Having such a critical component under the control of a major rival would make me feel very uneasy!
Interesting move. Not sure I understand how this makes them more competitive than K-M was in the first place. The glass is nice and the body-based anti-shake technology is interesting. But my gut reaction is that the system will be too pricey for the big Joe Consumer market, and the limited product line (and Sony name) will make it unappealing for the smaller serious amateur and professional markets.
My theory on why K-M, Kodak and Fuji got out of the DSLR business was insufficient sales to drive the R&D effort for the next generation when the 'next generation' is typically always just a year or two away. With such a short product life, it's hard to turn a profit on a product line when you consider all the R&D expenses. I don't see how Sony has solved that business problem with this offering.
The price info I saw on this thing was $999 with a lens. That seems like they are gunning for the low price with Canon and Nikon. Though Pentax has a much cheaper entry level offering. The Rebel XT is MSRP at about the same with fewer megapixels and no IS. The Nikon D200 is priced significanty higher. This might help draw down the prosumer prices.
any idea the size of the pixels? 5 micron vs 7 micron can make a big difference in terms of resolution and diffraction. to my knowledge, nikon has the only 5 micron pixel sensor, but then again, my knowledge of digi cams is limited at best!
FWIW, I recently purchased my wife the Sony T-30 P&S, which has SONY's image stabilization (probably not as sophisticated as that of the Alpha). All I can say is we took it back and got the Canon IS700, which prefomes much better.
brad, 5 micron pixels are an advancement over 7 micron pixels.
Posted by Scott Borger on June 7, 2006 at 10:44 AM
I think that Mel is on right on target with his comments. Sony is giving you alot (or at least what appears to be alot) for a little. Everything I've read tells me that they are trying for the cost leader position in this market.
1. With IS in the body of the camera, it makes lenses cheaper to produce and cheaper to buy.
2. With digital SLR's, much of the price is based on the sensor price. The article says that they have the lowest sensor price.
3. Having ditched magicstick cards, their making it easier and cheaper to switch to Sony. Also, the pro-sumer market demands compatibility with third party products
4. Rick, I think your theory is right. I would extend that theory by saying that perhaps the reason why Sony entered the market now is because their were a bunch of beat up camera companies in the market that could be purchased for just above salvage type prices.
is it possible that the IS is being incorporated into the camera instead of the lenses to simplify thier product line? this camera is going to be compatable with lenses from a variety of suppliers. by building the IS into the body, that's one less requirement the lens suppliers would have to meet.
Posted by Scott Borger on June 7, 2006 at 11:11 AM
That's a good point Scott R. My feeling is that they probably have a contract with Zeiss that is reasonably profitable and adds value to Sony's lineup. It would be unlike Sony to open their products to third party use, but its unavoidable. Per your suggestion...this might simplify their product line for them, but it would open up their product line (via third party manufacturers) as a whole if you consider all of Sony product possibilities as Sony products + Sony compatible products.
Thats a long road to the top. Buying old camera companies and slapping your name on a few new products does not make you an instant"leader". Canon and Nikon have been at this a long time and have a very solid customer loyalty base. Probably why the thing is priced at the entry level for Dslr's, to capture the newcomer to digital with a few extra bells and whistles for $1000.00. Just my thoughts......................J
Sony won't be a temptation to me. I am the proud owner of Sony PDA's and Sony
XM Radios. They just up and left both markets while the markets were both on the
way up. It is one thing to wind up with orphan products when the market is on the
way down, but they won't bite me again.
The Alpha price is great, especially considering the features. The rebranded Minolta lenses also seem reasonable, but the NEW Sony lens list prices aren't bargains:
To be fair, these are Sony list prices vs. Canon street prices.
I can't imagine they are going to sell many of these lenses until a pro body is available.
Discussion
18 replieshttp://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA100/AA100A.HTM
Here's my initial thoughts at a late hour:
What I think Sony has going for them already:
-aquired Konica Minolta technology
-strong brand presence in other markets where they compete with Canon
-a huge selection of Zeiss lenses (considering the time frame)
-potential cost leader in industry
Surprises:
-Sony has always been about forcing consumers to buy Sony everything (sony receiver, sony speakers, sony magicstick memory, etc). This latest camera uses CF cards. A bold move in a different direction (like iTunes for PC).
Final thoughts:
-looks like Sony is really making a run for it. Alot of R&D costs went into their efforts (Heck, they even had a merger/acquisition deal with a major camera company). Companies don't purchase that kind of technology for a few small products- they do it to create an entire line up of equipment (hence, Alpha).
-If Sony prevails as a market cost leader, expect to see the costs of Canon and Nikon products fall. This could make entry into prosumer/professional photography market much easier = more competition.
-Finally, I'm still mad at Sony over the DRM rootkit disaster. I will continue to boycott all Sony products so long as they abuse the protection of intellectual property rights via DRM viruses.
Your thoughts?
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA100/ZA100LENSACCGRP-LG.JPG
I wonder if this will motivate Nikon to get back into manufacturing their own sensors?
Having such a critical component under the control of a major rival would make me feel very uneasy!
My theory on why K-M, Kodak and Fuji got out of the DSLR business was insufficient sales to drive the R&D effort for the next generation when the 'next generation' is typically always just a year or two away. With such a short product life, it's hard to turn a profit on a product line when you consider all the R&D expenses. I don't see how Sony has solved that business problem with this offering.
At least they moved away from the Memory Stick...
Guy
FWIW, I recently purchased my wife the Sony T-30 P&S, which has SONY's image stabilization (probably not as sophisticated as that of the Alpha). All I can say is we took it back and got the Canon IS700, which prefomes much better.
1. With IS in the body of the camera, it makes lenses cheaper to produce and cheaper to buy.
2. With digital SLR's, much of the price is based on the sensor price. The article says that they have the lowest sensor price.
3. Having ditched magicstick cards, their making it easier and cheaper to switch to Sony. Also, the pro-sumer market demands compatibility with third party products
4. Rick, I think your theory is right. I would extend that theory by saying that perhaps the reason why Sony entered the market now is because their were a bunch of beat up camera companies in the market that could be purchased for just above salvage type prices.
XM Radios. They just up and left both markets while the markets were both on the
way up. It is one thing to wind up with orphan products when the market is on the
way down, but they won't bite me again.
............................ Sony (list)........ Canon (B&H)
70-200 mm f/2.8.... $2,399 ........ $1,650 (with IS)
300 mm f/2.8........ $5,999 ........ $3,850 (with IS)
1.4x TC ............... $599 .............$275
2x TC ................. $642 ..............$280
To be fair, these are Sony list prices vs. Canon street prices.
I can't imagine they are going to sell many of these lenses until a pro body is available.