Will Sony's Alpha DSLR wreak havoc on Canon sales

[PuppyDigs]

<P><I>Sony is by far a more recognizable name...</I></P><P>Sorry, but to me the name

Sony has repeatedly meant cheap poorly designed products and shifty business practices. It

wasn't always that way but they have a lot of damage control to effect. Maybe the Alpha will

save them...</P>

[jennifer_wilkinson]

In short the answer is no (because there is no lens system to marry with the camera that can begin to compete with Canon's), BUT, as others have said, competition is a great thing for users. IS/anti-shake will in a relatively short time become much cheaper to implement, and new Canon lenses, especially new long lenses, will have it as standard. Even the third-party manufacturers will have to deal with this as it becomes the norm. It is one piece of technology which can make virtually anyone not using a tripod a better photographer, either through absence of error or by given the more knowledgeable photographer greater freedom - why would it not be in heavy demand - I can't imagine it ever going out of fashion unless something even better comes along. Already I am at the stage where I expect to see it in my preferred lenses and will never buy a cheaper third-party option that does not have IS or the equivalent if Canon does. Why? My view for what it's worth is that one of the great strengths of 35mm (or the digital equivalent including cropped sensors) is that the system has for many applications been traditionally handholdable (thus flexible/portable) for a large number of photographers, both pro and amateur. Who on earth would want to carry a tripod if it wasn't necessary? Obviously there are critical applications where one is needed, but many photographers will be very pleased if they can get a majority of non-shaky shots without one, me included at least 50% of the time. IS/VR or other similar technologies reinforce the flexibility of 35mm versus other larger formats (that usually require tripods). I would love it if Canon and Nikon would implement IS technology in their bodies, and am optimistic that this will eventually happen, thanks to competition (however right now Canon's superiority is in its range of lenses). For me anything that frees me from worrying about my equipment so that I can use my precious time thinking about making pictures is worth a lot - but I still want a heap of lens options which Sony does not have, and right now I will still choose a tripod if it means I use my lens of choice, even without IS. There are times where IS will be able to do nothing for me. But I can think of many more times when it will help me.

[jake_tauber]

I used to be head of marketing for a company that made affordable high fashion women's shoes. When I asked the owner who his competiion was. He said, "Everyone."

[Jim_Tardio]

<i>Sony is by far a more recognizable name

<p>

If that's all that was necessary for success in the consumer world, the XBox 360 wouldn't exist today.</i>

<p>

Yeah, Barbu, we can site all sorts of examples one way or the other. But that's not really the point here.

<p>

Whether you like Sony or not, had bad luck or good luck with their products, they're a highly successful company with the resources to challenge Canon & Nikon in the consumer market...where both Canon & Nikon make the bulk of their sales.

<p>

Your average consumer doesn't care about Canon & Nikons extensive line of lenses. <b>They're not ever going to buy them anyway.</b> Most of us here know a thing or two about photography and demand a bit more.

<p>

Like I said, this is a good thing for all of us. If it shakes Canon's branches a bit, it's better for us.

[savas_kyprianides]

I�d buy the Sony camera if it had a Walkman and BetaMax built into it - Uh-oh. I forget those

were failed products or ones that lost market share.

[Jim_Tardio]

<i>When I asked the owner who his competiion was. He said, "Everyone."</i>

<p>

Exactly, Jake. You can bet that Canon isn't laughing off Sony's efforts.

[ken munn]

Re lenses, AFAIK Minolta's SLR lenses (not to be sneezed at) will fit the Alpha, and are at

knockdown prices, used, right now.

 

So Sony will be able to launch a 'system' on the back of Minolta's market abdication.

[les]

Sony is a recognizable name, sure. So recognizable, in fact, that I do NOT buy anything with SONY name on it any more.

 

Why ?

 

Two TVs broke down just weeks after the warranty period. The (rather expensive) sound system happily followed the TVs' example. The price of repair was so ridiculous that I simply put it into the rubbish bin without bothering. My daughter's camera (Sony point-and-shoot) was replaced twice within the first 4 months of use.

 

I never had any problems with Canon, though (touch wood). This includes 3 cameras, 7 lenses, 2 printers, scanner.

 

So - no, in my books Sony's Alpha DSLR will NOT wreak havoc on Canon sales. YMMV.

[jimstrutz]

I've got a 20 year old Sony TV that still works great, but I will not buy a new one. Their QC has dropped significantly, and their service is poor, poor, poor. Also, Sony has earned a reputation (with me, at least) that they are too quick to go off and estabilsh their own standards while expecting consumers to foot the bill for their whacked out innovation. The Memory Stick is just one example of their needless cost raisers.

 

I would have, and did, consider buying a Minolta DSLR, but not a Sony. It's an interesting product, but I don't want to be tied to their marketing machine.

 

Still, they are likely to be a market grabbing force in the DSLR business, and other camera manufacturers are surely paying attention to them.

[gluteal cleft]

For someone who only wants one or two modest lenses with their camera, I'd recommend the Alpha. But that's not the sort of person that Canon makes their wads of cash from, they make it from people buying higher-end cameras and lenses - and the Alpha won't appeal to that crowd.

 

Incidentally, while I don't have any positive confirmation, looking at Sony's 70-200 f/2.8 and 300mm f/2.8 lenses, they really look like they were built buy (or licensed from) Canon with just a few cosmetic changes. The switch plate, location of switch plate and focus scale, FP buttons (and location) and other things are just too identical to seem coincidental to me.

 

steve

[jimstrutz]

Sony has announced over 20 lenses for the Alpha, and plan to ship almost all of them before the end of this year. While not as comprehensive as Canon or Nikon, it's hardly your typical startup system. Most are rebaged Minoltas, with a few new designs, and some are clearly aimed at the pro or high-end consumer. Obviously, they plan on being a force to be reconed with.

[anesh]

There will be a range of Zeiss lenses for the Alpha.

[dogbert]

I expect this camera should be a strong seller in the entry level market for which it is aimed. Most of the people buying their first DSLR will probably go off the reviews and whatever the camera salesman steers them too, and this thing has got good enough specs. Whether Sony become a force in the DSLR market in the longer term, I guess it depends on whether they throw their full resources at it and make a commitment for the long term.

 

At this stage this is what they seem to be doing. I doubt they bought out KM just to bring out one camera and then shrug their shoulders and give up if it fails to excite.

 

I doubt Canon is panicking yet, but I am sure they are keeping a watchful eye and are annoyed that that the rebel xt is now looking a bit underdone and expensive relative to the competition.

 

Canon went to 8 megapixels while the competion was stuck for a long time at 6. Now that all the competition is moving to 10 megapixels, I expect Canon will want to at least match that if not go a bit better.

 

I expect Canon will also have to introduce a cheaper rebel to compete with the D50 and Pentax cameras. At the moment Canon is quite uncompetitive at the bottom price point of the DSLR market.

 

Comparisons to Foveon and Tucker are unfounded. Sony has huge resources and is a much bigger manufacturer of camera sensors than Canon. It will also have the budget for R&D, which is what is likely to kill off other manufactures who have to rely on third part sensors. Sony makes a huge range of amamtuer and professional photo and video products. It can afford to take losses on the DSLR market until it is well established.

[jasper1]

It certainly gives pause for thought.

 

10mp, anti-shake technolgy,competitive pricing,Zeiss lenses!

 

Hmm.

[bill_thorlin]

May I just offer some facts on :-

 

LENSES. The Alpha uses the Minolta A mount system. There have been/are/will be well in excess of 100 varieties of lenses and teleconverters from Minolta/SonyMinolta/Zeiss. Minolta claimed that before their demise they had sold over 16 million lenses. Other manufacturers such as Tokina/Tamron/Sigma/Cosina etc. have also made compatible lenses - as to how many is a matter of conjecture but must be significant as they were/will be doing so for a long time. A visit to fleabay UK/US/Germany will show a very active market in second hand Minolta products.

 

May I also offer an opinion on the :-

 

STATUS OF SONY. There have been a number of anecdotal posts about Sony quality but that is all they are - anecdotal. Interestingly it would appear that nobody has mentioned their major error on a whole batch of censors, however I doudt they would make the same mistake again. If Sony were as bad as people make out they would not still exist - yes their recent results have been less than inspiring but as one commentator put it ( tic ) "not good but they ain't bankrupt". One could come up with anecdotal evidence on all manufacturers - e.g. Canon and error 99 and serious flare problems on the recent 24-105 lens - it proves nothing - it is the results that count.

 

A confession :-

 

I AM A MINOLTA USER. And have been since an SRT101 in the late 60s. Why ? Because they have always provided what I wanted. Like many others I have held on because I could not believe something that good could just disappear, despite feeling pretty peeved at times - in the last 12 months I have bought a number of lenses by way of upgrade and ( at times reluctantly ) disposed of those replaced ( often at a profit ).

 

An opinion :-

 

ON THE FUTURE. I do not know if the Alpha will be a challenger ( if I did I would not be conversing here I would be on my own desert island with a blonde and a Pimms ) but most of the reviews of pre-production models have been approving and supportive. I think it more than likely that Canon are watching things very closely and as for Nikon, even more so. Canikon owners may not wish to hear this but anything that challenges the Canikon duopoly can only be a good thing - nothing concentrates the corporate mind more than the spectre of successful competition !

 

Each to their own.

[savas_kyprianides]

Today�s Wall Street Journal reported on the introduction next year of the Panasonic brand

digital reflex camera Lumix. Or, as Anesh would put it: Will Canon quake in its boots over the

dire circumstance brought about by the Panasonic entrance into the DLSR market?

[digitmstr]

>>the post is a question,<<

 

Then, accept the answers even if YOU don't like them!

[anesh]

As the more astute ones here have mentioned Sony must be taken very seriously and Canon & Nikon (& others) will be nervously watching their backs. Sony is a giant corp. and they have serious intentions. Their's will be a long term plan to capture large market share. Not long ago Sega seemed to have the gaming console market sewn-up...and then came Playstation. This is just beginning of something big. Now it's up to the others to pull something out of the hat.

[phule]

<<the post is a question,>>

 

Sadly, you've failed to understand many of the responses here. Your over-reaction to me saying "no one can predict the future" is a prime example of this.

 

Your inclusion of the Panasonic L1 in the argument demonstrates a misunderstanding of the digital camera market.

[charles_miller]

Most digital sensors are smaller than 35mm film, and camera shake is magnified in proportion to the imager shrink factor. A half-sized imager turns "camera shake" into twice as bad a problem. A third-sized imager makes "camera shake" three times as bad. (And so forth, and so on).

 

So what's cheaper? Going to a full frame imager? Or going to image stabilization? Right...it all depends.

 

Sony's approach to entering the DSLR market is probably well founded. That is, utilize an existing body design, subcontract a few lens designs, and then quickly break even on sales from people who own Minolta lenses. If that works, maybe Sony will introduce some incremental improvements and even some real innovations. I've always thought that in theory, a back-focusing digital imager would be the "cat's pajamas".

 

Canon's full frame imagers already have the advantage of being about one stop less sensitive to camera shake, and they have a noise level that is nearly two stops better. In addition, you can choose from several nice Canon stabilizing lenses for even better low-light and high speed performance. Say, five stops better than a Nikon D200 used with a non-stabilized lens. Sony will probably not try to beat Canon out of that market segment.

[ken munn]

As far as I can tell from their annual reports, Canon is approx half as big as Sony in revenue

terms, but makes twice as much profit.

 

Canon revenues 2005 USD 31,815,178,000, net income USD 3,255,051,000

 

Sony revenues 2005 USD 66,912,000,000, net income USD 1,531,000,000

 

Can anybody more financially astute and numerically adept confirm or deny? I don't mind

being corrected - freely admit to being a dummy when dealing with big numbers.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>we can site all sorts of examples one way or the other. But that's not really the point here.</i></p>

 

<p>*laughs*</p>

 

That was <b><i>my</i></b> point.

 

<p><i>Your average consumer doesn't care about Canon & Nikons extensive line of lenses.</i></p>

 

So, why would they care about Minolta's or Zeiss'? Actually, I think that there is something to be said for the row of white lenses seen (by the average consumer) at sporting events all over the world.

 

<p><i>They're not ever going to buy them anyway.</i></p>

 

Underestimating the average consumer is one way a company can lose it's shirt.

 

<p><i>Sony has huge resources and is a much bigger manufacturer of camera sensors than Canon.</i></p>

 

Really? On what statistics do you base that claim?

 

<p><i>Then, accept the answers even if YOU don't like them!</i></p>

 

Well said!

 

<p><i>Sadly, you've failed to understand many of the responses here. Your over-reaction to me saying "no one can predict the future" is a prime example of this. [...] Your inclusion of the Panasonic L1 in the argument demonstrates a misunderstanding of the digital camera market</i></p>

 

Also well said!

[jasper1]

The real battle in the DSLR market is at the bottom end where the battle of brands begins and consumer loyalty starts. Nikon seem to be the clear winner at present with the excellent prosumer D50 at a mere �360.

[savas_kyprianides]

There is room at the serious amateur level for both Panasonic and Sony to make a profit.

They will be marketing to those point and shoot users who wish to upgrade to their first

DLSR. If the offerings are exceptionally compelling, then current DSLR owners who are fence

sitters or have no particular brand loyalty might make a move to them. I imagine the big two

camera makers are perpetually years ahead in design, but introduce those changes

incrementally to wring out maximum profits. The new competition might cause the big two

to play chess moves with technology that is waiting in the wings.

[bill_thorlin]

360 quid equals approx. $670 body only to put it in context. Much also depends on the relative specifications that appeal to the consumer at the "bottom end".