Knock-Off Products

[milton-chris]

Given the ongoing discussion of fake cards, etc., thought this might be of

interest: Pop Photography magazine this month has an article about copy-cat

products, including flash cards, cameras and sundry other stuff. They even give

some pointers on identifying the fake SanDisk cards.

 

Might be available on their site at http://popphotography.com

 

HTH

[milton-chris]

Ooops - not the right web address - try http://popphoto.com

[colinsouthern]

Does that include Stigma & Tamron lenses as well? ;)

[savas_kyprianides]

Photographers with issues will use Stigma lenses.

[colinsouthern]

Savas Kyprianides wrote: <i>Photographers with issues will use Stigma lenses.</i><p>

 

Hehe - they probably have the issues <u>because</u> they use Stigma lenses!

[john_macpherson]

I laughed so much I almost wet my nikkors reading that.....

[colinsouthern]

Very punny John ;)

[milton-chris]

What's so awful about Sigma lenses? Where's the joke? Don't get it.

[colinsouthern]

I really shouldn't be so hard on Stigma & Tamron lenses - after all, if it weren't for them, Canon L-Series lenses wouldn't seem so good :)

 

Seriously, companies like these two irritate me - they reverse engineer other peoples work and then create cheap knock-offs of their technology - so innovators like Canon & Nikon sell less, leading to higher prices for those of us who refuse to have a bar of their 3rd party knock-off/compromised equipment.

 

If they want to compete, why don't they design their own systems and compete on their own merits rather than be content to let others do all the hard work whilst they ride their coat-tails?

 

I see them purely as leaches who ultimately damage the industry.

 

Just my thoughts.

[petemillis]

Colin, is it really any different from a company reverse engineering a piano? Or a car?

I think the only problem really is when companies produce fake goods - say for example if Sigma copies the Canon lenses directly and then brands them as something like Cannon. This is what has been happening with some some flash cards etc, and has happened for years with watches and so on. Do you seriously think Canon and Nikon lenses would be cheaper if Sigma and Tamron didn't produce good alternatives? Personally I think Canon and Nikon would charge even more as there would be no competition.

[colinsouthern]

Pete, yes - I think a camera system is fundamentally different from a piano or a car, as both of the latter are more or less self-contained end products in their own right - they don't have interchangable parts. Perhaps the equivalent would be if you could order a Steinway exterior and then fit a knock-off Hammond chassis - or order a Rolls Royce without the engine and transmission - and then fit a knock-off Lada engine & transmission (and on "automobiles.net", "Rolls Royce" forum I'd bet there'd be the usual bunch who would swear that they were "very hapy with their Lada engines" and that they "were just as good as the Rolls Royce ones", but I digress.

 

Instead they make complete pianos and complete cars - much as Canon makes a complete camera SYSTEM - unfortunately the very modularity of such a system makes it vulnerable to 3rd party leaches like Stigma & Tamron who see Canon and Nikon's success as "easy pickens" for cheap, mediocre quality copies.

 

Regarding "charging more" etc - no, I don't believe so because there are other complete systems providers in the market (Canon - Nikon - Sony etc). Personally I don't think that Stigma & Tamron produce good alternatives - with a few exceptions I think they produce optically and mechanically very mediocre alternatives - but they are cheap. Sure you always get some who (for whatever reasons) like to swear by them - but there's also a big group who swear AT them - the ones who have stepped up to quality glass, and never looked back - the ones who are sick of getting Error 99's because the knock-off artists didn't get the lens communication protocol fully reverse engineered - and then there are the ones that have simply had bits fall off because of the poor build quality.

 

Just my 10c worth.

[desmond_kidman]

The thing that really kills me about the third party lens companies is that I have often heard sales-types say "this is just as good (or better)than the camera-maker's lens because this company specializes in lenses, so they are expert at doing it, and the volume is so high that the price can come down". I also love the one "And you are not paying extra for the name....."

[fmueller]

I'd be most interested to hear from people who had "bits fall off because of the poor build quality".

[dakotah_jackson]

"If they want to compete, why don't they design their own systems and compete on their own merits rather than be content to let others do all the hard work whilst they ride their coat-tails?

 

I see them purely as leaches who ultimately damage the industry."

 

Just like them the auto industry has all the aftermarket 'knockoff' products too. (but in the auto industry they are 'leeches')

 

If you make a product and someone else makes an article that will work with it, what is wrong with that? No one is forcing you to purchase it. In many cases the existence of the aftermarket makers is what keeps the main maker pricing within reason. A product with no other options for accessories is way too expensive. (can you say Leica?,,, where my spell checker keeps suggesting leech)

[colinsouthern]

Dakotah Jackson wrote:

<p>

<i>If you make a product and someone else makes an article that will work with it, what is wrong with that? </i>

<p>

In this case the "product" is a camera system (ie body and lenses) - and I'm sure that the R & D bill for designing + manufacturing prototypes + testing is phenominal - and that's what the likes of Canon and Nikon have to recover to make that particular product profitable.

<p>

So once Canon have spent the big bucks leaches like Stigma and Tamron come along - buy one - take it apart - and figure out how Canon got it to work: "Ohhh - I see how they did that - Bert - take a look at this - that's a clever way of overcoming that problem" "Cool" says Bert - now we know how they did that lets just change a few things here and there so that it looks different but works the same".

<p>

Net result is that Stigma and Tamron don't have a 1/4 of the R & D bill that Canon have had to foot - so they can afford to sell their knock-off products much cheaper. Canon on the other hand don't sell anywhere nearly as many lenes as they could have (be cause of the knock-offs eating into their market) - so they have to charge more to recover their R & D, and still make a profit.

<p>

<i>No one is forcing you to purchase it. </i>

<p>

I couldn't agree more - my beef is with those who do buy them and then inturn push up the price of the genuine components (as explained above).

<p>

<i>In many cases the existence of the aftermarket makers is what keeps the main maker pricing within reason. </i>

<p>

No, not at all - just the opposite infact. It's the complete systems manufacturers that do that. If Canon tried to cream the market in that way they'd be taken out by the likes of Nikon or Sony is very short time.

[petemillis]

I had another thought about this during the night - if one buys a body only, or just body with cheap kit lens, then they are not buying the camera system - they are merely buying a camera. But the manufacturer is still making a lot of money out of these people - and I am sure it is the camera where most R&D money goes.I haven't checked this, but my assumption is based on the fact that it's things like shooting speed, pixels, buttons, connectivity and so on that sells cameras to Joe Bloggs who goes into Jessops or whatever, as opposed to the fine details of chromatic aberation, vignetting, light transmission and so on of the lenses.

Now, if the only options for lenses were costing hundreds or thousands of pounds then a huge proportion of the potential customers, who are mere mortals with financial constraints, would be put right off and not buy the camera body or body + kit lens at all. So the camera manufacturer would lose sales of the core part of its "system" and hence have less in the bank for R&D.

[dogbert]

"Canon on the other hand don't sell anywhere nearly as many lenes as they could have (be cause of the knock-offs eating into their market) - so they have to charge more to recover their R & D, and still make a profit."

 

So you are saying that if Canon did not have to compete with Sigma and Tamron they would lower their prices?

[mike dixon]

<i>So once Canon have spent the big bucks leaches like Stigma and Tamron come along - buy one - take it apart - and figure out how Canon got it to work </i><P>

Which Canon (or Nikon) lens did Sigma take apart so they could figure out how to make a 20mm/f1.8 lens?<P>

<i> Net result is that Stigma and Tamron don't have a 1/4 of the R & D bill that Canon have had to foot - so they can afford to sell their knock-off products much cheaper.</i><P>

Do you have any evidence to back up the claim that it only costs Sigma or Tamrom 1/4 as much as Canon or Nikon to develop a lens? Have you considered that part of the price difference might come from marketing costs?<P>

<i>Canon on the other hand don't sell anywhere nearly as many lenes as they could have (be cause of the knock-offs eating into their market) </i><P>

You seem to understand the amortization of development costs over many units sold. Why doesn't that also apply to Sigma and Tamron, who can use a single lens design over different platforms (using different camera mounts)?<P>