just a thought

[xavier]

hello friends
I just want to ask your thoughts on Sony, An Electronics Company entering the photographic industry.Which I see as an Optic feild. Altough I salute Sony as one of the finest Electronic Companies in the world, why are they bargeing on photography. Is it the fact that lines between electronic & optics have been blured or have I missed the point? It just that I don't see Brand Sony as a Quatity manufacture of Photographic Cameras, altough " AP4A" reminded me Minolta Ghost porduce for Sony, I see Sony as a producer of Quality home entertanment productes ie; T.V.s, DVDs, HI- FIs and so on not still photo cameras. or am Ijust a twit who dose not know what I'm talking about?

[GeoffWessex]

I'm not sure of the structure of the company but Sony took over the camera making and optics divisions of Minolta/Konica and probably injected a lot of money in research, development and marketing. While they've been making video equipment for many years. Sony's 'still' cameras are innovative and competitive - their 'Alpha' series stand comparison with any in the market and their 'top of the range' full-frame camera, the A900, is superb.
Konica/Minolta, meanwhile, concentrate on other imaging products - take a look at the x-ray machine next time you're at the dentist, vets or hospital - and other optic devices. They're doing pretty good!

[amk1977]

Originally Posted by xavier

hello friends
I just want to ask your thoughts on Sony, An Electronics Company entering the photographic industry.Which I see as an Optic feild. Altough I salute Sony as one of the finest Electronic Companies in the world, why are they bargeing on photography. Is it the fact that lines between electronic & optics have been blured or have I missed the point? It just that I don't see Brand Sony as a Quatity manufacture of Photographic Cameras, altough " AP4A" reminded me Minolta Ghost porduce for Sony, I see Sony as a producer of Quality home entertanment productes ie; T.V.s, DVDs, HI- FIs and so on not still photo cameras. or am Ijust a twit who dose not know what I'm talking about?

I saw your other post in the DSLR section where you pretty much dismissed Sony cameras purely because of "the brand name". As you know, they took control of Konica/Minolta, which made some superb optics, some achieveing cult status, such as their 85mm f/1.8. Panasonic make microwaves, dishwashers and DVD players. They also make very good cameras too.

As Geoff rightly says, Sony stepped in and injected a huge amount of capital and brought their electrical excellence too. If the resulting cameras were crap, then their products would receive the appropriate negative independant reviews. The cameras wouldn't sell and Sony would quickly withdraw from the market. If you were in any doubt as to the quality of Sony's optics, then take a look at this years TIPA awards. Sony's 28-75mm f/2.8 SAM won the best expert lens catergory. The Sony Cyber shot also won best compact camera.

Just because a company branches into another area that is new to them, doesn't mean the resulting product is going to be inferior. Large corporations know their markets and are well aware of the competition they face. If they couldn't make a product that could effectively compete or even out compete a rival, then it would be folly for them to do it in the first place.

I wouldn't care if Durex started making cameras, providing it was a decent build quality, produced excellent images and had a good selection of quality lenses to go use it it.

[ap4a]

If Sony were that bad at the camera business I doubt Nikon would contract them to produce sensors for some of their DSLRs, which they're widely reported as doing.

[Stormsong]

I don't think you can dismiss a brand that is strong in one area and takes on another. Toshiba makes the harddrives that are inside every Apple iPod so would you refuse to buy an iPod because Toshiba's strengths lie in other types of electronics like notebooks, TVs, etc? Toshiba does not have a track record on portable MP3 players - they did try and take on the Apple brand a few years ago but realised they were throwing serious money away and trying to 'reinvent the wheel' as it were. Just because it doesn't say so on the box doesn't mean it is not there. Partnerships like these have been going on for decades.

Creating brand awareness is a very hard thing to do, because the buying public make up their minds based on exactly what you are saying @ xavier. But Sony has proved its worth in consumer electronics such as TVs, DVDs etc. If their standards are so high for these products, who is to say that they won't be in manufacturing cameras? The hardest part now for Sony, I think, is to convince consumers that they are up there with the Nikons and Canons and playing 'catch up'. And that is down to marketing expertise not technical know-how or technological advances. By the way, Fujifilm was one of the market-leading manufacturers of 35mm and slide film in the good old days pre-digital, and are now also making digital cameras. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Interesting topic though!

Regards,
Denise

[Stormsong]

Originally Posted by amk1977

I wouldn't care if Durex started making cameras, providing it was a decent build quality, produced excellent images and had a good selection of quality lenses to go use it it.

Well at least your camera would come with a free waterproof cover! and no puns intended . .

Regards,
Denise

[chris-p]

This thread is faintly reminiscent of this older thread...

[xavier]

frankly I would have prefered konica / Minolta keeped its name & Sony bought or funded the company the same way Hornby did with Airfix. for those who don't know airfix where bought out by Hornby, but the product keeped the brand name ie; airfix made by hornby. did some one ask what I ment by " Jhonny come latly ?" I ment Sony alpha are out in the last 10 - 15 years where as the likes of Nikon, Cannon & Pentax are on the shelf a lot longer and I as a consumer would trust that experence. don't get me wrong as I wrote earler there probly a good camera. the way I look at it if your happy with Sony Alpha, good

[Markulous]

Not sure what difference to the product it makes if a name is kept in a takeover and with respect to optics I'll just mention the Sony 70-400 (excellent lens if you can stand the stupid colour, like Canon L lenses! )

Sigma were hardly a well established SLR company but their Foveon (company now sensibly bought by Sigma) sensored dSLRs give the Bayered sensored rest of the pack a good run for the money (with my Canons I still have yet to achieve as good as I can get out of my Sigmas - but you do need to work at it!)

And, let's face it, Apple knew nothing about MP3s before the iPod came along - yet other companies were well established