«

"Bertram Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Seems Sony stays lazy and more or less re-launches the A200, 300 and 350
>with a "starter" menu.
>As if the older ones were so difficult?
>
>http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_ro...ase/40522.html
>
>Tomorrow more news, but if this is all, I fear for the job of the idiot who
>came up with this crap.


Crap it is. Desperate companies have no option but to go downmarket.

Serious DSLR buyers don't buy Sony because, with the exception of the
Alpha 900, they can get far better equipment from Canon and Nikon for
not much more money.

Attacking the first-time DSLR buyers' market is difficult, because Canon
and Nikon already have most of it sewn up, with Olympus and Pentax
competing with the crumbs from the masters' table.

It seems that Sony is making exactly the same mistakes as Minolta did
before them, with insufficient investment in R&D, the recycling of tired
old products into something that is claimed to be new, but isn't, and a
range of lenses that continues to be inadequate.

Sony has further compounded Minolta's errors in that the lens range now
consists of two entirely separate brands (Carl Zeiss and Sony/Minolta).
Yet it still doesn't cover the whole range of demands from the prosumer
market, leaving the few advanced Sony Alpha users very little to trade
up to.

It's hopeless.

Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):


> Crap it is. Desperate companies have no option but to go downmarket.
>
> Serious DSLR buyers don't buy Sony because, with the exception of the
> Alpha 900, they can get far better equipment from Canon and Nikon for
> not much more money.
>
> Attacking the first-time DSLR buyers' market is difficult, because
> Canon and Nikon already have most of it sewn up, with Olympus and
> Pentax competing with the crumbs from the masters' table.
>
> It seems that Sony is making exactly the same mistakes as Minolta did
> before them, with insufficient investment in R&D, the recycling of
> tired old products into something that is claimed to be new, but
> isn't, and a range of lenses that continues to be inadequate.

This reminds me of the Welbutrin vs. Zyban market scam. A drug company
marketed an old medication used to treat depression for something other
than that - like it was used as a great "quit-smoking" drug and
repackaged under another name. Same chemical but different usage at a
much higher price. Wellbutrin sold pennies by the truckload while Zyban
is boosted to dollars on the pill.

Stupid FDA should have been watching out for these shenanigans. What do
we tax payers pay these clowns for anyway?


>
> Sony has further compounded Minolta's errors in that the lens range
> now consists of two entirely separate brands (Carl Zeiss and
> Sony/Minolta). Yet it still doesn't cover the whole range of demands
> from the prosumer market, leaving the few advanced Sony Alpha users
> very little to trade up to.
>
> It's hopeless.
>

One more reason to get something that actually has a longer shelf-life.
My DSLR is my first and I know at least the attachments can be reused in
newer and/or higher quality camera bodies.

The American society is too disposable oriented and has the stupidest
Lowest Common Denominator of the whole world. I'd swear stuff is
engineered to fall apart just after the warranty period, and then it
becomes obsolete soon afterwards.




--
SneakyP
To reply: newsgroup only, what's posted in ng stays in ng.

Some choose to swim in the potty bowl of nan-ae rather than flush it
down :0)

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Bertram Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Seems Sony stays lazy and more or less re-launches the A200, 300 and 350
>>with a "starter" menu.
>>As if the older ones were so difficult?
>>
>>http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_ro...ase/40522.html
>>
>>Tomorrow more news, but if this is all, I fear for the job of the idiot who
>>came up with this crap.

> Crap it is. Desperate companies have no option but to go downmarket.

> Serious DSLR buyers don't buy Sony because, with the exception of the
> Alpha 900, they can get far better equipment from Canon and Nikon for
> not much more money.

> Attacking the first-time DSLR buyers' market is difficult, because Canon
> and Nikon already have most of it sewn up, with Olympus and Pentax
> competing with the crumbs from the masters' table.

> It seems that Sony is making exactly the same mistakes as Minolta did
> before them, with insufficient investment in R&D, the recycling of tired
> old products into something that is claimed to be new, but isn't, and a
> range of lenses that continues to be inadequate.

> Sony has further compounded Minolta's errors in that the lens range now
> consists of two entirely separate brands (Carl Zeiss and Sony/Minolta).
> Yet it still doesn't cover the whole range of demands from the prosumer
> market, leaving the few advanced Sony Alpha users very little to trade
> up to.

> It's hopeless.

Yet over the years since its first entry into the DSLR market, Sony
has improved its market share faster than any other company. While
we'll have to wait to see how sales of the new models go, I recall
that when the A200, 300, and 350 models came on the market they were
greeted with similar sneers by many folk here. Yet they gave a very
worthwhile boost to Sony's market share.

I wonder if it's possible that Sony are in fact not trying to make the
kind of stuff you'd like, but instead are trying to improve their
position in a developing market? Going by the results so far, they
seem to have been doing rather well at that. If their aim is to end up
being directly competitive with Canon and Nikon they still have some
way to go, but given that developing that kind of range of products
takes a long time, and requires to be financed by earnings from what
they're offering now, then they seem to have been doing rather well so
far.

--
Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems SneakyP <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):

>> Crap it is. Desperate companies have no option but to go downmarket.
>>
>> Serious DSLR buyers don't buy Sony because, with the exception of the
>> Alpha 900, they can get far better equipment from Canon and Nikon for
>> not much more money.
>>
>> Attacking the first-time DSLR buyers' market is difficult, because
>> Canon and Nikon already have most of it sewn up, with Olympus and
>> Pentax competing with the crumbs from the masters' table.
>>
>> It seems that Sony is making exactly the same mistakes as Minolta did
>> before them, with insufficient investment in R&D, the recycling of
>> tired old products into something that is claimed to be new, but
>> isn't, and a range of lenses that continues to be inadequate.

> This reminds me of the Welbutrin vs. Zyban market scam. A drug company
> marketed an old medication used to treat depression for something other
> than that - like it was used as a great "quit-smoking" drug and
> repackaged under another name. Same chemical but different usage at a
> much higher price. Wellbutrin sold pennies by the truckload while Zyban
> is boosted to dollars on the pill.

> Stupid FDA should have been watching out for these shenanigans. What do
> we tax payers pay these clowns for anyway?

I recall that previous American presidents listened to the complaints
of the drug companies that the FDA's then much stricter regulation was
seriously interfering with the freedom of operation of the drugs
market and responded by cutting the FDA's budget and instructing it to
back off and be more sensitive to the needs of the drug companies to
make money.

I hope you're not advocating some kind of socialism?

--
Chris Malcolm

On Sat, 30 May 2009 04:44:01 GMT, SneakyP <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed) :
>
>
>> Crap it is. Desperate companies have no option but to go downmarket.
>>
>> Serious DSLR buyers don't buy Sony because, with the exception of the
>> Alpha 900, they can get far better equipment from Canon and Nikon for
>> not much more money.
>>
>> Attacking the first-time DSLR buyers' market is difficult, because
>> Canon and Nikon already have most of it sewn up, with Olympus and
>> Pentax competing with the crumbs from the masters' table.
>>
>> It seems that Sony is making exactly the same mistakes as Minolta did
>> before them, with insufficient investment in R&D, the recycling of
>> tired old products into something that is claimed to be new, but
>> isn't, and a range of lenses that continues to be inadequate.
>
>This reminds me of the Welbutrin vs. Zyban market scam. A drug company
>marketed an old medication used to treat depression for something other
>than that - like it was used as a great "quit-smoking" drug and
>repackaged under another name. Same chemical but different usage at a
>much higher price. Wellbutrin sold pennies by the truckload while Zyban
>is boosted to dollars on the pill.
>
>Stupid FDA should have been watching out for these shenanigans. What do
>we tax payers pay these clowns for anyway?

In the case of the new/old drug, it's not shenanigans. You have no
idea what effort, research, and other expense a company must go
through to get a drug - even an old one - ready for a new market.

You have NO idea.