«

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:28:34 -0500, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>Seems like, it's more of a cost-cutting exercise for Sony. If it retails at
>$2200 U.S., no doubt it'll get a fair number of buyers. If it's more like
>$2500, you have to ask why buy it over the A900?


You have to ask why people aren't buying the A900 in significant
numbers. When it offers a similar pixel count to the Nikon D3X at
around a third of the price*, yet sells in fewer numbers, there is
clearly something very wrong.

Despite the huge financial losses Sony has made to secure market
share, the result is a share that is less than half Sony's target.

It obviously isn't a bad camera. Perhaps the problem is in the lens
range, which includes a handful of real gems but is otherwise a pretty
random selection of consumer-grade junk and mediocre glass with
nothing in particular to recommend it.

The problem with Sony buying the Minolta (D)SLR range was that it was
already in very deep trouble and losing a lot of cash. Hardly a good
foundation to build a DSLR business on.

*B&H:
Sony A900 $2700
Nikon D3X $8000

Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:28:34 -0500, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>Seems like, it's more of a cost-cutting exercise for Sony. If it retails at
>>$2200 U.S., no doubt it'll get a fair number of buyers. If it's more like
>>$2500, you have to ask why buy it over the A900?
>
>You have to ask why people aren't buying the A900 in significant
>numbers. When it offers a similar pixel count to the Nikon D3X at
>around a third of the price*, yet sells in fewer numbers, there is
>clearly something very wrong.

Sony is an electronics company - not a camera company. That's the
perception and people are much less likely to buy a camera from an
electronics company because Sony is more likely to bail out of the
business and leave people stranded.

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)