Does SONY actually have 12% DSLR marketshare?
I heard a rumor ... and if it is even close to being true, that's double what it was, last year. It must have cost SONY a fortune!
And with such questionable cameras, too? Certainly the Nikon D700 and Canon EOS 50D & 5D MkII are too good to pass up ... sacre bleu ...this cannot be.
- BFA, Digital Photography
A Photographer Is Forever
Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.
Yes, for last year. Exact percentages and gains posted at DPR a while back and it was for Japan.
Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II
here rooz rooz rooz, Ill bet we get a guest appearance oh i cant wait.
Sony 18-250mm Lens
Sony 50mm f1.4
I have seen someone say that when they see someone carrying a Sony, they don't take them seriously, but of most of the non-Sony people that drop in here, most don't have much of an attitude about things like this. I think we are seeing Sony fill in as a strong 3rd place, where Olympus and Pentax couldn't really compete. I think the problem is that most of those are A200-350s, and very very few A700s. This is just my guess, but it sure seems that way.
I still think that Sony has the best offering in the entry range. And there is no doubt that if someone is going out to drop $6000 for a whole pro level setup, the A900 + CZ and G glass can go a long way. The problem is in the middle. As I outgrow my A300 and cobbled together collection of kit and Minolta glass, things aren't looking so great.
Once Sony solves this they will become an increasingly significant player. The seem to have figured out that people buying sub-$1000 cameras aren't all mutants with small hands, which CaNikon seem to think, and they inherited some cool stuff from Minolta, namely the in-body IS. PMA scared me a little, almost that they still aren't really taking the SLR side of things as serious as the P&S. That new super zoom with G glass looks incredible. The panorama mode is awesome. But couldn't they at least announce a single lens that isn't just a concept.
EOS 5D - Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 35 f/2, EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II, EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 (with EOS adapter), 430EX, Canon S90
Nikon FE - Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI'd, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI, Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI, F to EF adapter, 2xVivitar 285, other lighting stuff
Mamiya C220 - 80mm f/2.8
Gear List flickr
to me, Sony is like Honda. they have their fingers in everything. Honda does cars, bikes, recreational vehicles and Sony does home electronics and such.
so it is hard to look at a company that does all of these things and and believe that they are good at everything.
i think of Nikon like i do of Toyota. they do just cars and Nikon does just cameras and accessories. i would put my trust in a company that focuses on just one thing than do multiple things at once.
Canon on the other hand, although they have their fingers in consumer electronics as well, were in the spotlight for their cameras first. i think of Canon like i think of Mitsubishi.
my analogies may not be accurate but i hope you guys get the point.
as for Oly and Pentax, they just did not catch on as well in the North American market like some European cars caught on in the Asian market such as Citroen, Renault or Peugeot.
i dont know the exact figures. i do recall though that they were posted on this forum before so not sure why you are raising them again. i suppose its another vain attempt to sell sony...which, as usual is flawed.
Originally Posted by DonSchap
firstly, sony has 4 models in that new market share lineup as opposed to one "prototype" model for the year before. so they have had a 400% increase in models and a 50% increase in market share. you do the math.
secondly, market share is primarily driven by the bottom end of the market. ie: much more VOLUME of camera sales, (which drives market share), are from entry level dslr's. sony have 3 entry level models so its hardly surprising that they would improve.
thirdly, as stated above, entry level models drive market share so your quip about the d700, 5dMkII and to a lesser degree the 50d is, as usual misguided and false cos these cameras do not sell high volumes. this does not say a single thing about the quality of the product. i doubt either the 50d and certianly not the 5dMkII would even have been available for the full year in which that stat was recorded.
fourthly, the bottom end of the market as the LEAST educated on camera specs and performance and MOST influenced by marketing gobbleydegook. so the SSS is a huge seller. its not until they use it and understand how limited it is that they know they got done over.
fifthly, as i have stated MANY times in the past. there is no greater joy to me than to see sony increase their market share cos this is the kind of thing that puts pressure on the top 2 to not sit on their asses and make sure they keep producing top quality products.
and finally...unless you are a sony shareholder, this information may make fanboys feel all warm and fuzzy inside but it deosnt change the performance of the product line up, the bodies still perform as they did before the figures were released. so if you werent satisfied then, you wont be satisfied now and if you WERE satisfied with the product, this shouldnt change how you feel about your camera.
class dismissed Don.
D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
Sorry, but I can't let this unsubstantiated, rash generalisation pass unchallenged!
I bought my first camera in 1957 (a little VP Twin half-frame camera that took 127 film) and since than handled and/or owned numerous camera brands, types, and film formats.
Originally Posted by Rooz
I've just bought a (bottom-end LOL) Sony DSC W-150, which for its $199 price tag is giving me exemplary images. Why? Because I know exactly how to use it to the fullest of its technical capabilities, plus learning all there is to know about photography over the last half century.
And to assert that the bottom-end of the consumer market is the most influenced by slick market-speak is also totally unfounded — unless you have any empirical evidence other than simply your own personal opinion.
Your patronising opinion of the "bottom end" of the camera market smacks all too highly of camera snobbery to me. Does one have to use a dSLR to escape that imaginary hell-hole of yours?
Last edited by Beowulff; 03-12-2009 at 06:22 AM.
Not to confirm any unsubstantiated statements, but this is about dSLR marketshare, which would expand to being related to the dSLR market and the bottom-end of the dSLR market. Your Sony DSC W-150 does not fit into the bottom-end of this market.
Originally Posted by Beowulff
I do apologise Ray! Although, as the OP's original post didn't directly or solely mention dSLRs per se, but only Sony's alleged 12% market share increase, I thought it would be in order for me to slip in a general observation about people's perception of the brand.
Originally Posted by Ray Schnoor
Maybe you too need to get over your apparent dSLR snobbery Ray. I was probably using an SLR while you were still in nappies LOL.
Last edited by Beowulff; 03-13-2009 at 11:51 AM.
The actual post may not have mentioned dSLRs per se, but Don normally titles the threads he starts and in this case it was titled "Does SONY actually have 12% DSLR marketshare?"
Originally Posted by Beowulff
And you may indeed have been using SLRs before me. I only picked up my first SLR a little over 33 years ago. What that has to do with my post being considered dSLR snobbery, I can't understand. I use a dSLR(Nikon). I also use a couple of digital P&S cameras(Nikon, Canon, Fuji). I also use dedicated digital microscope cameras(Nikon, Zeiss, Polaroid). If anything, I guess that I could be accused of digital camera snobbery since I haven't used a film camera since the late 1990's. I also have no interest in doing so, either. 20+ years of developing film was more than enough.