Cheap DSLR Camera [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

rs7

Feb 28, 2009, 06:07 PM

ipodtoucher

Feb 28, 2009, 06:14 PM

A lot of people enjoy the Canon XS or XTi. And with Nikon, there's the D40 (No in body AF motor(have to buy the expensive lenses)) And then there's the new Lumix 4/3rd's camera that has all the functionality of a DSLR with a smaller camera. But you have to know you won't be getting the same as a 35mm camera, for that you have to go higher end like for Canon the 5D Mark II up, and for Nikon the D700 up. This probably confused you a bit, but i hope it helps a little :)

Techguy172

Feb 28, 2009, 06:14 PM

rs7

Feb 28, 2009, 06:26 PM

You can look at Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax or Olympus. They all have good quality low priced DSLRs Don't expect to take better pictures though just because you have a better camera. The photographer make the most difference. You have to be more specific on what exactly you want from this camera then we can give you some better recomendations. Ask yourslef.

Do I want more lenses?
Do want something lightweight?
Do I need it to have flash?
What's my price range?
What features do I need?

Come back with some more information and we should be able to help you better.

I'm not really sure. I'm just a teenager. I love photography and think I take some pretty good pictures for the camera that I have. I don't really understand cameras that much...I usually use the autofocus and such :). I plan to take a photography class at some point in high school so I can learn.

I like to take pictures when sightseeing. I don't take pictures of people too often.

My price range is very very limited...it seems like a basic DSLR goes for ~$600 though :\

Also you said that a better camera doesn't necessarily mean better pictures. It always seems though that with DSLRs, you don't have a lot of the problems associated with a basic digital camera, such as getting a blurry picture when you take one while moving...

Thanks again

ipodtoucher

Feb 28, 2009, 06:32 PM

I'm not really sure. I'm just a teenager. I love photography and think I take some pretty good pictures for the camera that I have. I don't really understand cameras that much...I usually use the autofocus and such :). I plan to take a photography class at some point in high school so I can learn.

I like to take pictures when sightseeing. I don't take pictures of people too often.

My price range is very very limited...it seems like a basic DSLR goes for ~$600 though :\

Also you said that a better camera doesn't necessarily mean better pictures. It always seems though that with DSLRs, you don't have a lot of the problems associated with a basic digital camera, such as getting a blurry picture when you take one while moving...

Thanks again

Well I have been in the same predicament. Luckily my grandmother got me my first DSLR as an early graduation gift, and turns out that I ended up at an art school studying to be a fashion/commercial photographer. Since money is an issue try the Canon XS. If it proves to be too much but you still want the greatness of a DSLR, maybe try the Canon G10 while pricey I've played with it and WOW, its pretty amazing.

Techguy172

Feb 28, 2009, 06:40 PM

I'm not really sure. I'm just a teenager. I love photography and think I take some pretty good pictures for the camera that I have. I don't really understand cameras that much...I usually use the autofocus and such :). I plan to take a photography class at some point in high school so I can learn.

I like to take pictures when sightseeing. I don't take pictures of people too often.

My price range is very very limited...it seems like a basic DSLR goes for ~$600 though :\

Also you said that a better camera doesn't necessarily mean better pictures. It always seems though that with DSLRs, you don't have a lot of the problems associated with a basic digital camera, such as getting a blurry picture when you take one while moving...

Thanks again

A DSLR does improve on many things that other cameras don't have so I think it's really good to get one even at your age. The subjects that you take pictures of are the same as what I like to take. So basically any DSLR will work.

I would go to the store perhaps Best Buy or other Camera Stores in your area. Try out a bunch of cameras and see which one feels best in your hands. Don't look at just Nikon and Canon Despite what people may tell you. For someone like you buying into to the system is less important.

Infact I would suggest not buying Canon or Nikon as you can get a much better bang for your buck looking elsewhere. Such as Sony, Pentax or Olympus. They offer more features for a better price.

rs7

Feb 28, 2009, 06:46 PM

A DSLR does improve on many things that other cameras don't have so I think it's really good to get one even at your age. The subjects that you take pictures of are the same as what I like to take. So basically any DSLR will work.

I would go to the store perhaps Best Buy or other Camera Stores in your area. Try out a bunch of cameras and see which one feels best in your hands. Don't look at just Nikon and Canon Despite what people may tell you. For someone like you buying into to the system is less important.

Infact I would suggest not buying Canon or Nikon as you can get a much better bang for your buck looking elsewhere. Such as Sony, Pentax or Olympus. They offer more features for a better price.

Thanks for all the info. Can you explain the flash and lens part. I think that a flash on a DSLR is quite large...it's necessarily on a regular digital camera sometimes even during the day, but would it be needed on a DSLR? And why would I need different lenses? The camera will have it's own zoom, correct?

Thanks

Techguy172

Feb 28, 2009, 06:59 PM

Thanks for all the info. Can you explain the flash and lens part. I think that a flash on a DSLR is quite large...it's necessarily on a regular digital camera sometimes even during the day, but would it be needed on a DSLR? And why would I need different lenses? The camera will have it's own zoom, correct?

Thanks

Flash is generally only necessary if you need to shoot indoors. Otherwise you usually don't need it. Most DSLR's come with one on the body. However they are subpar and don't produce very good images. so if you ever decide to shoot indoor get an external flash.

For lenses, Yes DSLR's in your price range will come with a 18-55mm Zoom Lens or 18-70 if you go sony. You would want a different lens if you need to zoom in farther or perhaps you want a nice wide angle shot. There are many different types of lenses that do many different things. macro lenses for example are for really up close shots that put a different perspective on things. For the type of shooting you do a wide angle could be useful.

Also the lens that comes with the camera isn't great. It's not bad just average. you can get much higher quality lenses that are "faster" meaning they have a larger Aperture. Aperture is basically the Diaphragm of the lens or how much light is allowed in. Kit lenses are f 3.5-5.6 usually. That's a pretty small aperture. The smaller the number the larger the aperture so an f2.8 lens has a much larger aperture and is also faster because of it. when i say faster i mean a faster shutter speed or how fast the image is captured.

I know some of that seemed pretty complicated but don't worry you don't have to worry about all this if you just want to shoot. Chances are the Standard lens will be more than sufficient for you.

If you have anymore questions feel free to PM me.

LittleCanonKid

Feb 28, 2009, 07:01 PM

Thanks for all the info. Can you explain the flash and lens part. I think that a flash on a DSLR is quite large...it's necessarily on a regular digital camera sometimes even during the day, but would it be needed on a DSLR? And why would I need different lenses? The camera will have it's own zoom, correct?

ThanksFlashes are great, because often enough lighting is what makes or breaks a photo. Outside in the bright sunlight, you wouldn't think people would need a flash but they work great as fill flashes--they get rid of those harsh shadows that the sun casts on a bright day. Also, indoors, if the ceilings are lightly colored and low enough, you can bounce flash off the ceiling, or even a nearby wall to get a much more natural look than straight-on blasting the subject with light.

As for your lens question, lenses are often much more important than the body. There are superzoom lenses that cover wide-angle all the way to telephoto, but you compromise image quality for that convenience. There are macro lenses, prime lenses (no zoom, but it usually means that they're great at collecting light for low-light situations), telephoto lenses, and "normal", everyday-amounts-of-zoom lenses. They all have their different purposes and being able to switch lenses is one of the best advantages of buying a DSLR. It may seen inconvenient at first but having different lenses for different situations often leads to the best image quality. Remember, having a great lens on a low-end body is much better than having a low-end lens on a great body.

ProwlingTiger

Mar 1, 2009, 01:07 AM

compuwar

Mar 1, 2009, 08:27 AM

If I'm correct...I believe 35mm cameras actually take better pictures than the basic digital cameras that most people have today (I have a Canon A570). DSLRs are the only digital cameras that actually take pictures of great quality, and that take pictures almost instantly (versus having to wait a few seconds to take a picture). I'm not sure if what I'm saying is right...I'm not too experienced with cameras. If what I'm saying is true..what is the cheapest decent DSLR?

Thanks

Depends on how you define "basic digital cameras," what particular film is being used, which lenses, what the photographer is trying to achieve...

All DSLRs from all manufacturers that are currently on the market will take excellent, publication-quality pictures in the right hands.

Flash is generally only necessary if you need to shoot indoors. Otherwise you usually don't need it. Most DSLR's come with one on the body. However they are subpar and don't produce very good images. so if you ever decide to shoot indoor get an external flash.

I am going to flat-out disagree with this statement. Photography is about light. If you control the light, you control the image. While there are situations where control of the light is next to impossible, and you have to wait for the right light, for most images having control of the light will make them better- indoors or out.

Infact I would suggest not buying Canon or Nikon as you can get a much better bang for your buck looking elsewhere. Such as Sony, Pentax or Olympus. They offer more features for a better price.

The counter-argument is that by going Canon or Nikon you will have a much, much larger selection of bodies, lenses and accessories to choose from. You will be able to pick up lenses almost anywhere in the world should you need to, and you will be able to use and trade lenses with a much larger selection of photographers. It is also increasingly likely that we'll see one of the players with less market share exit the DSLR business in the next 18 months.

Techguy172

Mar 1, 2009, 09:08 AM

Depends on how you define "basic digital cameras," what particular film is being used, which lenses, what the photographer is trying to achieve...

All DSLRs from all manufacturers that are currently on the market will take excellent, publication-quality pictures in the right hands.

I am going to flat-out disagree with this statement. Photography is about light. If you control the light, you control the image. While there are situations where control of the light is next to impossible, and you have to wait for the right light, for most images having control of the light will make them better- indoors or out.

If your just getting into photography your not to worried about this. That is why i said it's generally not necessary.

The counter-argument is that by going Canon or Nikon you will have a much, much larger selection of bodies, lenses and accessories to choose from. You will be able to pick up lenses almost anywhere in the world should you need to, and you will be able to use and trade lenses with a much larger selection of photographers. It is also increasingly likely that we'll see one of the players with less market share exit the DSLR business in the next 18 months.

There may not be as many bodys but there are certainly many accessories for all of them. Any of these players offer great entry level bodies that are in most cases superior to Canon or Nikon. You have to think as if your are the OP he is not going to be a large buyer of lenses. I'm sure that any of the brands have plenty of lenses to satisfy him. People don't seem to understand that even if they did go out of business someone would take them over. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it.

forbes

Mar 1, 2009, 12:08 PM

Hi to answer your original questions:

DSLRs will, in general, give you much nicer pictures than compact digital cameras, all else being equal. I just bought a Nikon D60 (a fancier version of the D40 already mentioned) and compared to my trusty old Fuji F30 (which is an excellent compact camera), I'm getting a far better selection of pictures.

I think this is for a few reasons. Firstly, I find the DSLR autofocuses quicker than a compact, so you don't miss that moment waiting for the camera to focus ("hunting" I think it's called), so you get that shot you wanted rather than something a few seconds later. This is particularly useful for pictures of people and animals! Secondly, the DSLR has a better lens than a compact, and a bigger sensor behind it (even if the megapixel count is simliar) so you get better image quality. Thirdly, without a flash, the DLSR has slightly better low-light (e.g. indoors) performance, so you get sharper pictures. Fourthly, the DSLR has a viewfinder rather than a screen you look at to compose your pictures (although some now have both) and this gives you a much better indication of what part of the picture is going to be in focus. Finally, the Nikon lens I have has vibration reduction built-in (other brands have this feature in the camera) and I think this helps me with my none-too-steady hand.

All this does though come at a price: the camera is more expensive of course, first of all, although as the others have said all the entry-level models are perfectly OK. The camera is more bulky, so you will probably also want a bag to protect it, and it certainly won't fit in your pocket.

This price though buys you flexibility: when you have more money you can buy new lenses, which will give you even better image quality, wider angles, better zoom, and so on. You can also upgrade to a better camera body and keep the lenses that are compatible.

Good luck with whatever you choose to do!

cube

Mar 1, 2009, 12:13 PM

If you want access to many lens models, your best inexpensive bet in the Nikon realm is a used D50.

compuwar

Mar 1, 2009, 12:41 PM

If your just getting into photography your not to worried about this. That is why i said it's generally not necessary.

That's the biggest mistake most folks make- they don't start by trying to understand and control the lighting- which is why most beginners never progress to working with light. The sooner you master lighting, the better your pictures will be.

There may not be as many bodys but there are certainly many accessories for all of them.

But nowhere near as many- say our intrepid photographer decides to take up underwater photography- Ikelite doesn't make a single Pentax-compatible housing. Want a Kirk L bracket? Plenty for Canon and Nikon with and without battery grips, but only one for two Pentax models and one for older Sony models that's on "while it lasts," want a set of Kenko extension tubes? Canon or Nikon only...

Any of these players offer great entry level bodies that are in most cases superior to Canon or Nikon. You have to think as if your are the OP he is not going to be a large buyer of lenses.

It always amuses me that people who make the argument against getting a D40 because it won't AF with AF-D lenses (but will with a metric buttload of others) think it's ok that other manufacturers don't have a full line of lenses. Again, our new photographer doesn't know what sort of photography they'll enjoy the most- so having a wide range of available lenses becomes important if they decide to specialize in something that requires a certain lens type.

I'm sure that any of the brands have plenty of lenses to satisfy him. People don't seem to understand that even if they did go out of business someone would take them over. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it.

Show me where I can get lenses for a Yashica FX-D. Both Pentax and Minolta have already been taken over once- if they can't be made solvent by their new owners, what says anyone else would be interested? Hoya is losing money on Pentax, Sony's about to reorg, and Alpha doesn't even get a mention in their Q3 results- the Cybershot folks do, and it's been six months since the announcement of a Sony Pro Photographer's group- that's it on the DSLR front for Sony- if the Yen stays high and the US and EU stay depressed there may not be room for more than 3-4 DSLR players. We know that Canon and Nikon are profitable in the segment, I'm not sure anyone else isn't in the red for their DSLR business (Oly's got bigger financial problems at the moment than their imaging business.)

The DLSR market has been expanding, so there's been room for marginal players, and even in that environment, Olympus bled red ink for years, Pentax and Minolta both went under and got their assets bought out- Samsung has their own camera, Sony bought Minolta- so who's going to buy the next failure?

cube

Mar 1, 2009, 12:44 PM

Pentax got acquired, but it didn't go under.

apearlman

Mar 1, 2009, 01:52 PM

If I'm correct...I believe 35mm cameras actually take better pictures than the basic digital cameras that most people have today (I have a Canon A570). DSLRs are the only digital cameras that actually take pictures of great quality, and that take pictures almost instantly (versus having to wait a few seconds to take a picture). I'm not sure if what I'm saying is right...I'm not too experienced with cameras. If what I'm saying is true..what is the cheapest decent DSLR?

Thanks

I'm going to mention a couple of ideas that haven't been mentioned yet (that I can see)...

First, I bet you can get much better photos from your current camera. The A570 is great, and it offers full manual controls -- in particular, aperture and shutter speed. I would recommend a class (which you mentioned might be possible) or a book (such as Peterson's "Understanding Exposure") that will help you get the most out of the camera you already have. Then, once you know how the camera is limiting you, you can shop for something more capable.

DSLRs do not take pictures of great quality. People do.

It's true that a DSLR operates faster than most point & shoots. It will focus faster and impose less "shutter lag." But you can work around this disadvantage with techniques such as a half-press of the shutter to prefocus and reduce lag.

For example, if you're getting blurry shots (as you mention in a later post), you might try to figure out if the problem is shutter speed or misfocus.

Personally, I think it's much easier to learn the basics on a basic camera than to learn the basics on a complicated camera.

Techguy172

Mar 1, 2009, 02:03 PM

But nowhere near as many- say our intrepid photographer decides to take up underwater photography- Ikelite doesn't make a single Pentax-compatible housing. Want a Kirk L bracket? Plenty for Canon and Nikon with and without battery grips, but only one for two Pentax models and one for older Sony models that's on "while it lasts," want a set of Kenko extension tubes? Canon or Nikon only...

It always amuses me that people who make the argument against getting a D40 because it won't AF with AF-D lenses (but will with a metric buttload of others) think it's ok that other manufacturers don't have a full line of lenses. Again, our new photographer doesn't know what sort of photography they'll enjoy the most- so having a wide range of available lenses becomes important if they decide to specialize in something that requires a certain lens type.

Show me where I can get lenses for a Yashica FX-D. Both Pentax and Minolta have already been taken over once- if they can't be made solvent by their new owners, what says anyone else would be interested? Hoya is losing money on Pentax, Sony's about to reorg, and Alpha doesn't even get a mention in their Q3 results- the Cybershot folks do, and it's been six months since the announcement of a Sony Pro Photographer's group- that's it on the DSLR front for Sony- if the Yen stays high and the US and EU stay depressed there may not be room for more than 3-4 DSLR players. We know that Canon and Nikon are profitable in the segment, I'm not sure anyone else isn't in the red for their DSLR business (Oly's got bigger financial problems at the moment than their imaging business.)

The DLSR market has been expanding, so there's been room for marginal players, and even in that environment, Olympus bled red ink for years, Pentax and Minolta both went under and got their assets bought out- Samsung has their own camera, Sony bought Minolta- so who's going to buy the next failure?

To say you have more lenses availible from Canon or Nikon Compared to Sony is unfair. Sony can go all the way back to the Minolta days. Do you have any idea how many lenses that is? There are plenty available. If you got to camera stores there is always used Minolta lenses.

Also your giving out only certain brands for accessories also unfair I'm sure that someone makes these products for the other brands.

Minolta didn't go under not sure if your aware of that or not? Sony just bought them because minolta was selling it's Camera Division. There are plenty of companies that I'm sure are interested in Camera companies. Also if people like you weren't telling everyone not buy these brands because everyone is going out of business maybe the problem wouldn't be so bad.

compuwar

Mar 1, 2009, 02:20 PM

Pentax got acquired, but it didn't go under.

Yes, technically getting taken over saved them from going under, but their shareholders took the offer despite management's waffling over the deal.

I don't believe there's a financial analyst who'd have given Pentax another five years in business had they not been taken over. Also, the camera division was losing money- Hoya bought Pentax for the endoscopy business- speculation at the time was that they'd sell off the camera division after the merger- looks like they couldn't find a buyer though (rumor was they wanted to sell to Samsung due to the close integration.)

More tellingly, here's what Hoya's CEO Hiroshi Suzuki said in '07-

Camera Business

-- Isn't Pentax camera business a negative factor to large-profit-making Hoya?

Hoya: I think that is a question asking about the inconsistency in our management policy of "a big fish (company) in a small pond (market)," but my opinion is that it depends on how you define the market. We have no intention to pursue a larger share in the general digital camera market. To make the business precious despite its small size, we consider firmly advancing integration and limitation of the business. Hoya thinks Pentax camera business can be profitable enough to generate satisfactory returns in comparison with capital investment.

The new company will basically take over the current camera business organization at Pentax. Hoya Pentax HD is not legally a holding company, but it will be just like acquiring a camera business subsidiary. I think Hoya will be able to do for the camera business no more than injecting its knowledge for management.

(emphasis mine)

Also, despite some profits in optical systems, Pentax's CEO at the time didn't think they could float the company without endoscopes:

-- There is an option to form a joint medical equipment company, instead of merging the two companies.

Pentax: In fact, we discussed such a plan with Hoya about two years ago. However, if we spin off the medical equipment business, which is our key profit earner, Pentax will have to entirely depend on its camera and optical component businesses. We turned down the offer, judging it was difficult [to secure profit levels to meet our shareholders' expectation].

Phatpat

Mar 1, 2009, 02:46 PM

And with Nikon, there's the D40 (No in body AF motor(have to buy the expensive lenses))

Not to nitpick, but nikon's 18-55, 55-200, and even 70-300 af-s lenses are by no means expensive, as far as lenses go...

toxic

Mar 1, 2009, 04:07 PM

DSLRs do not take pictures of great quality. People do.

well, yeah, but i think the OP is thinking in terms of image quality...and even the best of the point-and-shoots can't compete with the worst DSLR in non-ideal lighting conditions.

Personally, I think it's much easier to learn the basics on a basic camera than to learn the basics on a complicated camera.

you can learn the basics without every holding a camera, actually. an SLR, though, will make it easier to play around with the settings, since they don't require 10 button presses to get there.

to the OP: consider high-end P&S cameras, like the Canon G10, Nikon P6000, and Panasonic Lumix LX3. full manual control that's more accessible than a "normal" P&S, RAW-capable, and more portable than an SLR. if you're set on an SLR, take a look at Pentax (K10/K20D), in addition to Canon (Rebel series) and Nikon (D40/50/60). i'm not impressed with Sony, and Olympus seems to only exist for those who want a tiny SLR...

finally, i don't recommend "Understanding Exposure." just read about it online, or have someone teach you. the only reason it's recommended is because it's easy to read. its content can be questionable.

Techguy172

Mar 1, 2009, 05:21 PM

well, yeah, but i think the OP is thinking in terms of image quality...and even the best of the point-and-shoots can't compete with the worst DSLR in non-ideal lighting conditions.

you can learn the basics without every holding a camera, actually. an SLR, though, will make it easier to play around with the settings, since they don't require 10 button presses to get there.

to the OP: consider high-end P&S cameras, like the Canon G10, Nikon P6000, and Panasonic Lumix LX3. full manual control that's more accessible than a "normal" P&S, RAW-capable, and more portable than an SLR. if you're set on an SLR, take a look at Pentax (K10/K20D), in addition to Canon (Rebel series) and Nikon (D40/50/60). i'm not impressed with Sony, and Olympus seems to only exist for those who want a tiny SLR...

finally, i don't recommend "Understanding Exposure." just read about it online, or have someone teach you. the only reason it's recommended is because it's easy to read. its content can be questionable.

Can I ask what's wrong with Sony DSLR's? I'm just curious.

ProwlingTiger

Mar 1, 2009, 05:34 PM

Can I ask what's wrong with Sony DSLR's? I'm just curious.

Hopefully nothing. I shoot with a Sony Alpha frequently as my second body.

Techguy172

Mar 1, 2009, 06:03 PM

Hopefully nothing. I shoot with a Sony Alpha frequently as my second body.

I use sony as my only body that's why I'm wondering what's wrong with them.

compuwar

Mar 1, 2009, 06:39 PM

To say you have more lenses availible from Canon or Nikon Compared to Sony is unfair. Sony can go all the way back to the Minolta days. Do you have any idea how many lenses that is? There are plenty available. If you got to camera stores there is always used Minolta lenses.

No, it's accurate. For instance, KEH shows us 5 focal lenghts of used Minolta AF primes, ten samples total- only two lenses wider than 50mm, one 16mm Fish Eye and one 28mm prime. I think every store I've been in over the last 20 years has had more used Nikon, Canon and Pentax lenses than Minolta.

Also your giving out only certain brands for accessories also unfair I'm sure that someone makes these products for the other brands.

I'm using the brands I'd be likely to buy- I own a Kirk L bracket, I'm going to end up with a set of Kenko tubes once I've had some fun with the $8 eBay set, and since Amphibco doesn't seem to make SLR housings anymore, Ikelight is the brand I'll go with when I start diving again. These aren't marginal brands, and the point remains salient, there are fewer third-party options when you go outside Canon or Nikon.

Minolta didn't go under not sure if your aware of that or not? Sony just bought them because minolta was selling it's Camera Division. There are

Minolta's imaging company was for sale because they were going under with it, and the losses would have sunk the whole company. You don't sell off a business that's doing well unless you get a multiple of about 15 or so for it- and the company "Konica Minolta Photo Imaging, Inc." of which the camera division was a part seems to no longer be producing paper, chemicals, minilabs, film, light meters, scanners or binoculars- in fact they don't seem to produce anything any longer, so while they may still exist on paper as a subcorporation of the main company, they seem to be pretty-much out of business.

plenty of companies that I'm sure are interested in Camera companies. Also if people like you weren't telling everyone not buy these brands because everyone is going out of business maybe the problem wouldn't be so bad.

Once again, you have yet to substantiate the "plenty of companies," since most of the marginal layers have been losing money in an expanding market- hardly an attractive acquisition target.

If these companies had been run well, they wouldn't have financial problems. All of these companies are publicly traded on the Japanese exchanges- you can look at their statements and see how they're doing. I'm hardly the voice of consumer spending, and I'm hardly the only one who's saying that at least one of these companies likely won't make it in the future. I'm certainly not the one responsible for say Olympus having to restate their projections for 2008 or who forced them to sell off what looks to be a profitable chunk of their life sciences division.

Anyway, the fact that I'm saying it doesn't change the facts behind the statements- the fact is that Nikon is making very good profits off of it's DSLR sales, Canon's profit is down a lot, but it's still a profit-

Here's what Hoya had to say about it's 3rd quarter Pentax results:

3. Pentax
As for the medical endoscope of PENTAX, sales decreased in comparison to the same period of the
previous year due to an appreciaion of the Yen, in spite of the favorable trend of a new endoscope
system compatible with mega-pixel imaging in overseas markets. For digital cameras, sales
decreased due to sales decline in compact cameras, and also single lens reflex cameras recorded
negative growth because of the fierce price competition in th market.
This section has been implementing a structural reorganization in view of future growth, and recorded
operating loss in this quarter under review, posting expenses for reviewing business strategies,
organizational changes, as well as revaluation of assets, etc., in addition of goodwill amortization
generated upon integration. As a result, sales in this section amounted to Yen 30,643 million and
recorded operating loss of Yen 1,433 million.

"Negative growth" isn't something someone wants to purchase- Pentax lost market share during the holiday buying season- now maybe you want to purchase a camera from a manufacturer who's bleeding 1.4 billion Yen a quarter making it, losing market share against his competitors and whose main acquisition target is losing money in a growing market- but that's not the profile of a company I'd want to start buying into a system from. If I already had the system, I'd probably take the odds, but I wouldn't buy in at this point and I wouldn't go long on Hoya, Sony or Oly at the moment- I'm still doing the math on Nikon since the currency fluctuations can kill indirect investment on the US OTC market.

Techguy172

Mar 1, 2009, 06:46 PM

toxic

Mar 1, 2009, 09:22 PM

Can I ask what's wrong with Sony DSLR's? I'm just curious.

nothing wrong with them, really, i just don't think there's much reason to buy one. Canon and Nikon bodies have better noise-handling (well, not Nikon until recently) and much larger lens selections. Pentax is right behind them, and better in some aspects, when it comes to bodies (i can't speak for lenses). Olympus has crappy noise-handling but tiny bodies, for those who like that. Sony has crappy noise-handling...and not much to offer over Pentax. Other than a more well-known name.

Techguy172

Mar 1, 2009, 09:39 PM

nothing wrong with them, really, i just don't think there's much reason to buy one. Canon and Nikon bodies have better noise-handling (well, not Nikon until recently) and much larger lens selections. Pentax is right behind them, and better in some aspects, when it comes to bodies (i can't speak for lenses). Olympus has crappy noise-handling but tiny bodies, for those who like that. Sony has crappy noise-handling...and not much to offer over Pentax. Other than a more well-known name.

Sony has very good ergonomics and beautiful screens. They also have a larger selection of bodies over pentax therefore allowing you more choice and also allow you to move up. Sony has some really nice high end glass. Zeiss 24-70, Zeiss 135 and 85 Prime.

Accessories are very nice. Sony has a nice flash that allows you to rotate the aspect so you have the same aspect when shooting vertical as horizontal. The vertical grip is also really nice replication the buttons.

ProwlingTiger

Mar 1, 2009, 11:41 PM

Sony has very good ergonomics and beautiful screens. They also have a larger selection of bodies over pentax therefore allowing you more choice and also allow you to move up. Sony has some really nice high end glass. Zeiss 24-70, Zeiss 135 and 85 Prime.

Accessories are very nice. Sony has a nice flash that allows you to rotate the aspect so you have the same aspect when shooting vertical as horizontal. The vertical grip is also really nice replication the buttons.

I must say that my Sony does a good job of keeping up with noise reduction of my Canon. I still can't make a fair comparison between the two as my Sony is low-end and my Canon high.

Ditto on the accessories, though not yet as numerous as say Canon or Nikon. They are good though, a bit higher price on the grip from what I can find. Do you use a grip on your a200, TechGuy? I have one on my Canon but haven't got around to a Sony one yet.

AlaskaMoose

Mar 1, 2009, 11:59 PM

Both Nikon and Canon are not doing very well in 2009. Canon makes more money than Nikon because it's a much larger company, but both are in bad shape at the moment (compared to profits from 2007 to December 2009). Also, since the market is worst in the first quarter of 2009 compared to the last quarter of 2008, both companies are projecting job and revenue loses. Sony is in the same boat, too, and I imagine that so are all the other camera manufacturers.
http://www.dentonimages.com/page.php?id=n020509070909_Nikon_Cut_Sales_and_Profit_Forecasts

rs7

Mar 2, 2009, 12:04 AM

Thanks everyone. It may be a long time before I make my decision/get enough money to get it but I will definitely write back here when something happens/I become closer to picking out the right camera.

Thanks again.

ProwlingTiger

Mar 2, 2009, 12:22 AM

Techguy172

Mar 2, 2009, 06:50 AM

I must say that my Sony does a good job of keeping up with noise reduction of my Canon. I still can't make a fair comparison between the two as my Sony is low-end and my Canon high.

Ditto on the accessories, though not yet as numerous as say Canon or Nikon. They are good though, a bit higher price on the grip from what I can find. Do you use a grip on your a200, TechGuy? I have one on my Canon but haven't got around to a Sony one yet.

No, But I'm probably getting one around the middle march i'd say. They look really nice!

compuwar

Mar 2, 2009, 04:00 PM

That's the difference between you and me. I don't care about this crap I buy what's the best for me. Sony was the best for me and as long as their producing lenses and bodies I will continue to buy from sony. Just because a company is losing money doesn't mean there are just going to close down immediately.

But if they're losing enough money, they may close down or reduce services. Sony's in year three or so of closing lots and lots of divisions, product lines and service centers. I prefer to get my equipment from companies who understand their market enough to be turning profits in it, and who have enough strategy to grow smartly, not just launch and kill products seemingly willy-nilly- because then they have to do less dumping, bailing and shutting down. Starting next year, you won't be able to get a Sony Bravia TV serviced in the United States- being able to get service without clearing customs twice seems like an important thing for a high-dollar piece of equipment- but then as you said, that's the difference between you and I- I want to know my manufacturer isn't starting to close critical things in my market- if I were looking for a high-dollar TV, that'd certainly be "crap" I'd care about.

In an economy where some investors are making money on a product line from a company they've invested in and others are losing money, the shutting down tends to happen more quickly. How tolerant Sony, Olympus and Hoya investors are going to be is something I can't predict- but I can say for sure that Canon and Nikon investors are going to be much, much more tolerant- because decreased profitability is still profitability. Hoya investors get to see Nikon Imaging make 4B Yen in their worst quarter in a down year while Pentax bleeds 1.4B Yen a quarter- at some point you have to cut out the losing entity if there's no long-term profit strategy.

There are plenty of companies that have lost lots of money and rebounded back. Apple is one of them. I think Pentax Olympus and Sony will do just fine. The big reason they aren't doing well is because of a bad economy. A Camera isn't necessary and unless you really need to buy one you probably won't I imagine Nikon will lose money eventually too if this keeps up.

It's not just a bad economy, it's a bad economy coupled with bad management decisions (Oly lost ~45B Yen in investments and the like,) and an inability to get to consumers with wide ranges of products coupled with an over-saturated retail sector that's going down in flames coupled with a strong Yen. Since Nikon's got a long way to go until they lose money, I'm guessing your imagination isn't based upon anything any more solid than "My favorite brand isn't looking good!" Here's a hint: Nikon's Imaging Division isn't where the red ink was last quarter- and even in the losing units, the nubmers trend about the same as last year, just with the down economy (IOW, their business is as strong as it can be in these economic conditions and they're probably not losing market share despite the bad economy.)

Sony's a huge company, they can afford to lose money in some segments. However, I'd question the logic of buying into a system that's not good enough in the market to be profitable, no matter if it's for technical, marketing, political or business reasons. A successful company with a successful product line attracts the best talent and R&D. Not many people would rather work on the product that's always in a bind because the budget is leaking money. At lest Sony's making a profit fabbing sensors for Nikon.

Techguy172

Mar 2, 2009, 05:07 PM

Phrasikleia

Mar 2, 2009, 05:10 PM

Sony makes Nikon Sensors (As you mentioned) I think they do pentax to, but I'm not sure.

No, Samsung makes the sensors in Pentax cameras.

compuwar

Mar 2, 2009, 05:42 PM

I doubt the Alpha cameras will be closed down Sony has already spent too much money on Minolta and research.

There is a point at which losses become too high- we don't know what that point is at the moment, but with the big reorg coming, everything will be examined. While I don't think Sony will close down the still camera business in the short term, you have to wonder at what point the stills from video stuff becomes more interesting to a company who's making a lot more on video cameras than they are on still cameras.

They need to advertise it more get it better known. They also need more lenses and accessories. Sony makes Nikon Sensors (As you mentioned) I think they do pentax to, but I'm not sure. Either way it's not that much more money to create themselves some extra sensors for Alpha. I don't

Your lack of understanding of the digital camera market shows. The sensor is the single-most expensive component in a DSLR. AFAIR from past annual reports, internal chip sales are booked by the semiconductor division as if they were coming from an external party- that's been true of the PS2 and PS3 businesses (I'm pretty sure) and I don't know why it would change for Alpha.

think sony is taking too much of a loss on Alpha. Maybe their even making profit we don't know.

Well, the last annual report I recall reading said they were still losing money. They've picked up some market share though, but I doubt they're break-even on the purchase yet.

Also it's not that I'm taking favorites. Just because I own a Sony doesn't mean I'm automatically a Nikon or Canon hater. You may say they won't lose money but we also said the same about GM about 10-15 years ago. If

No, I'm pretty sure that ten-fifteen years ago, people who "worried about that crap" knew GM wasn't doing well- here's what Business Week said in 1996:

General Motors Corp. appears headed for trouble, too. With growth rates for sales and retained earnings falling fast, Ernst's measure of operating cash flow growth is tumbling. Yet GM is piling on capital spending and inventory. GM argues that its returns have been temporarily hurt by a strike early this year, as well as by a nonrecurring charge it made to fund its pension plan. Another reason is the heavy long-term spending it's making to fuel foreign growth. ``That's not investment that gets a 12-month payback,'' says a high-ranking GM financial executive. ``I'd have trouble saying we're not getting returns on our investment.''

But Fotta believes that ``GM is growing right into its problems. It's adding liabilities to make up for operating cash-flow shortages--not a healthy thing to do when sales and earnings growth are dropping.'' It could be one more sign that behind strong numbers, bad news can sometimes lurk.

this keeps Nikon Will begin to lose sales therefore losing money.

No, losing sales doesn't *automatically* lose you money- it loses you profit to start with-- but (and this has been my recurring point) if you don't *start* with profitability, then losing sales does *automatically* lose you money. From what I can tell, Canon and Nikon are losing some sales but not money. Hoya and Sony seem to be losing money and Olympus was just pulling out of a camera losing scenario when they had to restate due to overall business losses.