Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: pixman63 on January 19, 2006, 02:40:10 am
-
I just heard on BBC Radio 4's Today programme that KM are withdrawing from the photographic market. The camera side of the business is being sold to Sony, while the film side is being closed down.
-
I just heard on BBC Radio 4's Today programme that KM are withdrawing from the photographic market. The camera side of the business is being sold to Sony, while the film side is being closed down.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=56276\")
[a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06011901konicaminoltaout.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06011901...aminoltaout.asp[/url]
-
Press release here (http://konicaminolta.com/releases/2006/0119_03_01.html).
-
A few comments on the Konica-Minolta/Sony news. K.-M. is giving up completely on film products and compact digital cameras, but it seems they will still be involved in making DSLR cameras and lenses under the new Sony brand name. That probably means K.-M making bodies into which Sony will put the sensors and other electronics, and making their existing 35mm format lenses to the extent that they are useful with Sony DSLR's. As far as I can tell, K.-M. does not make any of the three digital "DT" lenses, they all come from OEM's (Tamron and Cosina?), so those OEM's will simply put the Sony name on them from now on. Or maybe the rented Zeiss name?
-
Even though I shoot Canon, KM was a camera I heavily considered for an upgrade later down the road once they released the successor to the 7D.
Now that they are owned by Sony, they are not even going to be in the ballpark for consideration.
-
Now that they are owned by Sony, they are not even going to be in the ballpark for consideration.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why so if I may ask?
Regards,
Bernard
-
Why so if I may ask?
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56322\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Digital Rights Management. They will probably implement some form of proprietary format for your pictures which ties you into using their products down the line to store, transmit and view your own pictures.
History speaks volumes for Sony's product developments and their insistance on 'standards' which no-one else either wants to or is able to use (think Betamax, Atrac, Blue Ray, etc..)
-
Digital Rights Management. They will probably implement some form of proprietary format for your pictures which ties you into using their products down the line to store, transmit and view your own pictures.
History speaks volumes for Sony's product developments and their insistance on 'standards' which no-one else either wants to or is able to use (think Betamax, Atrac, Blue Ray, etc..)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Add to that the fact that they seem willing to engage in unethical business practices (such as shipping CDs with auto-installing rootkits on them) in order to enforce their DRM policies. Unless I have no other choice, I will not do business with Sony.
-
And then we have this business about "chipping" lenses and flashes in order to make them communicate so well with the camera, that competitor's can't create competitive products without reverse-engineering, often impossible because of patents and whatnot.
So don't buy Canon or Nikon, either, they're all about vendor lock-in, too.
-
I do not recall canon compromising my computer the first time I hooked my camera up to my pc.
-
I do not recall canon compromising my computer the first time I hooked my camera up to my pc.
Do you recall Sony doing the same the first time you hooked your Sony camera up to your PC?
No?
Sony even permits third-party batteries (without the infolitihium feature) to work in their cameras. From what I understand, Nikon does not, with their D200. Nevermind the NEF bungle.
Canon patented their E-TTL solution to the extent that Metz cannot make equivalent flashes. Doesn't this bother you?
If you're looking for a big company to behave in an ethically clean manner all the time, you're going to be looking for a long, long time.
Sure, Sony Music (former Columbia Music) -- not Sony Electronics, who make the cameras -- have really screwed up with their DRM. There's no need to deny that. So don't buy stuff from Sony Music.
-
Still Sony. (Not that I really care.)
-
Why so if I may ask?
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56322\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Digital Rights Management. They will probably implement some form of proprietary format for your pictures which ties you into using their products down the line to store, transmit and view your own pictures.
History speaks volumes for Sony's product developments and their insistance on 'standards' which no-one else either wants to or is able to use (think Betamax, Atrac, Blue Ray, etc..)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56338\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
DiaAzul, dbell and DarkPenguin hit the nail on the head. Sony has no respect for its customers and that is not opinion, it's fact based off their track record; particularly recently.
jani is missing the point by a long shot... The decision for the rootkit and the DRM snafus came from the top at Sony. Not just the music branch and production branch. Not only that, but their attitude and arrogance (again, from the top of the company) in thinking that they did no wrong in the situation further shows that Sony as a whole is not a customer-friendly company.
-
Personally, I've had such bad experiances with Sony in general that I'd be hard pressed to buy anything from them. However, in interest of fairness, from what I hear one of Sony's biggest problems as a company is the fact that all their various divisions are both highly competitive and have very little cooperation with each other. So, (again, in the interest of fairness) I would venture to say that the actions of Sony Music and Sony Photo (or whatever) could be very different. Or very similar, I don't have anything specific to cite here.
My few cents.
-
Add to that the fact that they seem willing to engage in unethical business practices (such as shipping CDs with auto-installing rootkits on them) in order to enforce their DRM policies. Unless I have no other choice, I will not do business with Sony.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56343\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You should also avoid doing business with:
- Intel
- MS
-> the 2 limitations above only leave an AMD box running Linux
-> no PS
-> no serious photo work
-> a photographer can simply just not afford to work only with ethical companies these days, it would be clearly self defeating.
Regards,
Bernard
-
You should also avoid doing business with:
- Intel
- MS
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56385\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That statement is going overboard.
I'm not aware that either Intel or MS have ever used maliciuous Virus-ware embedded in their SW packages installation CDs (Sony's 'rootkit' being such...)
-
That statement is going overboard.
I'm not aware that either Intel or MS have ever used maliciuous Virus-ware embedded in their SW packages installation CDs (Sony's 'rootkit' being such...)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56386\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I guess that it all depends on what you call un-ethical.
As far as I am concerned, I call un-ethical a whole set of business practises that tend to prevent competition and are against the fundamental spirit of the law.
I just don't buy the idea that large companies can buy out ethics in court, this doesn't change a thing.
Regards,
Bernard
-
DiaAzul, dbell and DarkPenguin hit the nail on the head. Sony has no respect for its customers and that is not opinion, it's fact based off their track record; particularly recently.
jani is missing the point by a long shot...
Perhaps it's you who are missing my point by a long shot?
I'm trying to point out that there are other, serious and probably unethical business practices which were oh-so-popular to diss just a short while ago.
Suddenly there's a new badguy in town, and then all is nice and dandy with the previous badguys, because they're competing with the new guy.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- well, I'm inclined to disagree.
The decision for the rootkit and the DRM snafus came from the top at Sony.
Really? Do you have evidence for that?
-
Really? Do you have evidence for that?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56391\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It was reported in the news at one point in the heat of the issue and I don't have time to go hunting across the net for it right now.
I'm not going to get into an argument in the issue. Your (and others) comparisons of what Sony has done with other companies shows a great level of naivety of the magnitude of Sony's actions not to mention the direct connection of those actions to other legal issues regarding fair use rights plaguing our country at the moment. Sony violated our fair use rights (which are Constitutionally protected), vandalized private property, lied numerous times about it, opened their customers up to malicious attack, and did not learn a damned thing from it; no apology has come from them as they continue to think they did the right thing.
Sure, other companies do bad things too, but the Sony issue was the straw that broke the camels back much like Nikon was with the whole raw file thing. This time however, the Sony issue was less like a straw and more like a 2-ton piano.
You have every right to support the company if you choose to do so but I (and several others) have chosen to put our money into a more trustworthy company.
-
To try to answer several posts at once:
Sony is not the only company that I avoid doing business wtih for ethical reasons. I'm not here for the purpose of bashing vendors, so I'm not going to list them out.
I also disagree with what other equipment makers do with regards to vendor lock-in, but to me, there's a difference between making products that are incompatible with competing products (or that are designed to boost the sales of accessories) and making products that are deliberately destructive to customer property. No corporate interest justifies a company's selling me a product that is expressly designed to covertly undermine the security of my computer.
And yes, it is a matter of degree. There are plenty of arguments to be made about the bad behavior of lots of other big companies. That's fine, and public scrutiy of corporate behavior is healthy. It's up to the individual to decide how far is too far and to show their disapproval by witholding their dollars. Sony doesn't get any more of my money.
--
Daniel Bell
-
It was reported in the news at one point in the heat of the issue and I don't have time to go hunting across the net for it right now.
Yes, I've seen such reports, too. There were lots and lots of speculation, both by the media and individuals.
The most reliable information I saw, was that Sony BMG (IIRC) blamed the UK company who made the software for them, while it was still fairly clear that they had approved of parts of the functionality.
I'm not going to get into an argument in the issue.
Wake up, you're already in an argument on the issue, as is evidenced from your post.
Your (and others) comparisons of what Sony has done with other companies shows a great level of naivety of the magnitude of Sony's actions not to mention the direct connection of those actions to other legal issues regarding fair use rights plaguing our country at the moment.
You may think it's naive, but it's not really.
I'm very much opposed to the way members of the RIAA, MPAA etc. behave in their relationship to their customers.
I'm not necessarily willing to automatically extend that courtesy to the owner companies, who are mainly concerned with the results and dividends.
I'm a bit astounded at your lack of knowledge concerning the company structure of Sony BMG, though. Sony BMG is a 50/50 joint venture between Sony Music Entertainment and Bertelsmann Music Group, where Sony owns 50% and Bertelsmann AG owns the other 50%.
Sony violated our fair use rights (which are Constitutionally protected),
Yes. And so has almost every other big music or movie distribution brand; they all implement various schemes to reduce the usability of their products. I'm fairly certain that e.g. Canon or Nikon have, with the license agreements for their software, too.
(But if you're thinking of the USA, the DMCA has revoked numerous of those rights that Sony BMG limited technically.)
vandalized private property, lied numerous times about it, opened their customers up to malicious attack, and did not learn a damned thing from it; no apology has come from them as they continue to think they did the right thing.
Sure, other companies do bad things too, but the Sony issue was the straw that broke the camels back much like Nikon was with the whole raw file thing. This time however, the Sony issue was less like a straw and more like a 2-ton piano.
Well, thank you for at least acknowledging Nikon's move.
Whether it's a 2-ton piano for all of Sony, just the joint venture Sony BMG, or Sony Electronics who you're going to boycott, remains to be seen.
You have every right to support the company if you choose to do so but I (and several others) have chosen to put our money into a more trustworthy company.
If you want to take the high road, remember not to buy any books from the publisher Random House, which is a division of Bertelsmann, the other 50% of Sony BMG. Ditto for watching TV on RTL and buying magazines published by Gruner + Jahr. Remember to track ownership further down the chain, you may need to return some books and cancel some subscriptions.
As far as I know, there is only one combined electronics and music company who's taking the nice-guy approach to copy protection rackets, and that's Philips. Everyone else is a bad-guy, or has been. Even EMI, who apparently at least put some effort into not damaging your stereo or computer.
-
What's all the fuss on this thread? Yes, Sony did something wrong in trying to protect its copyright, but, it turned into a public relations nightmare. For most of us "orphaned" Minolta fans, they offer a ray of hope that our equipment hasn't been "dead-ended". Surely before we go out and spend thousands of dollars on the anticipated "Sony Maxxum", we'll scour all the internet reviews to weigh the pros and cons of such a purchase (including the possibility of a hidden "root kit"). The behaviour of all the corporations is best modified bybuying those things which meet the consumers' needs and avoiding the rest. If Sony comes up with a utopian camera, I won't give a fig for what they did or did not do in the past - I'll buy it.
-
Really? Do you have evidence for that?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=56391\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's moot, jani. The board of directors is responsible and accountable. For everything their thousands of workers do.
-
This website does not exist to give ethics lessons to managers, CEO's and directors of corporations (although , God knows most of them need it) but for the evaluation of photographic equipment and techniques to help us take better pictures. So, yes let's be aware that manufacturers have a tendency to try to take advantage of consumer but let each product stand on its own merits.