[Link] Sony to buy Nikon soon?

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Sony did keep the much smaller (in terms of user and lens base)  Minolta mount. They only made the E mount when they realized nobody would buy an EVF camera which is as big as a DSLR. Sony had a market share before they introduced the SLT concept, after which users fleed. Now they have about the same market share combined in A and E mounts they did with A mount OVF cameras. I think they could have twice the market if they switched back to DSLR for the A mount. But since Sony have an A/V background and not photography, they do their best to destroy the aspects of their cameras that are important for the latter.

[bjornthun]

Thom Hogan thinks,"No,": http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/rumor-versus-speculation.html

[Erik Lund]

I think;

A lot of very strong opinions on brands here,,,

Pleas stick to stating your opinions based on facts rater than your feelings,,,

Thanks Ladies and Gentlemen!

[stenrasmussen]

I think;

A lot of very strong opinions on brands here,,,

Pleas stick to stating your opinions based on facts rater than your feelings,,,

Thanks Ladies and Gentlemen!

Erik, the fact is that there are no facts 😊

[Erik Lund]

He he,,, Facts on Brands and their Products,,,

Is it still not raining?,,,

[bjornthun]

The weather man says snow in the land of the long costal line.

The sharks will visit next summer. 

[Akira]

Sony is essentially a video company and Nikon, still company.  Sony's ignorance of still images are obvious: they only reluctantly allow 14bit uncompressed RAW in the current AR7 MkII lineups.  Sony never employs free angle LCD that is beneficial for the portrait orientation as well as for the landscape orientation.  The DSLR-style alpha lineup is essentially Minolta, not Sony.  Although there has been a long partnership history between Sony and Nikon in terms of the sensor, they don't seem to mate nicely together.

[pluton]

It seems pretty clear that there is no money to be made from the "deal" and therefore there is no deal.

[John Geerts]

Exactly!

[Peter]

So what will pull Nikon from the woods?

[Tristin]

How can you say that Sony doesn't care about their heritage? Sony and Nikon have different heritages that they care about. And make no mistake, both companies are run for profit in a most "capitalist" interpretation of the word.

Lest we not forget, almost a year ago the rumour was, that Samsung would acquire Nikon... Let's wait and see.

They both obviously are here for profit; the difference is Nikon seeks to make money with photography and imaging, while Sony seeks to make money with anything they can possibly produce.  Had Sony already purchased Nikon there wouldn't be Ai-s lenses in production and cameras likey wouldn't support them.  Personally I have always found Sony's aesthetics, interfaces and love of proprietary stuff to be just utter rubbish.

Just because Walmart sells groceries now, doesn't mean I want my groceries from Walmart.  I prefer a grocery store.

[Akira]

They both obviously are here for profit; the difference is Nikon seeks to make money with photography and imaging, while Sony seeks to make money with anything they can possibly produce.

One of the biggest difference of the business purpose between Sony and Nikon is 4k.  Sony makes 4k TVs which is bigger business than the camera.  However, there are no 4k broadcast, and a Blu-Ray disc cannot handle the 2-hour movie in 4k.  So, Sony has to encourage the consumers to create 4k movies on their own.  That's why they are enthusiastic about offering 4k capability in virutally all of their possible products: DSLRs (although current Minolta derivatiives are no more true DSLR), mirrorless, compact cameras, videos and action cameras.  The same goes with Panasonic.  Canon is less enthusiastic in this sense simply because they don't make 4k TV.  Needless to say about Nikon.

[bjornthun]

They both obviously are here for profit; the difference is Nikon seeks to make money with photography and imaging, while Sony seeks to make money with anything they can possibly produce.  Had Sony already purchased Nikon there wouldn't be Ai-s lenses in production and cameras likey wouldn't support them.  Personally I have always found Sony's aesthetics, interfaces and love of proprietary stuff to be just utter rubbish.

Just because Walmart sells groceries now, doesn't mean I want my groceries from Walmart.  I prefer a grocery store.

Your comparison about groceries is at best ludicrous.

Btw. Sony supports MF glass, including Nikon Ai-S... They even support third party AF E mount lenses as well as third party MF glass with full electronic integration, from Cosina/Voigtländer and from Zeiss. Proprietary? No more than others. I find MF a lot easier with Sony A7 than with a DSLR, so in my case your statements about Ai-S support is dead wrong.

Aestetics? Nothing AF/digital is aestetical except maybe Fujifilm cameras.

[MILLIREHM]

Good that there are not even facts

Thom Hogan thinks,"No,": http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/rumor-versus-speculation.html

quoted from bjornthun's link:
"Update: the Nikon Ambassador quoted in the “rumor” has contacted me and says that what he meant by his shark quote is that Sony believes that they can take market share away from Nikon while Nikon is floundering (to keep the fish metaphor alive ;~). Still, that just illustrates my point: the “rumor” wasn’t a rumor: it was errant interpretation."

would be a pity and: hey, Nikon is having its 100 years anniversary next  year

[pluton]

So what will pull Nikon from the woods?

Higher prices and declining sales for the near future.