After inital market storming 4-5 years ago Sony is turning into Canon

A

alohype

Veteran
Sony after great products with killer features released at affordable prices few years ago (like FS7/5, A7S, A7R) is slowly turning into money milking machine again.

FS5II and now RX100VI which is basically the same camera as mark V but with super slow long range lens (at crazy price).

What do you guys think is Sony strategy here, what was it like with Sony in the past? (like 20 years ago when basically everything was Sony).
Are we about to see another switch soon, this time to Canon that will soon wake up with mirrorless? (or some other brand)

Let's have a discussion.
 
In many ways, I think these camera makers are racing to the edge of a cliff. What is really beyond 4k? How many megapixels are needed? How fast and long can you make a very small lens?

Canon has behaved like they have seen the cliff's edge for quite some time. Sony has acted like they think they can make the jump to the other side recently. But the cliff is still there. It seems to me the feature that really sets apart new cameras from old is dynamic range. This also seems liker the most difficult aspect of making cameras/sensors to improve. How much better can they make a 1" RX100 series camera? Yes the new lens is kind of slow but look at the size of the lens on the RX10 series. That's what it takes to get larger apertures.

On the other hand, if they do not innovate they will be passed over by the consumer for a smartphone with portrait mode... Imho, this sized camera is in a tough spot. It is too small for pro "A" cam work yet too expensive for POV video work (and recording time limited). It is a great travel camera but at $1,200 it is very expensive. I own an RX100IV and have modded it to record longer with heat sinks and the old Playmemories tweak. I purchased it used for $650 and I think it is worth that. A new mark VI at double the price is a tough sell to me.

I do agree that Sony might be milking this line but I do not think you can say that for its full frame offerings. I remember Sony owning the pro video space and always being the best and most expensive. Proprietary everything and the only choice was 2/3" or 1/2" chips. That was some milking as well! But it all changed with the EX-1. Sony has been a feature oriented maker from that point onward. They have come out with a lot of cameras since then. Quite impressive but tech gains are sometimes tough to come by. With Black Magic floating around these days, nobody is safe from a margin point of view. The $1,300 4k pocket is going to obsolete a lot of previous cameras on shear price alone. This has to be frustrating for the big three.

I do not know if I furthered the discussion or just rambled but it is a start!
 
The FS5 II fell very underwhelming because everybody was expecting 4k 60fps and 10-bit and none of that happened. It seems like a better camera than the I because of the new color, but lots of people won't care, there are other options out there (the GH5s in particular would be a very strong competitor here).

Personally I think the RX100 VI is an absolute disgrace. And I say that as somebody that has an RX100 IV as his main camera. The super-slow lens makes it useless to me.

On the other hand, both the a7R III and the a7 III have been impressive announcements... for stills shooters. Maybe the a7S III will come and be all we ever wanted, but really, it better have 4k 60fps and internal 10-bit and improved color and DR over the II, because the rest of the market is moving forward. The Fuji XT2 is already looking better than the a7 III (and that's the best mirrorless Sony for video nowadays), and the pocket 4k is coming in September with 4k RAW 60fps.

We will know what Sony has in store, soon enough. And if they don't show anything... well... that pocket 4k is calling me...

(BTW, I have zero expectations that Canon or Nikon will make a camera that I want to buy before 2020 is over)

edit: the RX100 VI would not be a disgrace if what Sony has decided is to split the line into two models: one with a longer zoom for people who thought 24-70 was not enough, and one with a fast prime for people who thought f/1.8-2.8 was too slow. I'd very gladly buy two of these cameras, one with a 24mm f/1.2 and one with a 85mm f/1.2. I know f/1.2 is difficult but it could be done with this smaller sensor. And that would give me the DoF of f/3.2 on FF. Plus the 24mm f/1.2 should be pretty popular with vloggers.
 
Last edited:
Per usual in business when you start making more money you have the option of doing less work/slowing down. The tech companies are constantly observing the market and deciding what and if they need to do anything. In 2014 and 2015, Sony decided to go crazy and it worked for them...they passed Nikon for the #2 spot overall and probably would have been #1 by now if Canon didn't sell an insane amount of lenses every month.

In 2018, the a7III packs a lot for the price and it's maybe not everything that video shooters would like...but at the end of the day it's a stills camera that shoots video. Same with the RX100 VI.

The FS5II is the oddball that I really don't get myself (FS7II too).
 
Bassman2003 said:
In many ways, I think these camera makers are racing to the edge of a cliff. What is really beyond 4k? How many megapixels are needed? How fast and long can you make a very small lens?

Canon has behaved like they have seen the cliff's edge for quite some time. Sony has acted like they think they can make the jump to the other side recently. But the cliff is still there.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced there is a cliff so much as a lack of imagination. Sure 4K might be reaching the limits of a flat image, but until a camera can shoot something that looks like the reality I see outside my TV screen, there is still a lot of room to grow. Whether that is technically feasible (or sometimes more importantly, financially feasible) or not is another story.

Samuel H said:
edit: the RX100 VI would not be a disgrace if what Sony has decided is to split the line into two models: one with a longer zoom for people who thought 24-70 was not enough, and one with a fast prime for people who thought f/1.8-2.8 was too slow. I'd very gladly buy two of these cameras, one with a 24mm f/1.2 and one with a 85mm f/1.2. I know f/1.2 is difficult but it could be done with this smaller sensor. And that would give me the DoF of f/3.2 on FF. Plus the 24mm f/1.2 should be pretty popular with vloggers.
Click to expand...

Or you know, they could have just made it an interchangeable lens camera and built a couple zooms and a couple primes for it. Maybe even packed them all or a couple of them into a kit. I think there is room in the market for a 1" (16mm) sized interchangeable lens camera system. So long as it is priced right and has the appropriate lens selection and camera options (video heavy options).
There is something to be gained from a small sensor system like that. Smaller lenses or lenses with a longer range that aren't huge. Deeper DoF is sometimes a plus, especially if you're running and gunning video. It's also more likely that we get global shutter and other features on a smaller sensor first since it's easier to make smaller sensors.

As of the original post and whether Sony is turning into Canon. I don't know. But keep in mind that at one point Sony was worse than Canon. They were the dominate electronics firm out of Japan and used to rule with a pretty tight (proprietary) fist. I remember when they didn't put 24p on their video cameras and everyone else was. I think they were trying to protect the F900. I could be wrong on that. But it was the impression I got.

I wouldn't doubt that if they regained their status again, they would got back to their old ways. Sometimes companies don't learn. Remember when Steve Jobs came back to Apple and slashed all their models down to just four computers (two desktops and two laptops) and made them all bright and colorful against a background of beige boxes that was the rest of the computer industry? Yet today Apple makes everything out of glass and aluminum. Everything has looked the same for years (it's the new beige) and they once again have a whole slew of different gadgets and models.
If Sony ever makes it back to the top I have no doubt we'll see a ton of proprietary media being developed and sold again.
 
There's definitely room for a 1" interchangeable lens system built around this very nice Sony sensor. But it has to have very fast lenses if anyone is going to take it seriously: the Nikon 1" had a 32mm f/1.2 which is basically the 85mm-equivalent I'm asking for, but on the wide end (24mm-equivalent-FoV or wider) there was only this f/3.5-5.6 zoom. Even the 50mm-equivalent was just f/1.8.
 
Once we get to the point of 12 bit 4k h265 at moderate bitrates I think we'll start nearing the cliff's edge. Combined with amazing auto focus and low light the difference from consumer and pro will start to get very fuzzy. Not that things are not already pretty great now with the GH5, A7III, black magic pocket 4k

Sony needs to make the jump to 10 bit with their SLR's tho.
 
I just realized that yes, I have kind-of-given-up on Sony.

Yesterday I spent some time trying to fine-tune my expectations about the dynamic range of the pocket 4k (here). My benchmarks are the RX100 IV and the a6000, which, when shooting RAW stills, give me an amount of headroom that's significantly greater than what I can get shooting slog2 video on the RX100 IV (or, prevously, a7S). I think the pocket 4k will match that amount of latitude (specifically, the one from the RX100 IV). Then again, the a7III has two stops more DR in RAW stills than the RX100 IV, and I definitely don't expect Sony to give me that much in video mode on an a7 body any time soon. They don't seem to be in for 10-bit, let alone RAW video, which means colors will be nicer and we will probably get 4k 60fps, but yes, they are holding back (and I'm probably leaving them for BMD).
 
Samuel H said:
(BTW, I have zero expectations that Canon or Nikon will make a camera that I want to buy before 2020 is over)

edit: the RX100 VI would not be a disgrace if what Sony has decided is to split the line into two models: one with a longer zoom for people who thought 24-70 was not enough, and one with a fast prime for people who thought f/1.8-2.8 was too slow. I'd very gladly buy two of these cameras, one with a 24mm f/1.2 and one with a 85mm f/1.2. I know f/1.2 is difficult but it could be done with this smaller sensor. And that would give me the DoF of f/3.2 on FF. Plus the 24mm f/1.2 should be pretty popular with vloggers.
Click to expand...

Nikon came very very close to offering you something similar to that! Until Nikon cancelled their DL series of cameras :-( Sad, I was keen on one of them!

roxics said:
I'm not convinced there is a cliff so much as a lack of imagination. Sure 4K might be reaching the limits of a flat image, but until a camera can shoot something that looks like the reality I see outside my TV screen, there is still a lot of room to grow. Whether that is technically feasible (or sometimes more importantly, financially feasible) or not is another story.



Or you know, they could have just made it an interchangeable lens camera and built a couple zooms and a couple primes for it. Maybe even packed them all or a couple of them into a kit. I think there is room in the market for a 1" (16mm) sized interchangeable lens camera system. So long as it is priced right and has the appropriate lens selection and camera options (video heavy options).
There is something to be gained from a small sensor system like that. Smaller lenses or lenses with a longer range that aren't huge. Deeper DoF is sometimes a plus, especially if you're running and gunning video. It's also more likely that we get global shutter and other features on a smaller sensor first since it's easier to make smaller sensors.
Click to expand...

Nikon attempted to tackle the 1" mirrorless niche and failed

Samuel H said:
There's definitely room for a 1" interchangeable lens system built around this very nice Sony sensor. But it has to have very fast lenses if anyone is going to take it seriously: the Nikon 1" had a 32mm f/1.2 which is basically the 85mm-equivalent I'm asking for, but on the wide end (24mm-equivalent-FoV or wider) there was only this f/3.5-5.6 zoom. Even the 50mm-equivalent was just f/1.8.
Click to expand...

I agree! That was the problem, the lack of lenses coming out in a timely manner.

Nikon (and Canon! And now it seems Sony as well.... :-/ ) is too focused on their full frame lenses, ignoring their lenses for 1" cameras. (ditto a lack of lenses for DX! As Thom Hogan would often buzz buzz on about)
 
Last edited:
Samuel H said:
(I'm DR-obsessed, and Nikon has never even tried to offer anything impressive in that front)
Click to expand...

Nikon has now for ages in recent years been beating Canon for DR on the stills side.

And on the video side Nikon hasn't been too shabby either, take for instance the Nikon D750 that has been out for ages:


 
Beating Canon just means you're not the one with the least DR in the market XDDDDD
(I'm talking <$4k and DSLR-like here)

And those tests against the BM are not telling me much: whenever the image is fine in one camera, it's fine in both, whenever it's broken in one, it's broken in both. An over-under test where we see exactly when each image breaks down would be a lot more useful. So yes, Nikon has awesome DR in RAW stills, that's for sure, but if we're talking video, they haven't even tried. For years I've been asking for a Nikon that does something similar to what we had on the 5D3+RAW, but they just wouldn't do it.
 
And Nikon has the tech to give us RAW video out of something like the D750 but for some reason never bothered. And Sony doesn't seem to be pushing very hard in the video front lately. Luckily (and this brings me back to what I posted earlier today) BMD did bother, and it looks like that's where I'm going to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top