4 ms·
My perception from reading tech sites has been that Sony's cameras have been really good for 5-10 years. I expected that it's one of the few Sony businesses whi
by mastax 9y ago
My perception from reading tech sites has been that Sony's cameras have been really good for 5-10 years. I expected that it's one of the few Sony businesses which has been doing well recently. Looking at financial statements, that's not the case - the unit's been declining since 2012 (the earliest I looked).
Competition has been stiff, even smaller companies like Pentax, Fujifilm and Sigma have made great cameras. The lock-in effect from Nikon and Canon lenses and accessories is strong (and those companies have also made great cameras, of course). Also the whole segment is in decline due to smartphones (Sony's semiconductor business has grown a lot - I assume due to smartphone camera sensors).
Anyway, it was an interesting exercise. Financial statements are really accessible and it's good to check your assumptions with data from time to time.
- caycep 9y agothey sell sensors or manufacture them for some of these other companies - I think the Fuji X-trans is manufactured on a Sony fab?
- trm42 9y agoAbout everybody else but Canon uses Sony sensors and fab. Canon still designs their own sensors and ATM they seem to be losing the sensor tech race to Sony.
- mamp 9y agoWhile Sony's sensor technology has been great, until last year there were significant issues with the full frame camera line up that prevented many people from switching: poor battery life, difficult controls (no joystick for moving focus point), slightly worse colors, complex menu system, not great autofocus using adapted lenses, small range of native E-mount lenses. This changed with the A9, then A7R III and now the A7 III, and the Sony lens range has really improved. While the configuration is still a bother e.g. setting up eye autofocus (eye-AF), the other issues have been addressed. Weather sealing is below the competitors. The A7 III represents tremendous value compared to the competition, I think it will shift people to Sony — I switched to Sony after 12 years of shooting Canon DSLRs and quite an investment in Canon 'L' glass. At the same retail price the Canon 6D Mark II is an embarrassment compared to the A7 III. The A7 III is probably better than the Canon 5D Mark IV, retailing at 1/2 the price. Now, the camera itself doesn't make you a great photographer, but if you are parting with that kind of money you want a tool that helps you, and the Sony is very impressive. Eye-AF speed and accuracy alone has breathed new life into my Canon lenses and allowed me to get shots that I would have missed with my Canon bodies.
- gomox 9y agoAnecdata from my end is that when I last changed cameras, I really wanted an A7 but got an m43 kit instead, because quality lenses for the Sony were extremely limited and expensive compared to the Canon DSLR equivalents I'm used to. The body seems killer but lenses are the other half of the equation. I am an early mirrorless believer (bought a Panasonic G1 new) and I've been excited about mirrorless full framers from Sony since they first came up. The fact that despite having wanted that camera for so long I still failed to justify the purchase is bad news for Sony in my book.