canon 5ds at www.imaging-resource.com
- Thread starter Ladesir
- Start date
PureClassA said:
whoops...sorry...I have no idea what happened there... (I quoted out of the original post, not yours)...anyway I was responding to the post not the poster (something I wish would happen more around here)
Barry
Upvote
0
I spoke to David Noton yesterday whilst at The Photography Show about the 5DS away from the Canon stand and in normal conversation (we know each other) and he felt for landscape photographers its the best DSLR he has ever used and it was said sincerely.RobertG. said:
Upvote
0
I think it may wind up being the best portrait camera ever too. Sony will release a 50MP sensor.... but no word I don't believe whether they will license it to Nikon or not as they did the 36MP chip. If Sony really wants to own a piece of the market, I'd think they would hold onto it and force folks to buy Sony over Nikon. I think that's more likely now than 2-3 years ago when Sony had jack squat for lens options. They are really pushing them out now.
That said, the market desirability for Canon glass is obviously far, far greater. Sony withholding the chip from Nikon would be a huge advantage for Canon.
That said, the market desirability for Canon glass is obviously far, far greater. Sony withholding the chip from Nikon would be a huge advantage for Canon.
Upvote
0
I see your point but it will be a hard one for Sony. Nikon is a good customer and they will not want them to consider other players like CMOSIS who design & TowerJazz who fab the sensors for Leica. OnSemi, Omnivision etc would love to enter that space compared to their other markets its small but it helps other development and prestige.PureClassA said:
Upvote
0
Sony is sooner than later going to reach a point when Nikon will start to hurt them by licensing their sensors. That point will be marked with a leading indicator of Sony lens line-up maturity....and it's rapidly approaching. Again, I'm predicating this entirely on the notion that Sony has a serious interest in being a major market share of the camera world (particularly pro). If they don't, they will continue selling to Nikon ... or don't be too surprised if they one day make a buy-out offer. (This is the financial planner/economics major speaking)
Upvote
0
Yup, and unless Nikon are asleep they are not solely reliant on the day that Sony chooses to do that. I would not be surprised if the agreement from Nikon covered any Sony sensor produced over n years, based on a roadmap discussed x years ago and perhaps renewed since then.
Nikon would be really silly if they don't review their options quiet regularly, especially as Sony are not the only game in town.
I don't think Sony will acquire Nikon, unless Nikon hold some useful patents that they did not get when they bought Minolta.
But I think Sony want to become whatever will make them the most money, and I would guess they are making more from smartphone sensors and the like than cameras. They also are moving into sensors in vehicles...
I would guess they make more from the sales to Nikon than they do from their own. Until that changes significantly, I don't see why Sony will change that relationship - again, unless they are really silly they can see the position that Nikon hold in the market and they know that Nikon can source elsewhere, and Canon aren't collapsing just because Sony can produce sensors with better DR....
Nikon would be really silly if they don't review their options quiet regularly, especially as Sony are not the only game in town.
I don't think Sony will acquire Nikon, unless Nikon hold some useful patents that they did not get when they bought Minolta.
But I think Sony want to become whatever will make them the most money, and I would guess they are making more from smartphone sensors and the like than cameras. They also are moving into sensors in vehicles...
I would guess they make more from the sales to Nikon than they do from their own. Until that changes significantly, I don't see why Sony will change that relationship - again, unless they are really silly they can see the position that Nikon hold in the market and they know that Nikon can source elsewhere, and Canon aren't collapsing just because Sony can produce sensors with better DR....
Upvote
0
Sony holds the cards. Not Nikon. You need only look at who has the enormously bigger market capitalization to see it. If Sony did buy Nikon, they would be foolhardy to do away with the brand. It would merely become a subsidiary of Sony. If I was Sony, I'd likely be looking into this were my intentions in the camera world sincere. Nikon has a far better and more recognizable distribution chain in the camera world than does Sony, but Sony has the tech. Without Sony today, Nikon is a 2nd rate camera behind Canon. That fact is undeniable by their abandonment of multiple failed pro camera, Canon competitor attempts on their own.
Upvote
0
PureClassA said:
Not sure I agree. Nikon design better cameras from a photographers' perspective. They have more experience in terms of support and indeed distribution. They have better lens and a better relationship with Pros and the like. Completely agree on the brand.
But the camera market is shrinking. Hence why Sony is diversifying into the bigger, less saturated markets. Assuming Nikon were up for the acquisition, the only thing that Sony offer Nikon is the sensor. And Nikon can get that from other manufacturers. So I am not sure I agree Sony holds all the cards. And I'm also not sure that the current price that Nikon would cost them vs the improvement to the bottom line is worth it for Sony.
Finally, what's wrong with #2 in the market? Even with Sony, Nikon are still #2....
Upvote
0
Sony has the money. And I didn't say Nikon would be #2, I said they would be a 2nd rate camera behind Canon. And without Sony they absolutely would. They were a 2nd rate camera before they partnered with Sony. Now technologically the competition is more even handed. I wasn't referring to sales per se. Canon still kicks their behinds up and down Main Street in that department either way. Nikon gave up because they realized they couldn't produce a system that could compete effectively with Canon. This is me just citing pure statistical data and historical market share. They brought in Sony to give themselves a chance.
Upvote
0
PureClassA said:
Sorry, you did indeed say 2nd rate - my bad. However, somewhat harsh to call them 2nd rate. And Sony may have the money, does not mean that buying Nikon is the best return on that investment. Agree Nikon decided it was more cost-effective for them to use Sony than continue with their own efforts. And that in itself may give a good insight into the challenge Canon face and why they're not about to make changes to all their fab facilities...
Upvote
0
Stu_bert said:
2nd rate because the market said so. Canon and Nikon both have relatively equal distribution capabilities, but the market was clearly choosing Canon models over Nikon models in the upper end before Nikon partnered with Sony. Once the Sony sensors became the staple of the Nikon upper end models, there was far more competitive choices between the two. I don't want what I said to be misconstrued as "Nikon made/makes bad cameras" They don't. But given the options before the Sony sensors, it was plainly obvious which was the preferred professional line, specifically the 800 series Nikons vs. the 5 series Canons. The 1DX still makes Canon king, because Nikon hasn't made anything compelling enough to really challenge it. There is still something like a ridiculous 7 to 1 ratio of Pro Canon systems on sidelines and in journalism vs Nikon's D3 & D4 offerings, and certainly a lot of that also has to do with the glass. For example, Nikon can't (or just hasn't) produced a 70-200mm pro grade lens that can equal or surpass Canon's. Even all the testing data from the greatly debated DxO shows as much. That's a bread and butter focal length lens.
Upvote
0
Sony makes far more money from its sensor division than it makes from selling DSLRs. They know if they hold tech back from customers for their own use eventually they will find other partners and their is more to the cameras than simply the sensor.
Sony make sensors for Ricoh Pentax, Hasselblad, Phase One, Canon (1"), Olympus as well as Nikon. The J1 Nikon used a sensor made by Aptina and OnSemi in particular have the ability to make sensors to compete with Sony for DSLRs so I dont see Sony holding tech back from Nikon at all.
Sony make sensors for Ricoh Pentax, Hasselblad, Phase One, Canon (1"), Olympus as well as Nikon. The J1 Nikon used a sensor made by Aptina and OnSemi in particular have the ability to make sensors to compete with Sony for DSLRs so I dont see Sony holding tech back from Nikon at all.
Upvote
0
jeffa4444 said:
You're right. But that's why I also said that IF Sony wants to be a big boy in this market they will have to reach a level of product line maturity before they could pull the plug (selectively) from others. They make more money selling a body of their own than simply a sensor to Nikon. (MF doesn't count, because Sony isn't in that market). I'm not saying they will do it, but I won't be surprised and neither should Nikon. Once their lens line-up reaches a mature offering (and they are running full speed at it) they will be in a position to take a lot more sale away from a big player like Nikon, provided they also produce the cameras pros want. If Sony is content to stick with mirrorless, it won't happen. But if they start creating a serious line of DSLRs with great AF, ergonomics, and menus.... why would they continue to sell their competitive advantage (sensors) to Nikon? Again, just hypothesis, but it makes good business sense IF they want their cameras to be dominant players. Otherwise, people will prefer to get the Sony sensor performance in much more capable Nikon DSLR bodies, while Sony remains more a parts manufacturer than a camera maker.
Upvote
0
Still not sure I completely agree with you. The same sensor is in the Nikon 8xx vs the Sony A7r, yet the results from the Nikon are generally considered superior based on what Nikon do with the sensor data, and the AF in the Nikon 4s is nigh on the same as the 1Dx (bearing in mind the latter took a few ideas from the D3/s when they overhauled the AF from the III/IV series). And Pro's moved from Canon to Nikon in significant numbers during the III focusing debacle - sure the sensor played a big part in that also.
I would suspect Nikon & Canon make more from their glass then they do their bodies, margin wise, but Sony as you say are not there yet, and do a lot in partnership with Zeiss I thought. Kind of like Nikon do with Sony on the sensor.
I think Sony have a longer term view which is the camera market is shrinking full stop. Their presence in it makes a profit but is also a huge marketing opportunity in terms of selling sensors in other markets, be that smartphones, automobiles and security. The camera market is important, but I dont think long-term will offer much revenue.
Sony coming later to the "party" and having a broader set of markets to address meant they did not have the legacy which Canon had with their fabs from the start of the 21st century. And since Canon has not been that interested in being an OEM, never got into these other markets which would have helped fund new fabs. In that respect, well done Sony for the foresight. Samsung is in an even better position based on how broad it's markets are developing CPUs, memory, storage etc - and look at their 28MP APS-C sensor as a good example - probably ahead of Canon and comparable to Sony.
But again, I think Samsung and Sony will continue in the camera market for the prestige and the leverage they get from being well recognised in the quality end of sensor development, and the opportunities that offers them in bigger markets. If the numbers stack up might either of them buy Nikon? Sure. Could Nikon survive in the same #2 slot if Sony with-held their sensors. I believe so also.
I would suspect Nikon & Canon make more from their glass then they do their bodies, margin wise, but Sony as you say are not there yet, and do a lot in partnership with Zeiss I thought. Kind of like Nikon do with Sony on the sensor.
I think Sony have a longer term view which is the camera market is shrinking full stop. Their presence in it makes a profit but is also a huge marketing opportunity in terms of selling sensors in other markets, be that smartphones, automobiles and security. The camera market is important, but I dont think long-term will offer much revenue.
Sony coming later to the "party" and having a broader set of markets to address meant they did not have the legacy which Canon had with their fabs from the start of the 21st century. And since Canon has not been that interested in being an OEM, never got into these other markets which would have helped fund new fabs. In that respect, well done Sony for the foresight. Samsung is in an even better position based on how broad it's markets are developing CPUs, memory, storage etc - and look at their 28MP APS-C sensor as a good example - probably ahead of Canon and comparable to Sony.
But again, I think Samsung and Sony will continue in the camera market for the prestige and the leverage they get from being well recognised in the quality end of sensor development, and the opportunities that offers them in bigger markets. If the numbers stack up might either of them buy Nikon? Sure. Could Nikon survive in the same #2 slot if Sony with-held their sensors. I believe so also.
Upvote
0
Stu_bert said:
+1 I think you nailed it.
I agree, I don't think Nikon would fail if Sony pulled their sensors, but, as you say, it seems illogical for them to do so, as that's really their market: sensors. I also believe your dead on about lens sales. Especially with lenses being upgraded...that gives established users in addition to new users reason to spend more money on newer, sharper lenses.
Both Sony and Samsung have some very intriguing parts at extremely attractive prices. I've been encouraging friends who like photography to buy better cameras. I've been taking them to local camera stores, putting the latest entry-level Canon & Nikon DSLRs and the Sony A6000 in front of them and telling them only: "Pick up each one, see how it feels in your hands, how it fits, how it works. Ergonomics is one of the most important things about a camera."
So far, everyone has chosen the Sony A6000, usually after proclamations about how heavy the Canon Rebels are, how large and bulky both the Rebel and Nikon Dxxxx series are, and how much they like the small, light weight lenses and features of the Sony. The only push I've given any of them is simply to put the A6000 down there instead of some other Sony camera. ;P The features packed into that thing are incredible, and it's difficult to get anyone interested in a more expensive Canon or Nikon when they have this tiny, light weight camera with tiny, ultra light weight lenses in their hands. Outside of that, the rest is up to them. I think Sony NAILED it with the A6000.
I am looking forward to renting the Samsung NX1 from LensRentals soon here to actually give it a try. I was going to adapt it to my 600mm lens, but now I want to actually give some Samsung lenses a try as well. Having used the A6000 now, though, and seeing how small and light the lenses are (amazingly so...you could put a couple in your pocket and forget they were there), I think the NX1 will have a lot of competition for anyone except those looking for a well-priced wildlife and birding mirrorless (especially once the Samsung 300mm f/2.8 lens hits.) Both cameras seem exceptional on the features and capabilities front, with 11fps and 15fps, topping (by far) anything else in their price ranges. The only thing I haven't yet been impressed with are the EVFs...but, I haven't used Samsung's yet, and it sounds pretty good.
Upvote
0
jrista said:
Yes. My entire hypothesis is entirely predicated on just how aggressive a player in the pro camera market Sony wants to be.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
