Electronics vs Old Fashioned Camera Equipment companies

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

Just watched a (long) video on why one pro moved from Nikon to Sony mirrorless that was just posted on Sony Rumors - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wM_5nROeaw

While some people will wrangle over dynamic range of this sensor vs that, I'm MUCH more interested in how large scale technology integration can further enable creativity. The level of integration is catching my attention. Seriously.

I think I see the difference in product development between an electronics company (Sony) and the traditional camera gear manufacturers (Nikon/Canon). Electronics companies can if they understand their customers and technologies take a broader view of the overall market where Nikon/Canon have their perceived self interests to protect. I think we're finally moving away from single-purpose photographic devices and have landed *smack* in the middle of a whole new level of image creation, management, and distribution.

Innovation vs market protection. I think it's that simple. Kudos to Sony.

Maybe I'll jump out of Canon afterall...

 

[CanadianInvestor]

Sony will need Canon, or even Nikon, more than these entities needing Sony. Integration may be important but the integrator must be able to bring something exceptional to the table, e.g. OS, optics, hardware etc. Sony falls short here and its forays in this area may have a limited future. I acknowledge that your comment is not restricted to Sony alone.

 

[RLPhoto]

I watched whole video and some points made sense. Then I figured this person must make some great photos and visited his website. Dear lord! I visited his fashion portfolio section, I'm lost for words in the tone mapped, HDR haloed photos. After that, I took this video as an ad for Sony or possibly an ad for his workshop.

 

[risc32]

When i shot minolta i was a bit pleased that sony bought them. I mean, Sony=electronics and cameras are turning into computers with some glass on the end. but i feared they would do what they usually do. Come out with proprietary things for their cameras, something like flash cards(tried), or hot shoe mount(done, even though that one wasn't sony's doing). I also feared they would come out with too many models and they wouldn't stick around long enough for the aftermarket to support them. Something like, say underwater housings, radio flash systems... In the audio/ video market place they used to drive dealers crazy because they would come out with newer models without giving the dealers much notice. One day they would have the latest sony receivers on the sales floor, the next they had a load of discontinued models they had to cut the price on. Sony has no market share in DSLR so they have to throw everything they have against the wall and see what sticks. They took up the helm of minolta, discontinued many of their lenses and placed a huge price increase on the rebranded models that stayed in production. You might not believe this and i can hardly, but during their take over of minolta i was buying gear from ebay, and they flipping it right back on ebay for a good profit. I think this was due to that big price increase, discontinuing of lenses and new people to market learning that they could put a minolta lens on their new sony with full functionality. whatever it was it was silly.
I just wonder how long sony plans on sticking around losing money. I don't know how far the profits from the PS4 are going to stretch. They are losing money all over the place. I'm not saying they are about to fold, now or even later, but they can't go on forever like this. I'm not suggesting someone not to buy a sony DSLR or mirrorless or whatever, some of their models interest me, but I doubt i'd invest heavily in their ecosystem. Honestly, you might just as well invest in a Samsung system.

 

[Khnnielsen]

...........I just wonder how long sony plans on sticking around losing money. I don't know how far the profits from the PS4 are going to stretch. They are losing money all over the place. I'm not saying they are about to fold, now or even later, but they can't go on forever like this. I'm not suggesting someone not to buy a sony DSLR or mirrorless or whatever, some of their models interest me, but I doubt i'd invest heavily in their ecosystem. Honestly, you might just as well invest in a Samsung system.

Just for the record - you are takling about a company with a net income of 1.246 billion dollars, and the PS4 isn't the sole reason, why they are profitable.

I come from a broadcast background, and I have always liked the way Sony do things in that area. I don't how it would transfer to the DSLR world, but I wouldn't be so quick to write them off.

 

[bluemoon]

...........I just wonder how long sony plans on sticking around losing money. I don't know how far the profits from the PS4 are going to stretch. They are losing money all over the place. I'm not saying they are about to fold, now or even later, but they can't go on forever like this. I'm not suggesting someone not to buy a sony DSLR or mirrorless or whatever, some of their models interest me, but I doubt i'd invest heavily in their ecosystem. Honestly, you might just as well invest in a Samsung system.

Just for the record - you are takling about a company with a net income of 1.246 billion dollars, and the PS4 isn't the sole reason, why they are profitable.

I come from a broadcast background, and I have always liked the way Sony do things in that area. I don't how it would transfer to the DSLR world, but I wouldn't be so quick to write them off.

that's a $1.24B LOSS!!! see here from SONY directly
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/13q4_sony.pdf

operating income was $257M on $75,410M which is 0.34% a horrible number in itself.

pierre

 

[dickgrafixstop]

Sony is a company that has lost it's way. While it certainly has the technical capabilities to produce a dynamite product, I'm not certain it has the will to commit to long term success in cameras. If the market share doesn't improve, the accountants may close down that division as it has other market areas. Sony was once the undisputed king to television but lost ground in the move to flat panel devices. The professional television market is excellent, but very small. Whether Sony can move "down market" may be an internal political problem rather that a technical capability question. It makes some "leading edge" full frame small camera bodies but has a rather meager selection of lens and the best of those are manufactured by another supplier. One "good" thing is that it is easier to find Sony cameras at a retail outlet than it is to find Pentax, but then Pentax didn't make televisions.

 

[Sporgon]

I just question what motive a photographer has for making a video like that. I watched the first two minutes, then fast forwarded through bits of it. If those features are important to him, then great, but to me this sort of thing always smacks of someone wanting to convince themselves that they have done the right thing.

 

[LDS]

Just for the record - you are takling about a company with a net income of 1.246 billion dollars, and the PS4 isn't the sole reason, why they are profitable.

Sony profitable? Sony has huge losses from its mobile division (it had to write done 1.65 billion last September), and is getting out the PC business. For the fiscal year ended last March it posted losses for over one billion dollars, and its CEO warned about a 2.1bn annual loss. Sony debt rating is very low.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e5a88c3a-3fd5-11e4-a381-00144feabdc0.html

 

[privatebydesign]

I just question what motive a photographer has for making a video like that. I watched the first two minutes, then fast forwarded through bits of it. If those features are important to him, then great, but to me this sort of thing always smacks of someone wanting to convince themselves that they have done the right thing.

Self aggrandizement.

I don't care what anybody else shoots, or their reasons for doing it. We should all make up our own minds on what camera system works best for us, even if you greatly admire another persons work that doesn't mean their gear would work best for you.

 

[privatebydesign]

Just for the record - you are takling about a company with a net income of 1.246 billion dollars, and the PS4 isn't the sole reason, why they are profitable.

The only reason Sony are not bankrupt is because their core business, insurance, earns nearly enough to service the massive losses of almost every other division of the corporation. They cannot sustain their current programs and cameras are not part of the historic electronics producer mentality the board members believe the company is famous for.

If Sony works best for you now then buy it, but I wouldn't expect the division to survive long enough to make a career out of using them unless they can hang on the coattails of the pro video division.

 

[timmy_650]

Wow I think he made me want sony less! But most of the things he said my 6D did and the things that were lacking i can use magic lantern.
Don't get me wrong I think sony makes great camera.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Isomeone wanting to convince themselves that they have done the right thing.

Does that not describe a large percentage of posts on CR?

 

[iron-t]

I'm not a pro and have no plans to go pro ever, but it seems to me the choice of systems to use is a pragmatic one for pros and amateurs alike. It does not require reading tea leaves. I use Canon now because I like the process and I like the results with my Canon DSLR (and EOS-M to a more limited extent). If I ever felt like the process and results would be improved enough to justify the inevitably substantial expense of switching, I would switch. I don't think it will be any time soon.

As an aside, I really, really do not like Jason Lanier's photos. The heavy-handed HDR just makes me queasy, and the overall impact of far to many of the images is one of total clutter and disarray. Image chaos and schizoid eye paths. Some clients I'm sure love the fantasy/over-processed style, but to me it makes for painful viewing. At the risk of sounding like an ad hominem attack, given that my process and intention for images will be totally different than Lanier's, I wonder if his endorsement of Sony mirrorless has any relevance to me.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

That's partly my point. We don't need "cameras" as we currently tend to think of them. Imaging systems are have been integrated into something broader than traditional photography approaches.

As a result, "photography" has been transformed into a way of instantly sharing experience. I'm not saying I see much value in that, but the shear volume of images uploaded to Facebook, Instagram, Flickr, Google+ and many other platforms can't be denied. Anything that allows a pro/working photographer to beat the Great UnWashed in uploading wedding photos, portraits, mass events, news, etc is, to me, a Good Thing(tm). Quality over Crap, if you will.

The Sony morality tale for me was their attempt to protect their Trinatron TV sales by NOT taking up LCD/flat-panel technologies. They could have. They were first in line to make such things. But they did not want to cannibalize one of their most profitable businesses at that time.

Instead, LG and Samsung took up the flat panel challenge and now are the world leaders in TV manufacturing and sales. One could say that they had "nothing to loose." Rather like Sony in the imaging markets. Invest in technologies you're not known for and see where it leads.

As for Samsung, I think you're right. Why not go with them? They've integrated the Android OS into some of their cameras. You can shoot an image, run your favorite mobile processing app, and share it all in the span of a few moments right from the "camera". Time barriers to creativity collapse. Don't forget that Sony has their QX-series that is attempting something similar. Canon was actually first to market with a small camera that was network integrated, too (though I have no idea what happened to that device).

While I won't argue one way or another that Sony learned anything from it's earlier experience, I feel that Canon and Nikon are currently in Sony's old Trinatron position. What to do? How to proceed? What markets to not cannibalize? Where to invest in the future?

Sony is a company that has lost it's way. While it certainly has the technical capabilities to produce a dynamite product, I'm not certain it has the will to commit to long term success in cameras. If the market share doesn't improve, the accountants may close down that division as it has other market areas. Sony was once the undisputed king to television but lost ground in the move to flat panel devices. The professional television market is excellent, but very small. Whether Sony can move "down market" may be an internal political problem rather that a technical capability question. It makes some "leading edge" full frame small camera bodies but has a rather meager selection of lens and the best of those are manufactured by another supplier. One "good" thing is that it is easier to find Sony cameras at a retail outlet than it is to find Pentax, but then Pentax didn't make televisions.

 

[KacperP]

Sony opposed to market protection? : : : : :

 

[LDS]

That's partly my point. We don't need "cameras" as we currently tend to think of them. Imaging systems are have been integrated into something broader than traditional photography approaches.

That's just for the "instant consumer" market - photos destinated to endure time, to be taken in difficult conditions, still need dedicated tools designed from scratch for taking photos wherever you need, not a "jack-of-all-trades-and-master-of-none" device designed to be replaced by the next model next year. That doesn't mean that cameras should not integrate new features to be better "connected" or the like, but really, the last thing I want is a camera that is doing other tasks in background (and maybe rings while I'm taking a photo...) instead of being wholly dedicated to the image taking process.

There's a misconception today that "electronics can perform magic and sobsitute everything else". It is not true, although some clever tricks may pretend it.
One of the reason someone wants you to believe it, is that electronics is often far cheaper to design and build than optical and mechanical devices. If you can build a far cheaper device, and still sell it at the same price of previous ones, your revenues increase a lot. Also, tightly integrated fully electronic devices are rarely serviceable, or too expensive to service. And what most companies like is selling new devices over and over to the same customer.

 

[iron-t]

That's partly my point. We don't need "cameras" as we currently tend to think of them. Imaging systems are have been integrated into something broader than traditional photography approaches.

That's just for the "instant consumer" market - photos destinated to endure time, to be taken in difficult conditions, still need dedicated tools designed from scratch for taking photos wherever you need, not a "jack-of-all-trades-and-master-of-none" device designed to be replaced by the next model next year. That doesn't mean that cameras should not integrate new features to be better "connected" or the like, but really, the last thing I want is a camera that is doing other tasks in background (and maybe rings while I'm taking a photo...) instead of being wholly dedicated to the image taking process.

There's a misconception today that "electronics can perform magic and sobsitute everything else". It is not true, although some clever tricks may pretend it.
One of the reason someone wants you to believe it, is that electronics is often far cheaper to design and build than optical and mechanical devices. If you can build a far cheaper device, and still sell it at the same price of previous ones, your revenues increase a lot. Also, tightly integrated fully electronic devices are rarely serviceable, or too expensive to service. And what most companies like is selling new devices over and over to the same customer.

Great points. Do we as enthusiasts and/or pros really want to contribute to the ongoing cheapening of our craft? Do we want our photos--skillfully and carefully composed and exposed, meticulously processed and beautiful--lumped in with the millions of inane, duck-faced selfies going up on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram every five minutes? Even if the photos are great straight from the camera, aren't you perpetuating the myth that "it's all about the camera" if you immediately post the images to social media? And maybe this is my "Type-A" personality showing, but don't you have to be a pretty damn sloppy photographer if you're willing to publicly broadcast your photos WITHOUT EVER HAVING SEEN THEM on even a normal-sized screen? When your rush to get photos out trumps your desire to create and publish beautiful or exceptional images, you are doing it wrong.

 

[dgatwood]

As for Samsung, I think you're right. Why not go with them? They've integrated the Android OS into some of their cameras. You can shoot an image, run your favorite mobile processing app, and share it all in the span of a few moments right from the "camera". Time barriers to creativity collapse.

IMO, Samsung entering the interchangeable lens camera market is a recipe for disaster. I have very little faith in their ability to pull it off, because it is too completely different from any market in which they've ever had the slightest bit of success.

The big problem is that Samsung has a long history of building cheap consumer crap that doesn't last very long, with buggy firmware that never gets fixed. They have no need to design for the long term, because consumers throw everything out after two or three years anyway.

Contrast this with the harsh reality of photography—that glass (good glass, anyway) is expensive. It is a long-term investment. It has to be done right the first time, it has to last for the long haul, and it has to be forward-compatible with future hardware for many years, or else people feel ripped off.

Samsung has not shown the ability to design for the long haul, and worse, has shown plenty of evidence that they are completely unable to do so. Just take a look at all the horror stories from people whose Samsung refrigerators have exhibited repeated hardware failures under warranty, in which the electronic brain crashes and all of their food spoils. And this is a company that you think will build lenses that people will still be using in twenty years?

That's not to say that they couldn't cheat—build bodies that are electrically compatible with a more competent company's lenses—but I can't see them ever being a serious player in the high-end camera market, because they have so epically failed at every attempt to build high-end products of any kind every time they've tried..

 

[Aglet]

I don't have time to watch another self-assurance video.

BUT, the OP's point is valid and I see that other co's making camera gear are "thinking differently."
If you read the interview from imaging-resource a while back about the Samsung NX1

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23052.0

you'll see that Samy's taking this idea and running with it, at least as far as the hardware goes.
What kind of photographic app tools they'll come up with to control this high bandwidth beast I can't yet fathom as I'm one of those who still likes both feet in the old paradigm for now. I can imagine a variety of specialty focus trap features will be at the forefront.