Sony switchers face development limbo!

[Loswr]

They think...

[quote author=Sony]
MP&C
Overall segment sales are expected to increase significantly primarily due to an anticipated significant increase in unit sales of smartphones and the introduction of high value-added models, as well as due to the introduction of high value-added PCs. Operating results are expected to significantly improve primarily due to the impact of the increase in sales.[/quote]

The above is what Sony thought regarding their forecast for FY2013.

That was the year in which they abandoned the Vaio brand and exited the PC market.

 

[3kramd5]

Yah. Companies don’t always get it right. Companies sometimes fail. Look at Kodak, they were the royal family of innovation. All I’m saying is nothing in this announced strategy portends doom for Sony camera users. Quite the opposite, in fact: it suggests Sony will invest heavily in that business.

 

[Loswr]

Sure, but you seem to be equating the lack of a portent of doom with no risk at all. Their FY2012 financials painted a rosy picture for Sony PCs, no portents of doom there, either.

Sony's history clearly implies some risk for camera buyers, far more so than Canon's history.

 

[3kramd5]

Sure, but you seem to be equating the lack of a portent of doom with no risk at all. Their FY2012 financials painted a rosy picture for Sony PCs, no portents of doom there, either.

Sony's history clearly implies some risk for camera buyers, far more so than Canon's history.

Not at all. I’m saying this strategy doesn’t increase the risk; the peanuts-products mentioned do not include those from their camera business.

 

[Ozarker]

Especially if their target is the higher end/higher margin models.

I'll never understand the assumption that higher end = higher profit margins overall, which is what really matters.

Higher end also = higher manufacturing costs, R&D, less sales, etc.

As far as Sony's service? Uh, no.

 

[3kramd5]

I'll never understand the assumption that higher end = higher profit margins overall, which is what really matters.
Higher end also = higher manufacturing costs, R&D, less sales, etc.

In the camera world, the first two are often not true, especially when a manufacturer shares a significant portion of the BOM between products.

The last is true, but sales quantity in itself doesn’t affect margin (production volume can to a point).

Anyway, people say higher end products have higher profit margins because in many industries high-end prices are highly elastic so those products often do.

 

[fullstop]

lokling at Sony lens prices - compared to Canon - i do not worry about their margins. Not at all.
Also true for their MILC cameras - compared to DSLRs.

if done right, those MILCs have significantly lower manufacturing costs than DSLRs, but prices do not really reflect that. by now They should also have reached high enough quantities to get some scale effects. otoh Sony is innovating (more than CaNikon) and their R&D spend must be significant.

while "nothing is ever guaranteed in business", i see no signs of Sony pulling out of stills imaging gear any time soon. if anything, i would rather be concerned that Sony's strategy might take their existing "PlayMemories" camera Apps concept to the extreme: "naked" cameras would only come with "basic functionality", all "advanced" functions only available in the form of apps under a subscription model, with ongoing payments.

 

[Mikehit]

lokling at Sony lens prices - compared to Canon - i do not worry about their margins. Not at all.
Also true for their MILC cameras - compared to DSLRs.

if done right, those MILCs have significantly lower manufacturing costs than DSLRs, but prices do not really reflect that. by now They should also have reached high enough quantities to get some scale effects. otoh Sony is innovating (more than CaNikon) and their R&D spend must be significant.

So many assumptions repeated to make them sound like fact.
'If done right' mirrorless has lower manufacturing costs - do you have any evidence of that? Any knowledge of the % savings? Maybe there is a mix of reasons the prices do not reflect it....including the savings are not what you think they are.

Sony innovating more than Canon....so Sony decides to put some software-driven gizmos into a camera and you call that 'innovation'?

while "nothing is ever guaranteed in business", i see no signs of Sony pulling out of stills imaging gear any time soon. if anything, i would rather be concerned that Sony's strategy might take their existing "PlayMemories" camera Apps concept to the extreme: "naked" cameras would only come with "basic functionality", all "advanced" functions only available in the form of apps under a subscription model, with ongoing payments.

I read something along those lines only recently, especially with the latest release not enabling download of apps, so maybe they moving to that line.

 

[Ozarker]

I'll never understand the assumption that higher end = higher profit margins overall, which is what really matters.
Higher end also = higher manufacturing costs, R&D, less sales, etc.

In the camera world, the first two are often not true, especially when a manufacturer shares a significant portion of the BOM between products.

The last is true, but sales quantity in itself doesn’t affect margin (production volume can to a point).

Anyway, people say higher end products have higher profit margins because in many industries high-end prices are highly elastic so those products often do.

I guess I'm thinking more about the profitability of different sections of the pie. The high end, I would think, isn't the big money maker people just assume it to be. The lower end tends to get the vast bulk of sales. At the same time, if the margin is a percentage then it is also more likely the lower end has a higher margin. A $5,000 camera with a 10% margin is the same margin as a $500 camera with a 10% margin. Price more elastic? I don't know. 20% off is 20% off. It just looks bigger at the high end. Same percentage per dollar. Since we have no data, then it is all speculation.

I've read people here that say Canon's pro line is the money maker. I doubt that very much. They make that assumption simply because the products cost more. They forget completely about sales. Prestige maker, yes. But the profits are towards the lower end. I'd just bet the margins are higher there too. The sheer volume would drive the cost per unit downward, and probably the margin per unit upward.

I could be wrong, but that wouldn't hurt my feelings. Most of you here know more about business than I ever will. I'm just an old retired factory worker / truck driver who can't remember what day it is most of the time.

 

[fullstop]

'If done right' mirrorless has lower manufacturing costs - do you have any evidence of that? Any knowledge of the % savings? Maybe there is a mix of reasons the prices do not reflect it....including the savings are not what you think they are.

No, I do not have specific numbers. But it would be the first time in the history of economics if an electronic product [MILC - preferably with no mech shutter] would not be significantly less costly to manufacture than a complex, opto-mechanical-electronic device with moving parts that need to be machined, assembled, aligned, inspected, tested, quality-controlled ... to 1/100 of a millimeter precision (or less).

And: MILCs can (or could, no idea how Sony makes them) fully automated today, DSLRs apparently still not (yet).

 

[Mikehit]

'If done right' mirrorless has lower manufacturing costs - do you have any evidence of that? Any knowledge of the % savings? Maybe there is a mix of reasons the prices do not reflect it....including the savings are not what you think they are.

No, I do not have specific numbers. But it would be the first time in the history of economics if an electronic product [MILC - preferably with no mech shutter] would not be significantly less costly to manufacture than a complex, opto-mechanical-electronic device with moving parts that need to be machined, assembled, aligned, inspected, tested, quality-controlled ... to 1/100 of a millimeter precision (or less).

And: MILCs can (or could, no idea how Sony makes them) fully automated today, DSLRs apparently still not (yet).

It seems you are supporting your argument based on a shutterless MILC ....as far as I am aware all Sony cameras have shutters.
Regards mirrorbox vs no mirror, my comment is less that there is no difference, but the difference is mitigated by mirror vs EVF. An EVF has a cost as well. And what difference does that play in the final cost of the product.

Let me ask it another way - as and when Canon come out with a mirrorless FF camera comparable to the 6D2 or the 5D4, what price difference do you believe would reflect the difference in manufacturing costs compared to its mirrored cousing?

 

[fullstop]

'If done right' mirrorless has lower manufacturing costs - do you have any evidence of that? Any knowledge of the % savings? Maybe there is a mix of reasons the prices do not reflect it....including the savings are not what you think they are.

No, I do not have specific numbers. But it would be the first time in the history of economics if an electronic product [MILC - preferably with no mech shutter] would not be significantly less costly to manufacture than a complex, opto-mechanical-electronic device with moving parts that need to be machined, assembled, aligned, inspected, tested, quality-controlled ... to 1/100 of a millimeter precision (or less).

And: MILCs can (or could, no idea how Sony makes them) fully automated today, DSLRs apparently still not (yet).


My wild guesstimate is that a robo-assembled MILC will cost between 50 and max. 75% compared to a functionally equivalent DSLR produced in the current way. Difference will be larger the larger batch size gets.

 

[Ozarker]

'If done right' mirrorless has lower manufacturing costs - do you have any evidence of that? Any knowledge of the % savings? Maybe there is a mix of reasons the prices do not reflect it....including the savings are not what you think they are.

No, I do not have specific numbers. But it would be the first time in the history of economics if an electronic product [MILC - preferably with no mech shutter] would not be significantly less costly to manufacture than a complex, opto-mechanical-electronic device with moving parts that need to be machined, assembled, aligned, inspected, tested, quality-controlled ... to 1/100 of a millimeter precision (or less).

And: MILCs can (or could, no idea how Sony makes them) fully automated today, DSLRs apparently still not (yet).

And MILCs also have to be "machined, assembled, aligned, inspected, tested, quality-controlled ..." 1/100th of a millimeter tolerances for a DSLR (0.0004")? You must be joking.

You've never worked in a factory, have you? What about an electronics manufacturing environment? No. Didn't think so.

 

[Mikehit]

My wild guesstimate is that a robo-assembled MILC will cost between 50 and max. 75% compared to a functionally equivalent DSLR produced in the current way. Difference will be larger the larger batch size gets.

I suspect 'wild' is the most relevant word in that sentence....

 

[Ozarker]

My wild guesstimate is that a robo-assembled MILC will cost between 50 and max. 75% compared to a functionally equivalent DSLR produced in the current way. Difference will be larger the larger batch size gets.

I suspect 'wild' is the most relevant word in that sentence....

He's probably right. According to him, MILC's don't have to be "machined, assembled, aligned, inspected, tested, quality-controlled ..."

I'd not be surprised if he and harryfilm were not the same people, but harry seems smarter.

I forgot. MILC's are a byproduct of unicorn farts.

 

[Loswr]

My wild guesstimate is that a robo-assembled MILC will cost between 50 and max. 75% compared to a functionally equivalent DSLR produced in the current way. Difference will be larger the larger batch size gets.

I suspect 'wild' is the most relevant word in that sentence....

He's talking out of his mode dial hole again. His wild guesstimate is as accurate as his assessment of the number of people —millions— who would buy the specific products he wants.

 

[fullstop]

And MILCs also have to be "machined, assembled, aligned, inspected, tested, quality-controlled ..." 1/100th of a millimeter tolerances for a DSLR (0.0004")? You must be joking.

Yes MILCs also have to be manufactured. Machining may or may not be needed they could probably be made of hi-grade plastics and carbon fibre just as well. And yes, also in MILCs the image sensor better be perfectly perpendicular and centered to the optical axis.

But - and that's all I am saying - it is way simpler than having an array of (rapidly) moving mirrors, submirrors in addition to sensor and separate AF-assembly plus mech shutter in a DSLR and ensuring everything is perfectly aligned even at 10+ fps. The need for Micro-AF adjustments even on the highest end DSLRs speaks a clear language, as to how difficult this is and how tight tolerances need to be just to get a decently sharp image.

"Factory experience" or engineering degree are not needed to understand this.

But maybe CanonFanBoy-izm or NEURO-tic conditions make it hard to accept simple facts like these. ;D

 

[Mikehit]

But maybe CanonFanBoy-izm or NEURO-tic conditions make it hard to accept simple facts like these. ;D

Maybe when your claims are conjecture, there is nothing to 'accept'.

You are even making guesses about the materials and methods used in manufacture.

 

[stevelee]

Canon has made SLRs for sixty or so years. They probably have this mirror thing figured out by now. They might not be assuming that it is the only technology that cannot have robots involved in its manufacturing.

Conjecturing about product profitability is a tricky business. Analysts who do this sort of thing for a living are most often way off. For example, the iPhone X that is too expensive, so no one will buy it, made something like 35% of the profits in the whole worldwide smart phone market in the recent quarter.

 

[Ozarker]

And MILCs also have to be "machined, assembled, aligned, inspected, tested, quality-controlled ..." 1/100th of a millimeter tolerances for a DSLR (0.0004")? You must be joking.

Yes MILCs also have to be manufactured. Machining may or may not be needed they could probably be made of hi-grade plastics and carbon fibre just as well. And yes, also in MILCs the image sensor better be perfectly perpendicular and centered to the optical axis.

But - and that's all I am saying - it is way simpler than having an array of (rapidly) moving mirrors, submirrors in addition to sensor and separate AF-assembly plus mech shutter in a DSLR and ensuring everything is perfectly aligned even at 10+ fps. The need for Micro-AF adjustments even on the highest end DSLRs speaks a clear language, as to how difficult this is and how tight tolerances need to be just to get a decently sharp image.

"Factory experience" or engineering degree are not needed to understand this.

But maybe CanonFanBoy-izm or NEURO-tic conditions make it hard to accept simple facts like these. ;D

No, in mirrorless the sensor does not have to be perfectly perpendicular. It moves all the time: IBIS. Hmmmm... isn't that a moving part requiring high tolerances to be accurate? Pull the lens off and move the body around a little, you can see the sensor moving, trying to stabilize. BTW: IBIS isn't as good at longer focal lengths as lens based stabilization. The sensor can only be moved around so much.

My little Olympus has a magnesium body. It was machined. You think plastics or carbon fiber wouldn't need to be at some point in the process? Carbon fiber isn't inexpensive to make either. What about all the tooling involved with all of it, be it metal, plastic, or magnesium? That doesn't go away just because the camera is mirrorless. You have no idea whether or not the process or materials are less expensive or not. You just make stuff up, just like you did before your reincarnation as fullstop.

So yes, fabrication experience is required to have some understanding as to the types of processes you seem to think will disappear that really won't.

It isn't that you don't sometimes have valid point about some things. It's that you fantasize about other things and think they are reality. Then when it is pointed out how mistaken you are, you try to reframe your points. You just make stuff up out of thin air as though you really believe the things you just dreamed up are reality.

Let's see, have you even used a mirrorless camera? I can tell you right now, it ain't the cure for what you think the problem is. It is just another tool. In many ways it falls far short of what you called a mirror slapper in your past life. The tech just isn't there yet. Go buy one and see. Go get a Sony. At least then you might be capable of trolling from an informed position. You've been trolling on about this for at least two years. Put your money where your mouth is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uZBnl-BgSU