Sony Worldwide Camera Sales Going Down

[Jopa]

..and when the processor becomes the single most important part of a camera's capability...

Does it mean my android phone which has a WAY better processor than any consumer FF camera in the world, can beat all those cameras? Really?

IMO the forum needs some kind of age verification process...

 

[Loswr]

IMO the forum needs some kind of age verification process...

Except that age does not automatically confer wisdom, intelligence, or common sense.

 

[3kramd5]

I don't care about Sony, though their sensor technology does show where cameras can go. I wouldn't buy a Sony body because of (1) cost, (2) poor customer support, and (3) their refresh rate, which makes every body obsolete in a matter of months.

Canon may update much more slowly than Sony, but by the time they do, a great many people want the upgrade, and the company's investment in old stock is minimal.

Sony on the other hand refreshes so often that most consumers could never afford to keep up. Their business model is extremely different, and old stock held by major retailers seems shockingly overpriced compared to current offerings.

I wonder if Sony is suffering because of Sony's business model.

It is not a question of "keeping up".

When I make a decision to buy a camera I like to think that camera is the best technology available today, which is what I would get with a Sony, not the best technology available three-five years ago (which is what you get with Canon).

A frequent refresh cycle means that when you do decide to go out and get a camera, you know that you are getting the latest tech available. I don't see that as being a disadvantage, I want the best possible tech available now. When a company like Canon tells me "No, you can't have it because Joe over there bought a camera three years ago, and he would feel bad if your camera is better than his", it pisses me off. I don't care about Joe, his feel good status is not my concern, and I don't see why him feeling good about a purchase he made ages ago should be an argument for forcing me to take old technology.

When I make the decision to buy a camera I like to think it meets the value proposition of what I want/need and what I am willing and able to pay at the time (which is why I recently bought a second-hand 1Dx, not a 5D4 or 1Dx2). I don't care if some portions of it are "the best" or not, nor does it irk me if something comes out sometime later with components which are better. That's a self-destructive concern in the world of electronics (unless you have bottomless pockets).

 

[Tugela]

Sony have the a7 series. Panasonic have the GH series. and so on. They can make those cameras because they have the processors to power them

Canon have the M series. They can only make that because that is the limit imposed by their processors. See the problem?

They are behind, and there is no way Canon can outperform Sony and/or Panasonic in this area, because they simply lack the expertise in silicon. Canon will always be behind, and when the processor becomes the single most important part of a camera's capability, they will be limited to the bargain bin for their sales model.

Your problem is that you lack foresight. You think that just because something is happening now, it will always happen like that. No doubt you bought big into IBM at the dawn of the PC era, because all computers being sold at the time were mainframes. It was inconceivable that something like a desktop computer like a PC would find a market. Fast forward today, what happened? Was IBM right?

Yes, Canon is so far behind there's no way they can outperform Sony or Panasonic. All Canon can manage to do is to sell more MILCs globally than Sony or Panasonic. See the problem?

But hey, don't let reality influence your beliefs... :

 

[Loswr]

Your problem is that you lack foresight. You think that just because something is happening now, it will always happen like that. No doubt you bought big into IBM at the dawn of the PC era, because all computers being sold at the time were mainframes. It was inconceivable that something like a desktop computer like a PC would find a market. Fast forward today, what happened? Was IBM right?

You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you tihnk it means.

I have plenty of foresight, but perhaps you're confusing that with foreknowledge. They are different. Your problem (besides improperly formatting your post) is that you make blanket assumptions without data to support them. Gradual improvement in processor capability is not the same as a paradigm shift. So until you can come up with a camera-relevant analogy to portable computing and smartphones, your references to IBM and Nokia are meaningless.

You've been bitching on here about Canon using 'old tech' processors for close to 3 years now...they're gaining market share, not losing it. Tell us, with all your foresight...when exactly will 'the processor become the single most important part of a camera's capability'? Will that be tomorrow, next week, sometime after MILCs sell better than dSLRs, or sometime after pigs fly over snowbanks in hell?

As for your babbling about processor power, remember when you stated any Canon camera with Digic 7 would shoot 4K...fast forward today, what happened? Were you right?

 

[JBSF]

I don't care about Sony, though their sensor technology does show where cameras can go. I wouldn't buy a Sony body because of (1) cost, (2) poor customer support, and (3) their refresh rate, which makes every body obsolete in a matter of months.

Canon may update much more slowly than Sony, but by the time they do, a great many people want the upgrade, and the company's investment in old stock is minimal.

Sony on the other hand refreshes so often that most consumers could never afford to keep up. Their business model is extremely different, and old stock held by major retailers seems shockingly overpriced compared to current offerings.

I wonder if Sony is suffering because of Sony's business model.

It is not a question of "keeping up".

When I make a decision to buy a camera I like to think that camera is the best technology available today, which is what I would get with a Sony, not the best technology available three-five years ago (which is what you get with Canon).

A frequent refresh cycle means that when you do decide to go out and get a camera, you know that you are getting the latest tech available. I don't see that as being a disadvantage, I want the best possible tech available now. When a company like Canon tells me "No, you can't have it because Joe over there bought a camera three years ago, and he would feel bad if your camera is better than his", it pisses me off. I don't care about Joe, his feel good status is not my concern, and I don't see why him feeling good about a purchase he made ages ago should be an argument for forcing me to take old technology.

I understand why you might make your choices, but you help make my point. If Sony refreshes frequently, doesn't that suggest that they deliberately cripple bodies or release them prematurely?

If you don't buy another, then you are not alone. So huge inventories of "outdated" bodies as well as new ones, very highly priced and at great expense to the company sit unsold.

My point is about their business model. It does not seem to be thought out very well. As much as some buyers may like it, I think it could be damaging.

 

[3kramd5]

If Sony refreshes frequently, doesn't that suggest that ... release them prematurely?

Maybe if you peg them to other cameras makes (and even if you do, there was a time when Canon was pushing out a refresh almost once per year: 9 EOSxxxD models between mid 2003 and early 2013), but as a technology company in general their releases aren't extraordinarily frequent.