For those uninitiated to the photography world, Sony, in the past few years has completely disrupted the entire profesional, and amature camera markets. They are ahead of the curve in mirrorless formats, and have forced other makers like Nikon and Canon to make the switch.
Even if Sony is ahead in mirrorless sales, camera sales as a whole is going down due to mobile phones. We will probably reach the point where only pros and advanced amateurs will own an interchangeable lens camera.
I, as a photographer, find my P30 Pro good enough for family, friends and vacation shots and all other casual snapshots.
I use my DSLRs only when I can't afford to lose a shot, when I need top IQ and when I have special lighting needs.
To take a memory of your kid playing, of grandma in the garden, of your cat chasing the dog or some cityscape, the mobile phone is good enough for many people.
I think the one inch sensor that's rumored to come soon to smartphones will definitely push the smartphone to the next level and make the prosumer compacts (like the rx100) finally obsolete.
I don't think the sensor size is the limiting factor on a smartphone; rather the very small lens just doesn't let in enough light to really capture sharp images, especially ones that are far away
Most smartphones lenses are f1.8 to f2.5 which is plenty fast.
The images aren't sharp because the sensor is too damn small, it's more about sensor size than pixel density. That's why a 4x5" sheet of film still blow any digital camera away in term of details, sharpness, tonal range, &c. even when using 80 years old glass in front of it. You realistically can't get more than maybe 12 mega pixels of data from a phone sensor, you can't cheat optic laws by adding pixels.
This is the new 108mpx sensor used on phone, zoom anywhere in the pic and it looks more like a blurry abstract painting than a picture:
>The images aren't sharp because the sensor is too damn small, it's more about sensor size than pixel density. That's why a 4x5" sheet of film still blow any digital camera away in term of details, sharpness, tonal range, &c. even when using 80 years old glass in front of it.
Please demonstrate how it "blows away" any digital camera with a 80 year old lens. This sounds to me like a completely made up claim without any data behind it. (data != one random image)
Modern digital camera sensors are good enough they're somewhat limited by the lenses. So if you have several times the size of a "full frame" digital camera, you can achieve better results with 1940s technology than Sony A7 + 16-35mm wide lens. See this stunning 1942 photo from a large format camera: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Adams_Th...
>Modern digital camera sensors are good enough they're somewhat limited by the lenses.
In what way? Smartphone sensors have the highest pixel density and they can still resolve an amazing amount of detail through their not-so-great tiny lenses. When it comes to ILCs, everytime there is a bump in sensor resolution, it is entirely possible to extract more detail from the same lens (provided its was a good lens to begin with). And ILCs are still not at the level of pixel density as smartphones, so there is quite a bit of room for improvement.
> So if you have several times the size of a "full frame" digital camera, you can achieve better results with 1940s technology
Not exactly because larger sensors mean larger lenses because of the larger image circle, and then you have a manufacturing challenge of grinding and polishing an even larger amount of glass, so it doesn't scale linearly like that.
That image is very very nice from a compositional standpoint. I respect the work of AA, but I don't feel its rude to point out that it is not particularly sharp by modern standards - the point I assume you were trying to demonstrate? Here's one that even an total rank amateur like me can produce.. which is sharper, with an el-cheapo bargain-bin samyang lens on a non-pro camera body (6d) https://imgur.com/a/l4HBWyi
The lenses aren't good enough to resolve details on the new "full frame" 50+ megapixels sensors. The smaller the sensor the more the lens has to resolve. a 4x5" sheet of film is ridiculously big compared to a "full frame" sensor, hence the lens aren't as stressed [0]
> Smartphone sensors have the highest pixel density and they can still resolve an amazing amount of detail through their not-so-great tiny lenses.
No they don't, there are many algorithm tricks to make you think it resolves more details but when you look closely there isn't any details, look at these 64mp samples [1] [2] [3] [4], they don't even look like pictures anymore.
> Not exactly because larger sensors mean larger lenses because of the larger image circle ... larger amount of glass
LF lenses are much simpler than regular lenses, they don't need floating elements, they're not zooms, they don't even need moving parts because you focus through the bellow. There is more glass if you look at the weight, but less glass in term of groups/elements. If anything they're smaller than new "full frame" lenses [5], they only get big if you want something faster than f5.6-4
>The smaller the sensor the more the lens has to resolve. a 4x5" sheet of film is ridiculously big compared to a "full frame" sensor, hence the lens aren't as stressed [0]
I can accept that as a general statement, but it depends on many factors. For e.g. The 4x5 example you linked to was scanned at 4000DPI. 4000 DPI across a 24x36mm sensor gives approximately 20 mega pixels - which is entry level full frame. So its not stressing the lens any more than your LF capture.
Now its true that, at 60+ mega pixels you're doing 6500+DPI, and 240MP (pixel shift) even more so, you're stressing the optics, but we've found that the optics is quite capable of delivering.
>No they don't, there are many algorithm tricks to make you think it resolves more details but when you look closely there isn't any details, look at these 64mp samples [1] [2] [3] [4], they don't even look like pictures anymore.
Those are JPEGS on which noise reduction and sharpening was added by the camera. We'll have to compare RAWs to see the pixel level sharpness.
But again, its not my position that smartphones, which don't have the best lenses, can compete with X,Y or Z format. I'm just pointing out that we're not at the limit of optics, as with every bump in MP we see more details, especially so in professional cameras with professional grade lenses.
>LF lenses are much simpler than regular lenses, they don't need floating elements, they're not zooms, they don't even need moving parts because you focus through the bellow. There is more glass if you look at the weight, but less glass in term of groups/elements. If anything they're smaller than new "full frame" lenses [5], they only get big if you want something faster than f5.6-4
We'll have to do a side by side with the same image to really compare. I don't think you'll come away with LF "blows away" 35mm digital as the poster I responded to claimed.
With a larger sensor, you don't have to compress the image as much, so you can record more detail per unit of area.
If you take two pictures of the same scene, one with a small sensor, and the other with a larger sensor, the geometric difference is apparent.
Scale a 5 meter tree down to the size of a phone's sensor, and you're having to tightly pack the detail of the tree, to something smaller than your fingernail.
But shrink that same tree onto a bigger sensor, or a sheet of 4x5 film, and you don't compress the tree as much.
We don't notice the shortcomings of phone sensors until we try to print the photos. They don't enlarge very well. Printing an 8x10 from a cellphone is challenging, and the grain and imperfections are magnified.
But you can enlarge that piece of film to 8x10 no problem, and the detail is astounding.
If you only look at phone pictures on a phone, then they look very nice, and a piece of 4x5 film is bigger than some phone screens. There are more silver crystals (pixels) in the film than there are pixels in your phone screen, so you can't appreciate the total detail of film on a small phone either.
The thing to consider is choosing the sensor or the film size based on how you want to display the image. Then you pick the best camera for the situation, considering cost, convenience, usability, etc.
I have worked a lot of different analog film cameras and digital ones, and I've noticed that most cameras can take great pictures. You end up paying more for usability and quality. Pro bodies have dedicated buttons and whatnot, so you can accomplish what you need, very quickly.
A touch-screen camera with pure software controls is never going to be for pros, but, cell phones have their moments of better performance for getting the job done.
A cellphone camera is like a piano that plays chords but not individual notes as far as usability. A manual camera lets you do what you want and make up new chords.
Hope that clarifies the image sensor aspect. Aperture helps, but it can never make up for the constraints of the sensor.
> Printing an 8x10 from a cellphone is challenging, and the grain and imperfections are magnified.
Have you verified this personally or seen any data on this? I find this claim very hard to believe. I make several 24x36 prints in a year (albeit from APS-C and FF sensors, but sometimes heavily cropped) and 8x10 is a tiny size that should not present a challenge for any modern cellphone's sensor.
I've used online printing for my cell phone, even pictures from latest iPhones, and they look grainy at 4x6 or 5x7. Maybe it's just a poor printing service. But I spend a lot of time on my computer looking at photos, and the cell phone pics don't look as good. I think some rigorous testing would be a very fun project.
I have been meaning to shoot a roll of ISO 16 film, the CMS20 II by Adox. They claim it can resolve up to 500MP of details.
Would be great to compare to results to full frame with adapted film lens.
Huawei (and probably others) experimented with using multiple cameras to increase light sensitivity. They used monochrome sensors for luminance data along with color sensors. Recently that has fallen out of favor as lenses have improved, bigger apertures have become popular, and sensors themselves have improved, from RGBY sensor in the P30 to various quad-bayer arrangements.
For some reason it's actually a lot less fun taking pictures with my fancy camera these days now that everyone has a pretty decent camera with them all the time. A shame!
True, Samsung has started the megapixel wars again with their 108 megapixel ISOCELL sensor[1] which are being used by couple of manufacturers already & it would be interesting to how Sony responds to it.
It very much seems to be mostly numbers but it really can't back up the claims in actual visual image quality. The noise and required light to get anything near good shots is very high, the DOF on such a large sensor is downright tight, which is nice for making pretty looking shots..but really bad for just someone trying to capture a photo. Even on the S20 Ultra taking a photo of a person from 5 feet away results in the nose and eyes being in completely different focus.
The fact of the matter is that in normal use, a medium format mobile sensor with a moderate pixel count is preferrable. (I.E. iPhone 11 Pro, Pixel 4) as for 95% of shots you want a wide DOF to put all of the content in focus and great per-pixel aperture to reduce exposure time and ISO so you can reduce camera shake and Noise. Even in the shots you want DOF (Portrait), faking it tends to lead to a more adjustable shot where you can correct after the fact instead of being actually stuck in a inch-wide focus gap where any movement of the camera or subject results in out of focus capture.
Plus most photos are posted online in the 1-2MP size. Now cropping is a great extra 5% item, but for those who want really great photos they would have a lot to gain from a much larger sensor with a larger lens and lower MP count to get way less noise and better exposure times (I.e. The Sony A7R IV) Whereas dedicated full-frame equipment just trashes mobile results.
Good points but “medium format” is a term of art in sensor sizes, referring to sensors larger than 24x36mm, such as the sensor in the Fuji GFX.
We went through some “megapixel wars” in the past and it turns out, like you said, there are a lot of tradeoffs here and optimizing for high pixel count means you have to make unacceptable sacrifices elsewhere.
It should be noted that Sony does supply sensors to Nikon, but in Nikon's flagship cameras, the sensors are designed/specced by Nikon, and Sony build them sensors to that spec, and those sensors are not used by anyone else. It is definitely not the case that Sony is just grabbing an already-designed sensor off the shelf for Nikon. And it is pretty much agreed that the Nikon d850 has the best image quality, period. Sony isn't using that sensor in their own cameras, they are not allowed to.
I'm a litte skeptical (Pentax with Sony sensor owner FWIW). Here's DPReview on D850 vs a7RIII
> If anyone tells you that one camera is better than the other, for any particular activity based on image quality, you should laugh at them. In their face, if possible.
Canon makes their own APS-c and fullframe sensors, but they use sony sensors in their smaller cameras, including their "premium compact" g7x and similar cameras, which use the imx183 or imx383 sensors, similar to the sony rx100 series.
Sort of. The high end pro market is barely starting to turn a page and use mirrorless bodies Like the Sony a9/a9II. Nikon and Canon are following a bit behind in mirrorless tech, but are still very much on top of the pro market (for now), mostly due to professional services, support, and glass.
Nikon and Canon both thought mirrorless was a toy and both of them made shitty cameras that are basically point and shoot with interchangable lenses.
As anyone that isn't living under a rock might know, the point and shoot markets are basically annihilated from existence. The professionals/pro-amateurs who care about image quality etc didn't like the Nikon 1 and EOS M.
Out of nowhere, Sony released the E mount Alpha lineup, which reached the #1 position in mirrorless cameras. They also released the Alpha 7, which was AFAIK the first full frame mirrorless (that means the imaging sensor is the same size as 35mm film. Most DSLRs used APS-C sized sensors, which are 1.5 times smaller than 35mm film). This was unprecedented because everyone thought mirrorless was basically a toy.
Both Nikon and Canon have realized their mistakes and recognized mirrorless is serious business and is the future. Nikon has scrapped the Nikon 1 line and started making Nikon Z, which is a super pro/prosumer oriented mirrorless lineup with a full frame sensor. Canon hasn't scrapped the old mirroless line but is pushing the RF mount lineup which is also full frame.
Sony was able to seize the market by being first to market by a long shot, not to mention the vertical integration from their imaging sensor division to deliver quality products. But now that Nikon and Canon entered the game with guns blazing, we'll see what happens to Sony.
One thing of note is that Sony has opened up the E mount spec and allowed 3rd parties to create lenses. As a result there's a fuck ton of 3rd party lenses (most of them of dubious quality, but some are excellent) with autofocus support, and not just from Tamron and Sigma.
It's a really interesting time to be in this hobby/profession IMO.
The M9 isn't a mirrorless, it's a range finder camera (where the view finder sees through a separate optical light path than the main lens). A mirrorless is a DSLR (i.e. what you see through the view finder is exactly what you see through the lens) where the mirrored optical light path for the viewfinder has been replaced by a digital screen, hence mirrorless. Range finder cameras have existed for many decades and have never had mirrors, so they can't be converted to mirrorless in the way that term is now used. The defining characteristic of a mirrorless camera is its digital view finder that sees through the main lens. Without that it can be a range finder camera, a point-and-shoot, hell, even a smartphone, but not a mirrorless.
Well, the word mirrorless implies for me most of all, that it doesn't have a mirror, in contrast to a (D)SLR. Of course, most of the time, mirrorless is used for cameras which have exchangeable lenses and an electronic viewfinder. That is, why I explicitly stated in my post, that while not having a mirror, the M9 didn't have an EVF.
The M(240) then added the EVF, which also precedes the A7.
All of this is a bit of trivia, as most people are not aware of the Leica M series, so I thought it would add to the discussion. The A7 certainly was the first EVF-only mirrorless 35mm camera and was sold in far higher numbers than any digital M.
>Nikon and Canon both thought mirrorless was a toy and both of them made shitty cameras that are basically point and shoot with interchangable lenses.
I hope you realize that live-view shooting was essentially turning a dslr into a mirrorless one (caveat obvious OVF/EVF differences). Canon's dual pixel AF tech is still miles ahead of Sony's PDAF when it comes to low light focusing, and video AF. Each pixel on a canon sensor can be used for AF as well as imaging. Sony uses masked pixels which limits them because they canno't mask too many pixels for fear of IQ degradation, and having fewer AF pixels limits them in low-light focusing.
>Both Nikon and Canon have realized their mistakes and recognized mirrorless is serious business and is the future. Nikon has scrapped the Nikon 1 line and started making Nikon Z, which is a super pro/prosumer oriented mirrorless lineup with a full frame sensor. Canon hasn't scrapped the old mirroless line but is pushing the RF mount lineup which is also full frame.
Or rather, like mature businesses, they realized that they could keep making money with DSLRs and slowly milk them dry and then ramp up mirrorless and make money there too.
>One thing of note is that Sony has opened up the E mount spec and allowed 3rd parties to create lenses.
That's because Sony had no expertise in making high quality professional grade lenses and teamed up with Zeiss and others to help them get up to speed initially.
Most mirrorless had poor AF, crappy menus, poor ergonomics, low battery life, limited lens lineup and very expensive lenses.
Now, this is starting to change somehow but many, me included will wait a few more years because the cost of replacing many pro grade lenses is still very high.
Camera aren't terribly expensive, but if you have 8 - 10 pro grade lenses which will cost on average $2000 to replace with E mount variants that might sound expensive. Particularly if you don't produce more money by switching to mirrorless and buying those lenses.
Yes, the existing lenses out in the field certainly kept Nikon and Canon in their position. Anyone with a large amount of lenses would stronly prefer to upgrade to a compatible camera.
This is what makes their move to mirrorless so tricky. While adapters for the existing lenses exist and work, in the long term you would want to upgrade many of your lenses to their mirrorless counterpart. Especially, if most new lens designs are made for the mirrorless lines.
A7ii isn't quite pro grade but if you want to spend $1000 or so for a full frame camera Canon and Nikon don't come close.
I got sick of the kit lens so I got a cheap used 50mm which can shoot tack sharp and I just unboxed a 90mms macro from the G series and will try it out today.
That’s debatable. The Art line is really good from a technical perspective, but some people feel they don’t have “soul.” I think a bigger problem is that they have no concern for weight. For instance, their 105mm 1.4 is over 3 and a half pounds, and Nikons equivalent lens is a a little over 2 pounds.
That might not seem like a big deal but it certainly is when it’s hanging off of you for a full 12 hour wedding.
That said I still have a Sigma 35mm and 20mm in my kit.
Depends on how you define "best". Sigma has improved a lot in recent years and is generally great value, but Zeiss / Leica / Schneider / etc. are arguably still superior (at much higher prices).
I would call them “good” or “competitive”. There is no such thing as a “best” lens. It’s all about what you are looking for. My “best” lens for portraits is an old manual Pentax lens which is quite flawed but the images just look great.
I’ve been envious of the Sony bodies, but the thought of giving up my Nikon glass meant I wasn’t moving. I’ve been thinking about picking up a z6, but I’m not sure it’s worth the price.
From what I've seen, the D780 is a very well rounded 'best of both worlds' body. And I, having tasted the amazing quality and ease of use of video on the Z50, paired with forever-battery and very good focus system on the D750, am tempted to pick one up.
There's always the dumb adapter that allows you to use without AF (and possibly lose aperture for some lenses) but I think there's like a 300 dollar one (nikon F to sony FE) that lets you use autofocus and whatnot.
But the general consensus is to get rid of your old glass if you're switching to mirrorless because the AF performance with adapters is on the "it barely works enough to not call it unusable" level.
This is a factor in me holding off from switching to mirrorless. Currently using the Nikon D50 which is dated now, and a handful of lenses which I am loath to give up on.
D50 is a great camera. I used one for years until moisture got inside while shooting pics of an incoming hurricane. I only by weather sealed bodies now :)
That's why I sold all if my AF Nikon F lenses and bought just two Panasonic lenses, the 40/2 and 14/2.8. The 14 will be replaced with a Leica 15/1.7 if I ever get serious about photography again. Until then I'm using an old Ricoh GRD 3, which is still amazing - no distorsion, great photo quality, great lens, stellar ergonomics.
Sure, you can get a $500 adapter to mount Nikon glass on a Sony body. There may be advantages (you already own the lenses, it throws a shitload of light onto a small area of the sensor) but there are also disadvantages (running at less than half of the resolution the camera body offers, fully manual operation). I personally wouldn't choose this route for a fancy body like the A9, but I think it's a reasonable choice when using a cheaper MFT body.
Well Fuiji seems to be doing great too but I didnt mention them because they arent one of the top manufacturers for professional cameras at the time. I personally have both an a7ii and xt2, and I much prefer the fuji.
Been wondering about switching to X-Pro2 or X-T2 from Sony a7ii. I can't afford to own both. Any thoughts, or just keep the full frame sony? I don't have any native lenses for either and just adapt analog film lenses
Correct, Fuji sensors are made by Sony and are mostly the same (including the use of Dr-Pix adaptive pixel capacitance), except that Fuji has a nonstandard Bayer pattern.
I think just about everything else about the Fuji cameras is markedly better than Sony's mirrorless offerings. I occasionally wish I had a full-frame sensor, I suppose, but those are very overrated by prosumers.
it would not. I think lens weigh comes entirely from the design and speed of the lens. The designs don't vary that much so I would t consider it. Take the full frame canon 70-200 f4, it weighs 760g, vs the 1.5 crop fuji 50-140 f2.8 which weighs 995g. They are nearly identical in aperture size and focal length, and will produce similar looking images for comparisons sake. All that to say, the amount of glass used is what will determine the size and weight of a lens, not the sensor size. There are many other factors but in general for crop bs full frame there is little difference.
Leica invented 35mm(135) format compact camera, and soon after added a rangefinder framing/focusing system. Nikon cloned it, then replaced the viewfinder with Single Lens Reflex system, a system that uses a mirror behind the lens and a prism in shape of pentagram, forward of viewfinder, to directly view through the lens to frame/focus.
Those were introduced in 1930s and 1950s respectively. Since the launch of Nikon F in 1959 until some time in 2010s the viewfinder technology didn't change. Means shutter became metal and electronic, autofocus invented, man went to the Moon and back, digital CCD/CMOS photography came around, Sun goes down but mirror and prism SLR technology of 1950s just kept on.
One of the reasons why mirrorless didn't appear sooner is because LCDs or OLEDs viewfinder suck(ed). They used to be in SVGA or XGA resolutions, refresh at 30-60Hz or less, few hundreds ms late, dim, power hungry and whatnot. Wasn't so advantageous in terms of weight or cost as well. Optical quality of SLR viewfinder never disappointed its users on the other hand. It is and always had been a joy to be able to just look into it and see through the lens, especially when films take hours to develop.
Sony, however, knew that no one uses viewfinder in a point and shoot digital cameras, or no one has any problems without SLR viewfinder in video cameras, dad on holidays and professional broadcasters alike. So after they merged camera division from Konica Minolta in 2006, they just walked out and spoke out the obvious. Camera nerds were shocked, I was shocked, so were Nikon and Canon. Leica may have been laughing, Zeiss was happy collecting licensing fees. I was skeptical, and I could verify it feels very disappointing looking into EVF. But Sony knew it ain't a problem and it wasn't.
Nikon and Canon probably thought the quality of EVF never satisfies professional photographers, from their narrow expertise.
> I was skeptical, and I could verify it feels very disappointing looking into EVF.
My reaction is the opposite. I always felt disappointed by how primitive the optical view finder on modern cameras is versus electronic ones. It doesn't get the light levels right and it can barely show you any relevant information; there needs to be a separate 7-segment display on the body showing pertinent information. How primitive!
EVFs, on the contrast, show you everything you need to know right in the viewfinder (including advanced features like histograms, zebra stripes, etc., that an optical viewfinder could never possibly do).
I think good EVFs were available since about 2013. I compared the optical viewfinder of the Canon 5D with the electronic of the Olympus E-M1, and the EVF of the Olympus offered an equally large image, that also was brighter if the outside light wasn't very strong. The only complaint might be the limited resolution, but since then much higher resolution viewfinders have become available. And basically any optical viewfinder for smaller than 35mm formats is inferior, because the amount of light in the smaller format makes building of a large and bright optical viewfinder basically impossible
The big advantage of EVFs is that it can do so much more than an optical viewfinder. You can enlarge it, display focus peaking, but most of all, you get a preview of the image you would take - especially previewing the exposure is very helpful. And of course, if you want to do video, the viewfinder of a SLR wouldn't be usable at all.
>Nikon cloned it, then replaced the viewfinder with Single Lens Reflex system
As far as I know Nikon started off making Contax clones, not Leica clones. Canon did Leica clones, though.
Keep in mind that Leicas up until the M3 didn't have a combined viewfinder/rangefinder. That was an innovation from Zeiss first used in the Contax II.
And there's been quite a few SLRs before the Nikon F, it was just Nikon that made it so solid and efficient that made professional photographers switch from using a rangefinder to SLR.
Mirrorless is electrically and mechanially a MUCH MUCH MUCH simpler design (SLR is essentially two cameras in one, with the pentaprism allowing light to go to a second sensor used for autofocus, and also to your eye) and it has a lot of compromises in complexity, reliability, and performance.
Mirrorless allows the camera to use the image sensor itself to do all the work. That means autofocus can be much better, using every pixel on the sensor for autofocus. It means you can run computer vision software in real time to do fancy things, like finding out if there are eyes in the image - most likely, you want the eyes to be in focus. You can focus in near darkness, when it's too dark for you to see. And other stuff.
The biggest downsides are 1) the electronic viewfinder, these are not as nice for most people, but with the big caveat that they do allow you to frame an image in near total darkness where an SLR wouldn't allow you to do that and 2) the big one is battery life, it is 5-10X worse with mirrorless than with SLR.
As someone who wears glasses, I can use the optical viewfinder on my Nikon D850 without specs but need my glasses to use liveview, e.g. when shooting video. The D850 lets you set the viewfinder close to the prescription of your glasses.
Nikon and Canon's flagship products are DSLRs, which are cameras that have an analog viewfinder and a moving mirror inside to redirect the image to either the viewfinder or sensor. Mirrorless cameras use an LCD viewfinder instead.
The biggest things holding back mirrorless technology previously was battery life and autofocus technology. I am not sure why Nikon and Canon didn't invest more into mirrorless technology sooner, and I'm no photography expert, but I think they were just too entrenched in the DSLR technologies they pioneered.
They are in the same trap as traditional car manufacturers are with combustion engine cars. The profits are in the established technology, yet the writing is on the wall for the new technology. You know where the market is going eventually, but for sure you don't want to disrupt your current revenue stream until the new technology is really ready to replace the old one.
For many years, basically Nikon and Canon split up the "professional" market between each other. They already had this position with analog SLRs, and continued after the transition to digital. The reason is a mix of having very good cameras, a large lens setup, especially considering the more exotic/expensive lenses mostly used by professionals and most importantly, with the service organizations. At each olympics, they would have large service centers on-site, for repair and exchange. And also outside of these events, they have services networks which enable a professional to get the equipment serviced/exchanged with loaners in minimal time, which is a very obvious benefit. Which basically prevented other brands to make a huge inroads in the professional markets.
So their profits were driven by the established systems. They were milking this cash cow and consequently were late to the mirrorless game. Their recent offerings are nice, especially Canon has some very interesting lenses for their new mirrorless system, but even for those companies it takes a whole lot of time to have a remotely complete lens offering.
It might also be worth while to look beyond the 35mm format. In 2013 Olympus brought the OMD E-M1 to the market, which was possibly the first mirrorless camera, not only matching but in a few aspecs exceeding the performance of comparable DSLRs. This shows, how much Canon and Nikon are lagging behind.
”They are in the same trap as traditional car manufacturers are with combustion engine cars. The profits are in the established technology, yet the writing is on the wall for the new technology. You know where the market is going eventually, but for sure you don't want to disrupt your current revenue stream until the new technology is really ready to replace the old one.”
I think that’s it. But it seems they are catching up very quickly now. The upcoming EOS R5 looks like a very good camera.
Yes, they have good cameras on offer, but you could see, that Sony, Olympus and Panasonic have a few years more experience to polish their features.
The big challange will be to switch their customer base over, that will be a long process.
> I am not sure why Nikon and Canon didn't invest more into mirrorless technology sooner, and I'm no photography expert, but I think they were just too entrenched in the DSLR technologies they pioneered.
You nailed it on the head for the most part.
Nikon had a mirrorless camera in the J1 series, which had some very nifty features but was just an absurdly expensive system for what you got (especially since it is basically a dead end, proprietary platform.)
Canon did a bit better with their first MILCs, but they weren't amazing. At the time they were introduced Canon suffered from a lack of on-sensor Phase Detection AF, and Contrast detection systems weren't as fast as they are now.
I mean, a big issue is glass; While there are exceptions to this, you can't just re-use an existing lens design on a mirrorless without making the thing longer than it needs to be (Which looks off on a Mirrorless.) Which means that Nikon/Canon can't just release the 18-55 EFAF Mark 10 lens.
Designing proper lenses takes time and money. I mean, the first few years I had an E-mount, the pickings were slim for lenses, while the a6000 was a good start it wasn't till the A7II and A7RII with their ability to do usable PDAF with adapted lenses that the platform felt safe to pick up.
But is that really the plan, to build an entirely new assortment of lenses, to avoid making the bidy wider than needed? It seems like the benefit with mirrorless would mostly be other things than size...?
There’s an added benefit - shorter flange distance/ larger mount diameter. Nikon especially went with a large mount. A larger mount = potential for faster glass.
But also think about it from a marketing perspective - even now most people buying cameras aren’t professionals. A big bulky camera right next to a svelte one in a store will look dated. That said Sony went too far with it, in my opinion. A nice grip is important for professionals.
Faster is taken to mean that a lens has a larger maximum aperture, meaning more light gets in, so you can use a faster shutter speed, and hence get less motion blurring. Non-intuitively, because depth of field gets smaller as the aperture increases, faster lenses can also offer better separation of the subject from foreground / background features
For purely photo Nikon has gone from “no reason to exist anymore” to “tolerable”. But if you care about video it’s hard not to view mirrorless as a two horse race between Sony and Panasonic. (Sony is much better at the full frame/high end in a lot of ways but Panasonic offers a ton of value for the money; my G9 is a tremendous performer for both photo and video.)
“Through the establishment of Sony Electronics Corporation, Sony will not only accelerate the integrated operation of the EP&S businesses,” reads the release, “but also aim to optimize its organizational structure, talent and business portfolio, while further enhancing competitiveness and creating new business.”
Man, this reads like someone got it from a corporate text generator.
It's almost certainly a translation from Japanese. The "not only...but also..." pattern is giveaway, plus the rather long sentence stitched together with "while". It can be really hard to force Japanese into natural sounding English.
> spinning off its entire “Electronics Products & Solutions” (EP&S) segment... into an intermediate holding company...
> Restructuring like this happens all the time, often with little to no effect on consumers.
Seems barely newsworthy, just an internal reorg. Not really sure why this is so upvoted. It's not like they're rebranding or bringing in outside investors or doing it to an underperforming division in obvious preparation for selling it.
It means the EPS business is healthy enough to sail on its own. It may also means easier partnerships with entities that wouldn’t have stuck with Sony as a whole, in particular in these times where serious competitors are emerging.
The division has been doing a very good job for a long time,
it feels like a pretty promising news overall.
For those not keeping up with the consumer and pro digital camera scene, nearly all brands (except Canon?) buy Sony sensors for their cameras.[1] Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus, etc.
I remember reading somewhere that Canon does this on purpose. For example, Sony cameras are known to have overheating problems that Canon doesn’t have, because they value reliability more than being on the cutting edge.
The other main reason is that upgrading the tooling for sensor fabrication is super super expensive, and Canon has historically used the high-volume entry level camera market to subsidize this, while sony uses their smarphone business to subsidize it. Canons entry level camera market is tanking just like everyone elses which probably made them weary of such investments in the past few years (till Sony came and stole their lunch). It seems like they've decided to go for the high end high-profit segment. I'm super interested to see what kind of sensor there is in the R5. They're probably not at A9 read-speeds quite yet, but it will be interesting to see how close they've gotten.
Cool, I appreciate the link. The truth is unclear because there is physical evidence suggesting the contrary. For example, the Nikon D850 is referred to in your link, yet here are teardowns which confirm the sensor wears a Sony part number.[1][2]
And it seems well supported that, historically, many Nikon cameras have Sony model numbers on their sensors.[3][4]
Based on all this, the easiest explanation (and fairly consistent what both of us have shared) might be that Nikon does the design and or specification, and then Sony fabricates. The bar to fabrication is much higher than the bar to design, from what I understand, though I do not work in semiconductors.
Thanks for the links. Having a part number on something is frankly meaningless unless the inside story is presented (as is done in the link that I mentioned, even though there is an element of promotion from Nikon). I don't know if you're familiar with Imaging Resource and Dave Etchells but they are hardcore geeks who have been reporting objectively on cameras for over two decades. They stay clear of the usual click-bait that camera gear websites have become. I've gone down this rabbit-hole when I was researching imaging sensor tech a few months ago, and that is why its fresh on my mind. I too don't work in semiconductors, I work in biotech. If you care to learn more about this, IISW workshops are a great resource.
Samsung was in this space too. Gave it up ahead of the curve, seeing how people don't buy cameras anymore. It wasn't a very profitable business for Samsung, despite making a great camera system.
Sony jumped out ahead too. But hasn't really innovated in the last round. They were the best in autofocus, but Canon has great autofocus too. Canon Beats Sony with much more pleasing image colors, and huge lens selection. Panasonic has better stabilization, and makes better video cameras.
I would compare Sony to a 1 inch thick Razor Gaming Laptop. Great on specs. Kind of sucks as a laptop. Still Sony has a very popular midrange camera system. And their low light performance is the best.
I'm curious as to why you say they haven't really innovated in the last round? "Real-time tracking AF" was pretty mind-blowing at release and forced Canon and Nikon to spend the past year making firmware updates to their bodies to try to get closer. Not to mention that the Sony A7RIV debuted their 61MP sensor. In reality, the cameras available on the market today are amazing and take excellent photos in most conditions. Rather than trying to push the envelope I'd much rather see some of these companies try to refine their products to make them nicer to use.
You could definitely make the claims about lack of innovation in the latest A6XXX series and the A9II though, both of those were small iterative upgrades that ignored some very real issues with those cameras.
I don't want to get into an argument about specs. Huawei and Samsung just released a 100 MP phone this month. So even in the specs department, Sony is behind, and was no further ahead than phones back then.
Increasing mega pixel count, and adding eye tracking is not that innovative. Computers could do eye tracking for a long time.
Also for video, really fast auto focus is not always desirable. Sometimes you want a slower smoother ramp.
You also don't want everything to be in focus, often you want things to be blurred out in the background, to bring attention to your subject. The small choice of lenses, really limits how you can do that on a sony camera.
The lack of stabilization, horrible rolling shutter, and plastic look to their image, with awful skin tones, is what Sony should innovate on.
Here's a video comparison of skin tones. This girl switched from a $500 Canon g7x mark ii to a $1000 Sony RX one generation ahead. Canon has 1080p, Sony 4k. You would thing it would be an easy win for the Sony. But sony somehow Sony manages to bring out every blemish and adds a green tone to her face.
I don't want to get into an argument about specs either, because in the end all that matters is whether you can get the shot. From a technological standpoint there is a significant difference between the 1/1.8" sensor or whatever those 108MP sensors are, and a 61MP FF sensor in a high end camera.
How does computers doing eye tracking have anything to do with whether is is impressive that a handheld camera can do it? It is the implementation in a compact, low power device that is innovative.
Re-framing the discussion to be about video here doesn't help your argument at all. Having fast autofocus means that you can choose how smooth transitions are, better autofocus just allows you to better control how your camera reacts to a situation. Sony doesn't have a small choice of lenses, they have the largest native selection of lenses of any mirrorless system and really have very few holes at this point.
I don't know why you are comparing two compact 1" class prosumer point and shoot cameras when this discussion was about mirrorless cameras. Similar to RAW for stills, when it comes to video, if you really care about skin tones you will probably be shooting in log and doing your own colour grading or at the very least creating your own picture profiles with your preferred adjustments.
“Rather than trying to push the envelope I'd much rather see some of these companies try to refine their products to make them nicer to use.”
Same for my Fuji X-T3. It’s a great camera but there a few annoyances that get mentioned on a lot of forums (meaning I am not the only one) but they aren’t being addressed although it would be a simple change.
I have the Samsung NX300 mirrorless camera sitting in a drawer. It was actually a fantastic camera for its time, quite a lot like the Sony A6xxxx series (I have the A6300), and with very good lenses such as the 20mm pancake.
I have a "1 inch thick Razor Gaming Laptop". It's an absolutely fantastic notebook computer. It can maintain high power states indefinitely with two huge bottom mounted intake fans. Excellent mobile workstation.
Seems like this is affecting more than just their camera business.
Do we know which division the PlayStation now falls under? This is a big year, with the next generation consoles just around the corner. So far, Sony has been keeping a low profile relative to Microsoft, and I think it's been harming their image a bit. I'd hate to see this sort of a corporate restructuring (perhaps forcing a change of company name?) pull the attention away from their new tech, new games, and plans for the next decade.
PlayStation is under Sony Interactive Entertainment. To be honest PlayStation is very important for Sony so I would not worry. Sony can change their name all they want but the PlayStation brand is incredibly valuable due to its cultural significance.
Can someone better-versed in corporate organizational strategy explain the advantages of spinning off a company that remains under the same conglomerate umbrella? I can understand it as an intermediate step to prepare a business unit for a sale, but what other motivations are there?
You might be giving it more autonomy as a unit to operate than possible as a unit within a larger organization. Letting it operate as its own company with it's own revenues and statements and all is also good for investors for greater transparency (why Google restructured to become alphabet for example). They might divest it or have it IPO separately (and it sounds like they are trying to simplify their business so that might be in the works) but just giving it the full freedom to operate as its own company might be worth it in its own.
My guess is they want to separate the balance sheet of something that is subscription based (like entertainment) vs. something with a lot of factories and capital investment. The debt structure and cyclical variations are probably quite different.
It limits the parent company's liabilities for one. If, for some reason, the camera division starts hemorrhaging money they can just cut it off or let it go bankrupt without harming the parent company too much.
If activist investors are so effective in demanding change, why don't more of them push for more changes in chaebols like Samsung? Seems like the more simplification there are, the more efficiency can be gained and the greater the stockholder return.
This is an important question, as the vast majority of high-end smartphone and other camera sensors are manufactured by them (Canon is the notable exception as a company that doesn't use Sony sensors) and it's a very profitable business.
If I understand correctly from the official announcement the three sub-companies are going to be "Imaging Products & Solutions", "Home Entertainment & Sound" and "Mobile Communications" - the sensor business would fall pretty neatly into the first one.
For anyone following the madness and joy that is cameras and cameras releases... Can I plug my fav Youtube Camera Channel. "Camera Conspiracies". This dude is real fun to watch and not as clinical as many others that just list the features and some test shots. He is on the "hunt" for the perfect camera now for years. Uploads few times a week. Casey if you reading this... Keep up the good work man ! Spoiler the channel is not a fan of Sony Cameras.
Minolta had been sold to Konica by that point, but yes, the Sony α line was once Minolta's α/Maxxum/Dynax line and some of the Konica Minolta P&S and bridge camera development came over as well (with changes related to the use of Memory Stick and other Sony touches rather than what Konica Minolta had been using in the non-SLR lineup).
This makes a lot of sense to me, the camera business is pretty standalone and has been on my wishlist for a while. That said, Sony as an industrial conglomerate appears to be spinning apart. It will be interesting to see where that leads.
For starters, professionals in the photography business. They're also moving to mirrorless because lugging around SLRs and lenses is intrinsically heavier due to the engineering limitations.
Sony also is a leading manufacturer of smartphone sensors. So the shift from cameras to smartphones doesn't impact their business as it would for a pure camera maker.
Lots of people. I work with a lot of activists. Lots of folks like us are making moves now that most of the pieces are off of the board, locked in their homes. Lots of big buys and handshakes.
Did you switch from another camera? I use the Nikon D50, an older camera but still functional with a number of lenses, and have been eyeing a switch to mirrorless, particularly to the Z50.
I have had dedicated cameras before but in effect this was brand new.
Personally I love it. It's small and light but has a great feel in the hand and although the photos I take are bad I am sure it's me and not the camera.
If you have older F mount glass you can get the adapter and use the lenses no problem, but check the compatibility for AF.
I'd recommend it easily to anyone looking into mirrorless.
I do know about the adapter and am aware it's not a perfect solution due to compatibility. I could always sell my current lenses (a wide, a micro, a telephoto, a fisheye, and a normal) to fund the purchase of new Z lenses, but there doesn't seem to be 1-to-1 replacements available yet. Have no idea whether they are in the pipeline or not, but then again the adapter may help bridge the gap. Decisions, decisions.
How is the battery life for the Z50? I've read that is a common issue with new mirrorless rigs.
I've seen lots of photos from the Z bodies with adapted lenses and they look great! But the new Z lenses are all top of the line and very high quality. Even the two kit zooms I got with the Z50 are quite nice. They're making more but some have been delayed due to the pandemic. No micro yet but they have two on the lens roadmap with an unspecified date [1].
The battery life is just ok, not great. Mirrorless as a whole has worse life because it's always using the sensor unlike DSLRs but the Z50 doesn't set itself apart there. I keep an extra battery with me for the times I'm going out with the intention of taking a lot of pictures but I've only had to switch once or twice.
Good to know about the lens roadmap and battery life. I have a second battery for my D50 for much the same reason, though life is pretty good and seldom runs out on me mid-usage.
The Z50 with the two kit lenses looks like it could replace my D50 + 18-70mm + 70-300mm; the new 50-250mm lens has a shorter reach but shouldn't be a big issue on a crop sensor, and would be lighter than the 70-300mm. Using the adaptor to allow use of the wide and micro lens may tide me over until Z equivalents are available. Reading reviews and watching for a good sale is where I'm at now.
I bet you'd enjoy it! Nikon is running a promo where you can buy the camera from them and return within 30 days no questions asked, if you want some insurance before the plunge. It might be US only though.
Sorry, I meant amid the crisis. The camera division was about to see a major downturn on devices sold for the next two years as society in general avoids travel.
I don't think photography depends on travel. I bought a Nikon Z6 at Christmas time this year. My main use is to take pictures of my kids. I'll still be doing that regardless of if we are on a trip to Europe or hanging out in the backyard.
Sure, I agree that photography doesn't require a fancy camera. I'm just saying that plenty of people _do_ still buy dedicated cameras. It's not dead yet.
Dunno. To me it seems that every girl is eager to get good photosessions especially after the makeup skincare boom in the recent years. Prosumers are buying a lot of gear.
It is just not that monetary... You have a lot of prosumer shooters and models.
And of course you have hobbyists with street and landscape.
Also videographers.
And pros.
And do not forget thay good glass lifespan measures in decades and good bodies last quite a lot.
There is a lot of shooting going on. Just not a lot of hardware sales.
But if you want to measure the market - don't look at nikon, look at godox/neerwer
