rbf_ wrote:
There is a lot we don't know as I'm sure there's mountains of contracts in many different languages here. I'm also mystified by why he would make such comments or whether it was just a mistranslation but the fallout could be huge. Sony's global image sensor business is likely many times larger than their mirrorless ILC business ever hopes to be. ILC as a market has been shrinking and many are actually losing money. Imaging sensor businesses are big money because of smartphones and other small imaging devices.
I honestly think this is a miss translation and news that probably should have not been public at the moment. Without contracts in place than maybe this is not prime time to publish it.
GMPhotography wrote:
Thats very true but they can dictate on who and what they are selling to what customer as well. Your a small business lets say and you make rubber ducks to sell online, are you going to sell to another company that is your competitor that same product that may sell it for cheaper and run you out of business. Probably not but you will sell it to consumers. Now lets go back and say you do sell it to your competitors for a profit are you going to give them something not as fancy fancy lets say or sell them the same thing. As a business and competitor Im not going to sell them the fancy dancy rubber duck. Im going to sell them the lessor product so it does not compete with my brand....Show more →
The problem is that with the camera market contracting so viciously Sony really doesn't have a choice over who they sell their sensors to. Nikon is the largest volume camera manufacturer using someone else's sensors - Canon makes most of their own and the MFT market is fragmented. Nikon wouldn't accept less than state-of-the-art from Sony. Because of this I actually believe Nikon has the upper hand in their business relationship.
snapsy wrote:
The problem is that with the camera market contracting so viciously Sony really doesn't have a choice over who they sell their sensors to. Nikon is the largest volume camera manufacturer using someone else's sensors - Canon makes most of their own and the MFT market is fragmented. Nikon wouldn't accept less than state-of-the-art from Sony. Because of this I actually believe Nikon has the upper hand in their business relationship.
I am not so sure about that...the D3x at $8000 sharing a lot with the Sony A900 at $3000 showed that Nikon would pay anything to trump Canon. Sony really stuck it to them for the privilege of using that sensor.
mogul wrote:
I am not so sure about that...the D3x at $8000 sharing a lot with the Sony A900 at $3000 showed that Nikon would pay anything to trump Canon. Sony really stuck it to them for the privilege of using that sensor.
That presumes Nikon charged $8000 for that camera due to the cost of the sensor. I'm doubtful that's the case.
GMPhotography wrote:
I honestly think this is a miss translation and news that probably should have not been public at the moment. Without contracts in place than maybe this is not prime time to publish it.
Yeah but I also found the part about complaining about competing with products they 'already released' and the problem of 'sufficiency' very troubling. I appreciate a good quality product that you can use for many years or even decades. I know people love their old classic lenses and I do too. He apparently views 'us', the customers, as a problem for this. As if one who buys a quality product, likes it and uses it for a good long time is worthy of derision. Most people, the majority of customers do not upgrade on every product cycle and shouldn't have to. If it's a quality product it should last. I don't want a yearly gear tax from manufacturers where they expect every release they make is bought by all. I'm also skeptical of the software subscription model as well. Certainly don't belittle your own customers who are happy with your product though. I've heard this rhetoric here in the US as well from some people. I mean, just because a company makes a new release doesn't mean everyone owes them money.
bjornthun wrote:
.... The speed gains in mirrorless is very much about computingvpower and fast throughput of data, which reminds me about PCs and their ever increasing performance. With DSLRs speed is very much about mechanical parts and creating a fast moving mirror assembly, and that's never going to be cheap. There isn't the same trickle down effect for the mechanical parts of a high end DSLR to low end DSLRs, but for the sensor tech there is. ....
+1, Optical curvature effects can be easily compensated by MILC AF system than DSLR's. This yields higher AF precision on MILC than DSLR for most fast lenses application. Beside the sensor, based on cost and limited performance per mirror(s) constraint(s), DSLR can't compete with MILC in the long run.
rbf_ wrote:
I could see serious lawsuits here given the previous information I've been presented; information I used as a rationale as to whether buying a camera system & lenses with a Sony sensor in it was "safe" or not
The is zero chance of being able to bring any sort of lawsuit over this. History is littered with cases of manufacturers discontinuing components which left third parties and customers in the lurch. Unless you have a contract that makes certain guarantees there's nothing you can do.
rbf_ wrote:
Fujifilm was forced to redesign both XP2 & XT2 due to these failures to deliver in-spec product by Sony. It resulted in over 6 months delay maybe even a year.
Source?
rbf_ wrote:
Sony claims that none of their MF customers asked for them soon enough even though they had them on their FF sensors knowing their value full well. Suspect at best.
If by "suspect" you mean completely sensible business practice, then yes. When the 44x33 CMOS sensor was being developed, all of the potential customers had dedicated phase detect sensors in their cameras, so why would Sony include features no-one needed or asked for especially if they had no plans to use the sensor internally. The Fuji GFX and Hasselblad X1D came along a long time after this sensor was originally designed.
Bespoked wrote:
I always thought Nikon made Sony look bad when they took the 36mp sensor and had it produce a better image, more DR, nicer colours etc.
Except that they didn't. Firstly colours are subjective, Sony cameras tend to produce more accurate colours, some people prefer inaccurate colours and consider them to be "better".
Secondly the D800 has the same DR as the A7R, the D810 has more DR because it's a different sensor. It's a 4th gen Exmor with increased full well capacity, compared to the 3rd gen (A7R/D800) and 5th gen (a BSI version of the 3rd gen - A7RII).
So Sony made themselves look bad by selling the D810 sensor to Nikon who managed to get all the credit! Maybe this is why they're reluctant to do the same thing next time round...
I do think we may read too much into all of this It is possible that Sony were not in position to implement the new sensor and much better to benefit from the income stream from Nikon at the time.
In my discussions, a lot the delays are related to the damage that was caused by the earthquakes last year and it is only now that Nikon is finally catching up on stock and spare parts. Both Sony and Nikon were affected in so many areas.
I am sure behind the scenes Sony will continue to supply the sensors to various manufacturers, but on a marketing front they must appear that Sony has the best and latest. If Sony's intent was to be that blatant the interview would not have been withdrawn so quickly. Some one no doubt messed up and there would be questions why this was even discussed even if this was the intent!
Matt Grum wrote:
Except that they didn't. Firstly colours are subjective, Sony cameras tend to produce more accurate colours, some people prefer inaccurate colours and consider them to be "better".
Secondly the D800 has the same DR as the A7R, the D810 has more DR because it's a different sensor. It's a 4th gen Exmor with increased full well capacity, compared to the 3rd gen (A7R/D800) and 5th gen (a BSI version of the 3rd gen - A7RII).
So Sony made themselves look bad by selling the D810 sensor to Nikon who managed to get all the credit! Maybe this is why they're reluctant to do the same thing next time round...
I do not feel this made Sony look bad at all. The sensor technology is ongoing development and demonstrates the strength of Sony as a group, rather than any negatives.
And many other interviews with Fuji execs where they talk about issues with heat generation and 4k with the new bodies and the delays they caused. New heat sinks, form factor and a new battery that generates less heat. It's my understanding that a number of others manufacturers bodies waiting for same sensor were also delayed but I don't track them. A case where the 'rumors' were 'right'.
charles.K wrote:
I do not feel this made Sony look bad at all. The sensor technology is ongoing development and demonstrates the strength of Sony as a group, rather than any negatives.
Most people don't consider the D810 to be a different sensor, though (Wikipedia even states [incorrectly] that it is the same sensor). The prevailing opinion is that Nikon took the A7R sensor and through their own ingenuity managed to squeeze another stop of DR from it, whereas in reality Sony redesigned the sensor in order to gain a stop in DR! This erroneous idea that Sony aren't clever enough to get the best performance from their own sensors whilst Nikon are is what makes them look bad.
It is possible that Sony were not in position to implement the new sensor and much better to benefit from the income stream from Nikon at the time.