Yes they are... And they will lose their customer base over time . Other manufacturers are catching up fast, on their heels as we speak. Choice is good
Atlasman2 wrote:
The next iteration of the A1 better be more than just a few software features like focus breathing compensation and DCI recording. But I'm sure the FX line would like exclusivity on these features, but it would be penny wise, pound foolish on the part of Sony Imaging.
Sony is taking a hit on good will with these unexplainable policies.
I check in on this thread every now and then to be amused over the hand-wringing and whining. I have never bought a camera expecting firmware updates to add functionality. Fix bugs, yes. Even that historically has been minor in all of the bodies I owned. I've owned Nikon, Canon, Leica and Sony professional bodies and all have been top of the line models at the time. None of them ever got any substantive additions of functionality in the time I owned them.
In recent years we saw Canon and Nikon both do this with their mirrorless bodies, but lets be honest, both were rushing to release products that were clearly flawed or half-baked at launch, and they *needed* updates to address serious issues. I sure as heck don't want Sony taking that approach.
As for the firmware complaints around 1.31, I don't understand it. I shoot mostly birds and animals. I've taken at least 100,000 shots per year the last few years with the A1 and I honestly can't see any significant difference with the percentage of "keepers." Even the "improvements" to the eyeAF were minor at best, and I certainly haven't seen any loss of results with the new firmware.
As for speculation as to what Sony *can* do with a firmware update, it's all that, speculation. None of us know anything about what's really in the guts of these cameras. A firmware update has more dependencies than just the name of a processor. As an example, we have no idea if the various versions of the Bionz XR processors share anything more than a name--they could, for example, have some fabbed on newer processes that allow for lower energy consumption and greater clock frequencies and therefore more "power" to spare than the A1's Bionz XR.
jhapeman wrote:
As for speculation as to what Sony *can* do with a firmware update, it's all that, speculation. None of us know anything about what's really in the guts of these cameras. A firmware update has more dependencies than just the name of a processor. As an example, we have no idea if the various versions of the Bionz XR processors share anything more than a name--they could, for example, have some fabbed on newer processes that allow for lower energy consumption and greater clock frequencies and therefore more "power" to spare than the A1's Bionz XR.
Your post is pretty condescending (/makes you come off as a Sony apologist) and contains a lot of misinformation (A9 - realtime tracking / eyeAF introduction was nothing I guess), so I'll only comment on the last part:
I'm not sure if you're aware that what you're suggesting makes Sony look even worse. Software development is not rocket science. If the color of AF box is tied to a specific processor revision in your product, you should hand over firmware development to somebody who actually knows what he's doing...
j4nu wrote:
Your post is pretty condescending (/makes you come off as a Sony apologist) and contains a lot of misinformation (A9 - realtime tracking / eyeAF introduction was nothing I guess), so I'll only comment on the last part:
I'm not sure if you're aware that what you're suggesting makes Sony look even worse. Software development is not rocket science. If the color of AF box is tied to a specific processor revision in your product, you should hand over firmware development to somebody who actually knows what he's doing...
you are directly contradicting yourself.
you praised sony for adding real-time tracking that no other company has, in a firmware update, then trolling sony by claiming that they should "hand over firmware development to somebody who actually knows what they are doing".
sony leads the industry in technology, they obviously do know what they are doing, you are posting nonsense, lol
I still think Sony will have to cave for market pressures eventually, just as Canon will cave and allow 3rd party lenses. Sony is getting slammed in industry press, on YouTube by influencers, on forums by loyal users, etc -- it is ridiculous that the flagship model doesn't get relevant updates.
Maybe they're testing/evaluating the firmware, let's hope they're doing their due diligence and not go through the fiasco the R5 users went through last year.
osv2 wrote:
you are directly contradicting yourself.
you praised sony for adding real-time tracking that no other company has, in a firmware update, then trolling sony by claiming that they should "hand over firmware development to somebody who actually knows what they are doing".
sony leads the industry in technology, they obviously do know what they are doing, you are posting nonsense, lol
Well, not really - because I don't believe there is a technical reason why A1 can't get some features from its younger siblings. I think it's 95% management decision to maintain models split / boost new models sales.
The reason I leave out that 5% is because my impression coming from Sony firmware deliveries is that their process is quite complex and takes a lot of resources to deliver (e.g. that issue with A7IV card mid-upgrade, where some people reported the camera stopped responding but was brought back to life when new firmware was placed on the card). So, to me it's not tech capabilities of certain models per se, but rather the process Sony uses to develop, test and deliver new firmware.
I'll also say it would actually benefit Sony if they had a consistent firmware across one generation (cpu) of cameras. Consumers would then know what to expect when they for example buy A7SIII for more movie-oriented work, while already having A7RV for stills (ooops - we would need consistent naming then too)... I think this is basic product/portfolio management, but that is of course only my opinion .
Do you really think full-time DMF requires an AI co-processor (or whatever other tech in A7RV, that is not present in A1?) to work?
j4nu wrote:
Well, not really - because I don't believe there is a technical reason why A1 can't get some features from its younger siblings. I think it's 95% management decision to maintain models split / boost new models sales.
The reason I leave out that 5% is because my impression coming from Sony firmware deliveries is that their process is quite complex and takes a lot of resources to deliver (e.g. that issue with A7IV card mid-upgrade, where some people reported the camera stopped responding but was brought back to life when new firmware was placed on the card). So, to me it's not tech capabilities of certain models per se, but rather the process Sony uses to develop, test and deliver new firmware.
I'll also say it would actually benefit Sony if they had a consistent firmware across one generation (cpu) of cameras. Consumers would then know what to expect when they for example buy A7SIII for more movie-oriented work, while already having A7RV for stills (ooops - we would need consistent naming then too)... I think this is basic product/portfolio management, but that is of course only my opinion .
Do you really think full-time DMF requires an AI co-processor (or whatever other tech in A7RV, that is not present in A1?) to work?...Show more →
i agree to the extent that withholding features that other sony models have is a management decision, and it's not the first time they've done it... my biggest gripe was how long it took sony to implement 4kp60, when the competition already had it.
we did get at least a couple of new features with a1 firmware:
Firmware v1.30
- Allows you to select M and S sizes in addition to L when using the RAW recording lossless compression method
- Adds the 4:2:2 10bit selection when shooting XAVC HS 8K
- Allows proxy recording during a remote computer connection
the a1 has 8kp30, but the a7rv doesn't? so it's not like the a1 is lacking everything that other cameras have.
j4nu wrote:
Your post is pretty condescending (/makes you come off as a Sony apologist) and contains a lot of misinformation (A9 - realtime tracking / eyeAF introduction was nothing I guess), so I'll only comment on the last part:
I'm not sure if you're aware that what you're suggesting makes Sony look even worse. Software development is not rocket science. If the color of AF box is tied to a specific processor revision in your product, you should hand over firmware development to somebody who actually knows what he's doing...
One practical question that no one knows the answer to except some people working at Sony is what are the actual resources that Sony dedicates to software updates? I can imagine they have dedicated teams working on a1 mark II, a7V, or a7RVI etc., but do they have any meaningful significant resources dedicated to software updates? Sony has demonstrated excellence in pushing the technology forward. Let's just recall how the announcements of a1, the 35 F1.4, 50 F1.2, 70-200 GM II made many Sony users ecstatic. It is possible that Sony has a couple of guys (or girls) entrusted with the software updates, working somewhere in the background, but no more than that. Sony makes the impression of a company prioritizing new technology development. This is what I personally appreciate and why I am willing to invest in this company now and in the future.
It is still debatable whether there is something wrong with the a1 and the latest FW. My own experience is mixed. When using the Tamron 35-150 on a1, I have absolutely no problems with the AF. I could do BIF without difficulty, even if the lens is totally not right for BIF. When using the 200-600, my feeling is very different and I am willing to agree that there might be some problem with the AF. Is this the problem of the camera, or the lens, or my skills - I wish I knew! These conflicting feelings mirror the users' experience on this thread: some say there is a problem, others claim that a1 performs flawlessly. My own suspicion at the moment is that there might be something fishy about the 200-600 on a1 with the latest FW that other lenses do not suffer from.
I do think we'll get the firmware eventually, though I don't know what it'll contain. Personnally I'll take any improvement in AF performance and focus stacking, though I know others want much more. With the A1 Sony has been at or very near the top of the heap and as has been said many times in this thread, it's very easy to go the wrong way, be it with performance, lockups, etc. which means everytime Sony releases firmware there's a risk. The question is what is the reward for them. Pressure is mounting both in competitive performance and public sentiment; we'll see if it's enough.
More generically, I'm interested in what the big manufacturers do with firmware updates. We tend to talk about great companies who continue to support their cameras, but the question is this: Is this their long term plan or are they doing it only when necessary to try to stay close to the edge of competition in a rapidly evolving product segment (which wasn't really the way things worked in the DSLR era). Back in the a9 days Sony was the golden child as it added phenominal capability to an otherwise lower performing camera to help it compete against and take market share from the state of the art DSLRs (1DXiii, D5, etc.). Most recently it's been Nikon with the Z9, but I wonder if their plan is to continue these updates or possibly they're just doing it because the Z9 wasn't quite ready at release so the reward of matching Sony and Canon outweighs the risk. I suspect most of the firmware updating has to do with specific models and specific capabilities and that widespread, free updates won't become a thing.
As much as I don't like the idea of firmware updates costing money, I do like the idea of an incentive for the camera companies to continue to develop existing products and would be willing to pay a reasonable price to ensure my camera continues to be developed to the edge of its capabilities for some amount of time. If I could pay $100 right now and get somewhat better AF tracking and focus stacking I'd write the check.
jhapeman wrote:
I check in on this thread every now and then to be amused over the hand-wringing and whining. I have never bought a camera expecting firmware updates to add functionality. Fix bugs, yes. Even that historically has been minor in all of the bodies I owned. I've owned Nikon, Canon, Leica and Sony professional bodies and all have been top of the line models at the time. None of them ever got any substantive additions of functionality in the time I owned them.
In recent years we saw Canon and Nikon both do this with their mirrorless bodies, but lets be honest, both were rushing to release products that were clearly flawed or half-baked at launch, and they *needed* updates to address serious issues. I sure as heck don't want Sony taking that approach.
As for the firmware complaints around 1.31, I don't understand it. I shoot mostly birds and animals. I've taken at least 100,000 shots per year the last few years with the A1 and I honestly can't see any significant difference with the percentage of "keepers." Even the "improvements" to the eyeAF were minor at best, and I certainly haven't seen any loss of results with the new firmware.
As for speculation as to what Sony *can* do with a firmware update, it's all that, speculation. None of us know anything about what's really in the guts of these cameras. A firmware update has more dependencies than just the name of a processor. As an example, we have no idea if the various versions of the Bionz XR processors share anything more than a name--they could, for example, have some fabbed on newer processes that allow for lower energy consumption and greater clock frequencies and therefore more "power" to spare than the A1's Bionz XR. ...Show more →
Speak for yourself - some of us work with this type of hardware and associated software every day. Without a neural engine the A1 won't be getting the same subject detection that the newer Sony cameras have. It is not coincidence they (and Canon cameras) have dedicated AI hardware.
Apple iPhones have had dedicated neural engines for quite some time and are probably the leaders in this space. Their neural engine allows their phones to identify objects in a room, multiple people in the image etc. - they have a whole software development kit and tools to develop subject recognition models - these models are run on the neural engine to do the subject recognition. Once you have the neural engine hardware you can improve the subject recognition models through 'training' - with the constraints of the engines capacity of course - via firmware upgrades. This training cannot be done by your camera by the way - it is done by analysing thousands of images and the features on these images to develop the models that are then used in the camera or other device.
A normal processor such as the Bionz is not able to process an AI model anywhere near the same speed as a dedicated neural engine so just not feasible to achieve the same performance without the dedicated hardware.
Oh and Apple M1-M2 computers have dedicated neural engines as well - one of the reasons they are so fast for editing images and video while also consuming very little power.
duncang wrote:
Speak for yourself - some of us work with this type of hardware and associated software every day. Without a neural engine the A1 won't be getting the same subject detection that the newer Sony cameras have. It is not coincidence they (and Canon cameras) have dedicated AI hardware.
Apple iPhones have had dedicated neural engines for quite some time and are probably the leaders in this space. Their neural engine allows their phones to identify objects in a room, multiple people in the image etc. - they have a whole software development kit and tools to develop subject recognition models - these models are run on the neural engine to do the subject recognition. Once you have the neural engine hardware you can improve the subject recognition models through 'training' - with the constraints of the engines capacity of course - via firmware upgrades. This training cannot be done by your camera by the way - it is done by analysing thousands of images and the features on these images to develop the models that are then used in the camera or other device.
A normal processor such as the Bionz is not able to process an AI model anywhere near the same speed as a dedicated neural engine so just not feasible to achieve the same performance without the dedicated hardware.
Oh and Apple M1-M2 computers have dedicated neural engines as well - one of the reasons they are so fast for editing images and video while also consuming very little power....Show more →
You're sort of proving my point though--the majority of folks here have little or no technology background and assume a lot about these things (BTW, I have spent 20+ years in technology and software development, so I'm a bit versed in this area). The reality is much more complex than most people realize and not everything is just a an easy add in firmware.
With the development and validation cycles required, at the end of the day its just much more fiscally responsible to see significant new features rolled into new bodies/models as they are built, which is really what we see. I still firmly believe that both the R5 and Z9 were knowingly rushed to release with half-baked software as a way to stem the loss of customers moving to Sony, and the firmware updates were planned long beforehand as part of the development cycle from day one. They are the exception, not the norm.
jhapeman wrote:
I check in on this thread every now and then to be amused over the hand-wringing and whining. I have never bought a camera expecting firmware updates to add functionality. Fix bugs, yes. Even that historically has been minor in all of the bodies I owned. I've owned Nikon, Canon, Leica and Sony professional bodies and all have been top of the line models at the time. None of them ever got any substantive additions of functionality in the time I owned them.
In recent years we saw Canon and Nikon both do this with their mirrorless bodies, but lets be honest, both were rushing to release products that were clearly flawed or half-baked at launch, and they *needed* updates to address serious issues. I sure as heck don't want Sony taking that approach.
As for the firmware complaints around 1.31, I don't understand it. I shoot mostly birds and animals. I've taken at least 100,000 shots per year the last few years with the A1 and I honestly can't see any significant difference with the percentage of "keepers." Even the "improvements" to the eyeAF were minor at best, and I certainly haven't seen any loss of results with the new firmware.
As for speculation as to what Sony *can* do with a firmware update, it's all that, speculation. None of us know anything about what's really in the guts of these cameras. A firmware update has more dependencies than just the name of a processor. As an example, we have no idea if the various versions of the Bionz XR processors share anything more than a name--they could, for example, have some fabbed on newer processes that allow for lower energy consumption and greater clock frequencies and therefore more "power" to spare than the A1's Bionz XR. ...Show more →
I take it you didn't own the A9 just before the A9II was announced? That FW 5.0 and then 6.0 almost put it on par with the features that arrived shortly after on the A9II.
Real Time Tracking AF
Animal Eye AF
Red or white focus squares
Then there were the A7III and RIII 3.0 updates that also gave Animal Eye AF but not Real Time Tracking.
I think those of us that expect a bit more out of Sony for FW updates are because we owned one or more of those cameras.
I'm not expecting big AF upgrades, I'm not expecting them to add Insect AF, Vehicle AF or combined Animal/Bird option. I'm not expecting them to add the A7RV's detailed menus for each of the subject detect options.
The things I think they should add are the little quality of life improvements like DMF for all lenses via camera, updates from memory cards, faster card formatting speeds and maybe Animal/Bird Eye AF in video. I'm sure there are some other video features that could be added but I don't follow video specs.
arbitrage wrote:
I take it you didn't own the A9 just before the A9II was announced? That FW 5.0 and then 6.0 almost put it on par with the features that arrived shortly after on the A9II.
Real Time Tracking AF
Animal Eye AF
Red or white focus squares
Then there were the A7III and RIII 3.0 updates that also gave Animal Eye AF but not Real Time Tracking.
I think those of us that expect a bit more out of Sony for FW updates are because we owned one or more of those cameras.
I'm not expecting big AF upgrades, I'm not expecting them to add Insect AF, Vehicle AF or combined Animal/Bird option. I'm not expecting them to add the A7RV's detailed menus for each of the subject detect options.
The things I think they should add are the little quality of life improvements like DMF for all lenses via camera, updates from memory cards, faster card formatting speeds and maybe Animal/Bird Eye AF in video. I'm sure there are some other video features that could be added but I don't follow video specs....Show more →
Yeah, this hits the nail on the head. The A9 was, at the time, the flagship. Sony updated it all the way to 6.0 and added a bunch of functionality along the way. I think the expectation is they'll continue to do the same with the A1, especially given the cost of the A1, but they're tight-lipped about future firmware updates. Pre-announcing features for v5 and v6 for the A9 was a bit of an exception to how they usually operate around firmware updates.
arbitrage wrote:
I take it you didn't own the A9 just before the A9II was announced? That FW 5.0 and then 6.0 almost put it on par with the features that arrived shortly after on the A9II.
Real Time Tracking AF
Animal Eye AF
Red or white focus squares
Then there were the A7III and RIII 3.0 updates that also gave Animal Eye AF but not Real Time Tracking.
I think those of us that expect a bit more out of Sony for FW updates are because we owned one or more of those cameras.
I'm not expecting big AF upgrades, I'm not expecting them to add Insect AF, Vehicle AF or combined Animal/Bird option. I'm not expecting them to add the A7RV's detailed menus for each of the subject detect options.
The things I think they should add are the little quality of life improvements like DMF for all lenses via camera, updates from memory cards, faster card formatting speeds and maybe Animal/Bird Eye AF in video. I'm sure there are some other video features that could be added but I don't follow video specs....Show more →
I didn't own an A9, just the A9II. I have owned the A7RIII, A7RIV and multiple other bodies all of which didn't get big updates. Again, one model and one update doesn't prove the trend--that's a pretty isolated case with all other models only ever getting minor updates. We can't assume that any of these desired features are "simple" or "easy" additions via firmware.
hevaKmaI wrote:
Yeah, this hits the nail on the head. The A9 was, at the time, the flagship. Sony updated it all the way to 6.0 and added a bunch of functionality along the way. I think the expectation is they'll continue to do the same with the A1, especially given the cost of the A1, but they're tight-lipped about future firmware updates. Pre-announcing features for v5 and v6 for the A9 was a bit of an exception to how they usually operate around firmware updates.
One assumption is that they updated it because it was the "flagship." The other is that as a first round design of a totally new architecture, it was released before everything planned for it was finished, and those items were added as part of what was a long-planned set of features anyway. We don't know which is the case, but given the relative dearth of new feature additions via update to the A1, I think the latter is more likely than the former.
Ltgk20 wrote:
As much as I don't like the idea of firmware updates costing money, I do like the idea of an incentive for the camera companies to continue to develop existing products and would be willing to pay a reasonable price to ensure my camera continues to be developed to the edge of its capabilities for some amount of time. If I could pay $100 right now and get somewhat better AF tracking and focus stacking I'd write the check.
Or the software subscription model for firmware. You can own your camera and it does what it does or you subscribe to new firmware that pays the engineers to develop it. Pirating could be controlled via encryption and tying your copy of firmware to the serial number of your camera. I don't like it, but might be practical. I see more cripple hammer reasons for not updating firmware as well as product differentiation and planned obsolescence.
Whether the new feature is a part of pre-planned development unannounced previously or a feature developed in an agile way due to market demands is mostly irrelevant to end users, such as us.
Z9 got pre-capture, R5 got high-res IBIS mode, A1 got S/M RAWs - the customers are certainly happy they got them, even if they were unnanounced earlier.
The only case I remember of missing feature on launch that was announced for Z9 was 8k60p video and it was indeed added later in firmware update. That update also included EVF refresh rate bump to 120hz, a nice example of managers not crippling tech capabilities of the camera, as we're seeing now with A1. Z9 was also missing true anti-flicker mode (in a camera without mech shutter ), which was luckily also added later on.
Back when Sony provided significant updates (also to 3rd gen bodies, A7III and A7RIII - eyeAF completely changed the way it worked, but I guess some don't remember those dark times) it was around the time C&N entered the mirrorless market. That's it I think - as long as Sony does not feel endangered somehow, I don't think we'll see any significant updates to old cameras.
.