Sony has never invested in firmware going back decades across the Vaio PC line, pro audio gear, etc. The only times they’ve invested to bring substantial new functionality to an existing product via firmware is when it faces a serious competitive threat mid product life cycle.
I remember the same kind of threads around the original RX1… all that frustration fell on deaf ears at Sony. Without a competitor in sight though…
I’m sure if they saw an impact on A1 sales from inaction they’d update the firmware… but if not, expect a solution in the form of the A2.
It is clearly their biz model to invest in N+1… and while it is frustrating to see newer, cheaper models often bring features the older, far more expensive models don’t have, I guess I’d rather see Sony continue on that path than adopt Canon’s brutal product segmentation with the blatant crippling. Canon avoids any consumer confusion or frustration that way, but I prefer Sony pursue innovation across product lines, trickle down or trickle up.
My great fear is that Sony stop innovating and gets lazy or starts managing like a mature biz to be harvested.
darrellc wrote:
Sony has never invested in firmware going back decades across the Vaio PC line, pro audio gear, etc. The only times they’ve invested to bring substantial new functionality to an existing product via firmware is when it faces a serious competitive threat mid product life cycle.
I remember the same kind of threads around the original RX1… all that frustration fell on deaf ears at Sony. Without a competitor in sight though…
I’m sure if they saw an impact on A1 sales from inaction they’d update the firmware… but if not, expect a solution in the form of the A2.
It is clearly their biz model to invest in N+1… and while it is frustrating to see newer, cheaper models often bring features the older, far more expensive models don’t have, I guess I’d rather see Sony continue on that path than adopt Canon’s brutal product segmentation with the blatant crippling. Canon avoids any consumer confusion or frustration that way, but I prefer Sony pursue innovation across product lines, trickle down or trickle up.
My great fear is that Sony stop innovating and gets lazy or starts managing like a mature biz to be harvested....Show more →
That is how I see Sony. They got to their position by dumping tons of money like they always do. They then just never do updates or anything until a competitor threatens them. So we need canon to release the new r1 and an r3 MK2. That should threaten them enough to get the gears turning.
Jerky_san wrote:
That is how I see Sony. They got to their position by dumping tons of money like they always do. They then just never do updates or anything until a competitor threatens them. So we need canon to release the new r1 and an r3 MK2. That should threaten them enough to get the gears turning.
They are, after all a business, and a business exists to create a profit, at least if you are not a non-profit. Sony has survived and thrived where many other consumer electronics firms have failed precisely because they are *good* at the business side and not just the product side.
saaketham wrote:
I am worried about the trolls who used to bash Nikon and Canon all these years and what they will do
once Nikon and Canon have caught up to Sony.
it is blatantly obvious that nikon exists only at the whim of sony; nikon would be d.o.a. without sony sensors, if these were american companies it would have happened years ago... beyond that, the best that nikon will ever get from sony is old technology, so there is no chance that nikon will ever be "caught up to sony".
canon sensors have always been inferior, that will never change, and given that canon refuses to develop new tech like voice coil af motors, they will always be behind... the only innovative thing that canon has done recently is eye-control af, but they failed to port it over to video, where it would make a huge difference.
canikon 3rd-party lens support either doesn't exist or it's trivial at best, so they are losing market share on that alone... both companies also lost their contracts with gannet, associated press, usa today, canada news, etc., because sony has much better integrated solutions, for both stills and video.
RoamingScott wrote:
It was obvious to me when Sony flatly refused to backport something like the red AF box to the A7Riii that they simply don't care about their customers once they have their money, when compared to other brands.
I have to agree that this was a major complaint I had with the A7RIII. I considered an invisible grey focus box to be a bug that needed to be fixed. I was very disappointed when Sony failed to do that. That absolutely needed to be fixed.
I am not gonna dive into the argument about adding features to a existing product because that really goes to the very subjective opinion about R&D and marketing. But I think we can all agree that the bugs in the firmware need to be addressed at a bare minimum because this is a corp responsibility. I personally have reported 4 bugs to Sony Pro Support and I would like to see those addressed.
On the 1.30 vs 1.31 debate... there is no question in my mind that the tracking took a step backwards in 1.31. It manifested itself for me earlier in the year for waterfowl BIF but it wasn't as apparent and there were use cases where it could have been other conditions such as differences in air creating the mirage effect. But now that I am shooting swallows, swifts and Purple Martins in flight I am seeing even more of a deficit. It doesn't matter what settings you use either: tracking vs non tracking vs zone... 1-5 on the AF sensitivity. If you shoot perched or wading birds, there is no fundamental difference between 1.30 and 1.31 in my opinion. I shot close to 40k of Wood Ducks at a low angle in March alone and those images look terrific. The in flight ones are mostly OK but there was drifting AF on some flights and that did not happen last year
osv2 wrote:
it is blatantly obvious that nikon exists only at the whim of sony; nikon would be d.o.a. without sony sensors, if these were american companies it would have happened years ago... beyond that, the best that nikon will ever get from sony is old technology, so there is no chance that nikon will ever be "caught up to sony".
I disagree with this. At this time Sony is the source of sensors that makes the most business sense for Nikon. But be aware that there are other sources that in the absence of Sony as Nikon's supplier would develop very capable sensors. There was a hybrid sensor being tested for the Z8 that had a Sony analog layer and Tower digital layers. I am still not 100% sure the result of that. maybe it is being used in the Z8. Who knows?
It seems to me that the Z9 and Z8 bring Nikon up to mostly functional parity with Sony's current offerings. Sony still maintains a huge lead over it much broader camera product lines. Nikon will likely never compete on this level. But in the more narrow market that appeals to readers of FM, Nikon is capable of parity, and even leading in some areas particularly when it comes to long lenses.
The magnitude of the edge in technology that Sony's new AI processor represents is still unclear. It does have potential to be huge. Sony is unlikely to share this technology in a processor. They may if the find a way to integrate it into the sensor stack however.
saaketham wrote:
I am worried about the trolls who used to bash Nikon and Canon all these years and what they will do
once Nikon and Canon have caught up to Sony. I hope they will find employment elsewhere.
I guess we will have to wait until/if that ever happens. Since it has not so far, I suggest you don't spend much time worrying over it.
osv2 wrote:
it is blatantly obvious that nikon exists only at the whim of sony; nikon would be d.o.a. without sony sensors, if these were american companies it would have happened years ago... beyond that, the best that nikon will ever get from sony is old technology, so there is no chance that nikon will ever be "caught up to sony".
canon sensors have always been inferior, that will never change, and given that canon refuses to develop new tech like voice coil af motors, they will always be behind... the only innovative thing that canon has done recently is eye-control af, but they failed to port it over to video, where it would make a huge difference.
canikon 3rd-party lens support either doesn't exist or it's trivial at best, so they are losing market share on that alone... both companies also lost their contracts with gannet, associated press, usa today, canada news, etc., because sony has much better integrated solutions, for both stills and video.
You like nothing more than to bash others and bring very little to the forums other than negativity. I hate coming to a thread I'm interested in reading and finding a response from you. Such a let down. For these reasons, you will be hidden.
Sony is not feeling a lot of competitive pressure to be more responsive to their customers. Nikon is not able to apply much pressure: it's not clear to me whether Nikon or Sony realizes more net margin from the sale of a Z9. Canon is the only competitor that can influence Sony's behavior.
IMO the big question is "where is the R1?" We need for the R1 to be competitive with, hopefully exceed, the A1.
jhapeman wrote:
They are, after all a business, and a business exists to create a profit, at least if you are not a non-profit. Sony has survived and thrived where many other consumer electronics firms have failed precisely because they are *good* at the business side and not just the product side.
I wouldn't say Sony as a whole has "thrived" over the past few decades since they've had a fair few tech product flops in their time and sold off some underperforming businesses (and hung on to a few like mobile phones rather inexplicably), but the camera and sensor division does seem to have done pretty well, pretty consistently, overall, and turned a tidy profit in the past few years IIRC. And Sony's push into cinema cameras is, from what I've heard from film industry contacts, going pretty well.
But I agree that this fanboyish amateur analysis of camera companies that pitches the big three against each other like they're players in some sort of shooter game with cameras as ammo is a bit silly considering none of us (unless we work in senior management at said companies) have any real insight into corporate strategies, tactics, or planning.
But I still want Sony's to fix the cursed A1's firmware ASAP!
wordfool wrote:
But I agree that this fanboyish amateur analysis of camera companies that pitches the big three against each other like they're players in some sort of shooter game with cameras as ammo is a bit silly considering none of us (unless we work in senior management at said companies) have any real insight into corporate strategies, tactics, or planning.
It doesn't take much to understand that Sony benefits from selling their sensors and the buyers (Nikon/Fuji) benefit in less R&D expenses. Consumer grade cameras are a small revenue line item for all 3 of those companies, as each is highly diversified across multiple industries.
It's been interesting to see the uptick in these types of videos, as well as the associated comment sections. I'd consider youtube comments a bit more "normie" tier in terms of consumers, and even they are mostly pissed.
1bwana1 wrote:
I disagree with this. At this time Sony is the source of sensors that makes the most business sens for Nikon. But be aware that there are other sources that in the absence of Sony as Nikon's supplier would develop very capable sensors. There was a hybrid sensor being tested for the Z8 that had a Sony analog layer and Tower digital layers. I am still not 100% sure the result of that. maybe it is being used in the Z8. Who knows?
It seems to me that the Z9 and Z8 bring Nikon up to mostly functional parity with Sony's current offerings. Sony still maintains a huge lead over it much broader camera product lines. Nikon will likely never compete on this level. But in the more narrow market that appeals to readers of FM, Nikon is capable of parity, and even leading in some areas particularly when it comes to long lenses.
The magnitude of the edge in technology that Sony's new AI processor represents is still unclear. It does have potential to be huge. Sony is unlikely to share this technology in a processor. They may if the find a way to integrate it into the sensor stack however....Show more →
that a.i. processor could prove to be a really big deal, it's an example of what can be accomplished when a company devotes resources to technology that they can utilize across multiple product lines: https://ai.sony/
canikon can't begin to compete with that, but maybe nikon can buy older versions of those chips at some point, like they are doing with sony sensors now... long term, it could eventually be integrated directly into the sensor.
i worked for a company that was bought up by ibm back in the late '90's... the firm designed high-frequency chips, using some of the best minds from harvey mudd, ucsd, etc., it was at some level another qualcomm spinoff... anyway, ibm bought 'em out and the tech just got swallowed up, it disappeared, i wonder if that's what will happen here.
RoamingScott wrote:
It doesn't take much to understand that Sony benefits from selling their sensors and the buyers (Nikon/Fuji) benefit in less R&D expenses. Consumer grade cameras are a small revenue line item for all 3 of those companies, as each is highly diversified across multiple industries.
Of course Sony benefits from selling and Nikon/Fuji from buying. That's pretty obvious. My point was (to take your example) that we don't know what Sony's strategy is in terms of what and how it sells to Nikon/Fuji (and numerous other manufacturers of imaging devices that use Sony sensors), and how the long-term strategies of Nikon/Fuji dictate what sensor tech they want to (or can) buy.
AFAIK the camera business is a pretty big chunk of Nikon's Imaging Products business, which is itself a pretty big chunk of overall corporate revenues. Sony and Fuji are much bigger companies so the camera business is a smaller segment relatively speaking.
wordfool wrote:
Of course Sony benefits from selling and Nikon/Fuji from buying. That's pretty obvious. My point was (to take your example) that we don't know what Sony's strategy is in terms of what and how it sells to Nikon/Fuji (and numerous other manufacturers of imaging devices that use Sony sensors), and how the long-term strategies of Nikon/Fuji dictate what sensor tech they want to (or can) buy.
AFAIK the camera business is a pretty big chunk of Nikon's Imaging Products business, which is itself a pretty big chunk of overall corporate revenues. Sony and Fuji are much bigger companies so the camera business is a smaller segment relatively speaking. ...Show more →
Regardless of who is "ahead", the vast vast vast majority of sales from any vendor are going to be budget friendly camera bodies and lenses which never use cutting edge tech. There is no connection between dynamic range and profit - historically Nikon often had better sensors then Canon. Canon is still the #1 (IMO), with Sony close behind.
dclark wrote:
Sony is not feeling a lot of competitive pressure to be more responsive to their customers. Nikon is not able to apply much pressure: it's not clear to me whether Nikon or Sony realizes more net margin from the sale of a Z9. Canon is the only competitor that can influence Sony's behavior.
IMO the big question is "where is the R1?" We need for the R1 to be competitive with, hopefully exceed, the A1.
I think overall it's Nikon, because the customers who buy Z9 are also buying their high-margin, high-end lenses (IMHO) which are all excellent. Canon seems to also not be feeling any pressure to release the R1 in a hurry. They had a massive hit with the R5, which is still an excellent camera at 3 yrs old.
RoamingScott wrote:
It's been interesting to see the uptick in these types of videos, as well as the associated comment sections. I'd consider youtube comments a bit more "normie" tier in terms of consumers, and even they are mostly pissed.
Ever since this rumored update was posted I have checked in daily to see if it was for real and so far just smoke.
I and I suppose many bought the Sony A1 for the features it "has not the features you wish it had" after two years of ownership..
Hell I don't use half the features the A1 has since I shoot in M always..
I wonder if Sony is waiting to see what Canon and Nikon are about to release. On one hand it might make sense to stuff as much as they can into a firmware update to make Canon/Nikon launches underwhelming, on the other hand it could make sense to release a firmware update right after a competitor launches to better capture the short attention span of consumers, and get the last word in so to say (one can easily imagine a 1-2 combo of videos from any photography content creator "I used the new Nikon Z8 and it changes everything" followed by "Why I'm sticking with my Sony A1" a week later)
Or maybe the A1 will just never see another update. Perhaps Sony saw that investment into the A9 as a platform didn't yield as many returns as they had hoped and so they abandoned that strategy. Realistically there are very few high end camera manufacturers to choose from, and are most people really going to take a hit of a few hundred to a few thousand $$$ to swap their entire lens stable over to a competitor? If they just slap the AI processor into an A1II it would be an insta-buy from many A1 owners, regardless of whether the A1 got breathing compensation, improved IS, video AF, car/train/plane/insect AF modes, full time DMF or focus stacking via firmware update. Even the 4-axis screen would probably make it an insta-buy for a lot of people
