p.3 #3 · Sony and Canon losing market share in Japan, Nikon gaining
I do feel Sony currently has some weak spots in their lineup.
a7iv has not been updated since 2021
a7rv has not been updated since 2022 (pretty sure this is the longest stretch with no update in the r series)
No lower priced FF camera to compete with the Z5II or Canon R8.
No FF camera targeted at the Z8 / Canon R5 II (The a1ii half fills this role, but is about $2,500 more)
No high end APSC camera to compete with the Fuji X-T50
But it's not just Sony. Nikon, I feel, has some weak spots too.
Z7II has not been updated (the biggest hole I currently see)
No ZF camera with more than 24mp
No high end APSC cameras
I follow Canon the least, but it sounds like some Canon users are looking for a true Z9 / a1ii competitor with a higher MP sensor.
On one hand, the cameras we have today run circles around any camera from 10 years ago, but on the other hand, some of us are itching to finish our transitions to mirrorless or transitions from one mirrorless brand to the other, and are getting antsy to see the holes filled in.
Personally, the holes I want to fill in my kit will probably eventually be filled by the Z7III or a7rvi. So I am kind of stuck in a waiting pattern for good or bad.
May 29, 2025 at 12:49 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #4 · Sony and Canon losing market share in Japan, Nikon gaining
DWOfPaul wrote:
I do feel Sony currently has some weak spots in their lineup.
a7iv has not been updated since 2021
a7rv has not been updated since 2022 (pretty sure this is the longest stretch with no update in the r series)
No lower priced FF camera to compete with the Z5II or Canon R8.
No FF camera targeted at the Z8 / Canon R5 II (The a1ii half fills this role, but is about $2,500 more)
No high end APSC camera to compete with the Fuji X-T50
But it's not just Sony. Nikon, I feel, has some weak spots too.
Z7II has not been updated (the biggest hole I currently see)
No ZF camera with more than 24mp
No high end APSC cameras
I follow Canon the least, but it sounds like some Canon users are looking for a true Z9 / a1ii competitor with a higher MP sensor.
On one hand, the cameras we have today run circles around any camera from 10 years ago, but on the other hand, some of us are itching to finish our transitions to mirrorless or transitions from one mirrorless brand to the other, and are getting antsy to see the holes filled in.
Personally, the holes I want to fill in my kit will probably eventually be filled by the Z7III or a7rvi. So I am kind of stuck in a waiting pattern for good or bad....Show more →
I don't think there are quite the holes that you suggest. Sony keeps around their old models for a generation. It is the A7 III that competes with the Nikon Z5 II and the Canon R8 and it is a similar price point and fairly competitive. Similarly the A1 is still around and still a great camera. It is more expensive than the Z8, but not as much of a gap as the A1 II.
It is true Sony doesn't really make a high end APS-C camera, however.
I expect both an A7 V and an A7r VI later this year (but this might get bumped to early next year) which will once again make Sony more competitive, and although the A7r VI has been slow to come out, I think that is because neither Nikon or Canon has really competed with this camera. The Nikon Z7 III really needs to compete with the A7r V. I think the Z5 II, however, gives us a good sense of what the Z7 III, will be. It will have the shutter and LCD screen of the Z5 II. It will likely have a low ISO tweaked 60 MP sensor. It will have the improved AF we see in the Z5 II, and may even have a new higher end EVF. If Nikon does that it will be a compelling camera and force Sony to move and make an A7r VI.
p.3 #5 · Sony and Canon losing market share in Japan, Nikon gaining
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't think there are quite the holes that you suggest. Sony keeps around their old models for a generation. It is the A7 III that competes with the Nikon Z5 II and the Canon R8 and it is a similar price point and fairly competitive. Similarly the A1 is still around and still a great camera. It is more expensive than the Z8, but not as much of a gap as the A1 II.
Hmm, I think what that sales diagram and data show is that not many people will choose a 7y old body over a new one. So, the competitiveness of A7 III and Z5 II is debatable ...
p.3 #6 · Sony and Canon losing market share in Japan, Nikon gaining
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't think there are quite the holes that you suggest. Sony keeps around their old models for a generation. It is the A7 III that competes with the Nikon Z5 II and the Canon R8 and it is a similar price point and fairly competitive. Similarly the A1 is still around and still a great camera. It is more expensive than the Z8, but not as much of a gap as the A1 II.
It is true Sony doesn't really make a high end APS-C camera, however.
I expect both an A7 V and an A7r VI later this year (but this might get bumped to early next year) which will once again make Sony more competitive, and although the A7r VI has been slow to come out, I think that is because neither Nikon or Canon has really competed with this camera. The Nikon Z7 III really needs to compete with the A7r V. I think the Z5 II, however, gives us a good sense of what the Z7 III, will be. It will have the shutter and LCD screen of the Z5 II. It will likely have a low ISO tweaked 60 MP sensor. It will have the improved AF we see in the Z5 II, and may even have a new higher end EVF. If Nikon does that it will be a compelling camera and force Sony to move and make an A7r VI....Show more →
I agree that Sony keeping the older models around does help fill some of the gaps. For good or bad, I was trying to keep the comparisons fairly high level, since I struggle myself comparing previous generation cameras at a reduced price to current generation cameras. For example, earlier this year I was considering maybe picking up a used a1. On one hand, it's still a very capable camera for around 4k used. On the other hand, it has the weaker color management and IBIS that annoy me at times with my a7riv, that a7rv and newer cameras seem to have greatly improved. So, spending 4k to still have some of the same annoyances, that I know have now been solved, hurts the value proposition in my head quite a bit.
p.3 #7 · Sony and Canon losing market share in Japan, Nikon gaining
ruthenium wrote:
When I picture this A7V, I cannot help seeing a hybrid of A9III and A1 - ain't gonna happen, in my opinion.
Have you seen the R6ii Specs? It came out in 2023
- $2300 including 24-105 kit lens
- 40 FPS raw
- 8 stop IBIS
- 120fps EVF
- 4k 60fps video with 1.07x crop
- -6ev autofocus
p.3 #8 · Sony and Canon losing market share in Japan, Nikon gaining
Steve Spencer wrote:
It is true Sony doesn't really make a high end APS-C camera, however.
Nikon does not even make a good mid-grade APS-C camera and Canon's R7 is saddled with a 2010s sensor.
I would be happy to buy a camera with high-res APS-C sensor in a high-grade body, and I'm not talking about Fuji.
p.3 #9 · Sony and Canon losing market share in Japan, Nikon gaining
aCuria wrote:
Have you seen the R6ii Specs? It came out in 2023
- $2300 including 24-105 kit lens
- 40 FPS raw
- 8 stop IBIS
- 120fps EVF
- 4k 60fps video with 1.07x crop
- -6ev autofocus
I understand your point. I personally don't find R6II and A7IV interesting cameras, and I don't know what those who have purchased or would like to purchase one of the two might find appealing or motivating. It might be the price (close to $2000 vs 2,500 new from B&H). However, these cameras are not exactly cheap and with the cost of lenses added one faces a price tag that warrants a serious consideration. For example, an alternative might be to buy a used higher end camera. Yes it would cost extra but might be a better long-term strategy. By modern standards of the top of the line cameras, R6II and A7IV have little (in my view) to generate excitement, yet they are still relatively expensive toys - not the kind that an average person would buy without much thinking or without the risk of experiencing a buyer's remorse.
I looked into the specs of R6II and A7IV, and these are not easy to compare.
The advantages of R6II are the lower price tag, 8 stops IBIS, 1/68s sensor readout
Irrelevant are, in my opinion, 40 FPS (this isn't a camera one should buy for action photography) and the video specs (those who are interested in video more than stills probably have better options).
The advantages of A7IV are the 32.7 MP BSI CMOS sensor (that however is surprisingly slow with 1/15s readout time) and the lack of an anti-aliasing filter (R6II apparently has one).
In general, the approach of developing the next generation low-tier/entry level cameras by adding some specs from the mid- or top-tier camera bodies worked when the companies could add major new features to the latter (e.g. the global sensor of A9III, or the fast stacked sensor of A1). For now, the pace of the technological improvements has slowed down as seen in A1 II vs A1. If this isn't going to change, it would not be possible to upgrade the low-tier bodies without compromising the sales of the higher-tier cameras. Thus, as an alternative way of making the low-tier/entry level cameras interesting and attractive to consumers who now use phones to take pictures, there need to be more attention to the software and the overall camera design. For example, an entry-level full-frame camera should be able to produce SOOC jpegs that a phone camera user should find "nice" and better quality than from their phones. This camera should have more computational photography features, rather than better technical specs. I don't mean to pretend that I am in a position to advise Sony or Canon or Nikon on what they should do. I am simply expressing the feeling that there should be more attention to camera software than to camera electronics for the future A7V or A7CIII. I also have developed the feeling that camera software development isn't one of Sony's strengths. For example, pre-capture, that has long existed in Olympus cameras, should have been a feature available in the original A1.
p.3 #10 · Sony and Canon losing market share in Japan, Nikon gaining
Sony still has arguably best ecosystem be it accessories, lenses and bodies.
What Sony needs is improved kit lenses. Copy Nikon and develop constant F4 24-70, refresh 24-105 G. Bodies with better ergonomics for longer/heavier lenses.
Sony is innovating, F2 Zooms and 400-800 are marvelous.
If anything Sony peaked too early in FF sphere. Things got boring.
p.3 #11 · Sony and Canon losing market share in Japan, Nikon gaining
ruthenium wrote:
For example, an entry-level full-frame camera should be able to produce SOOC jpegs that a phone camera user should find "nice" and better quality than from their phones. This camera should have more computational photography features, rather than better technical specs.
Camera manufacturers do incorporate a lot of features and customization options for producing in-camera JPGs tailored to the individual taste so that post-procesing is not necessary or can be minimal. However, the way camera phones process pictures takes advantage of the small expected viewing size (in terms of angle of view or fraction of the visual field of the viewer) where a lot of artifacts can get a pass from the viewer because they are viewing it on a tiny screen held at arm's distance away. I don't think many of those problems would be accepted by the majority of system camera users. It's up to the photographer or artist to make those processing decisions in order to make the image more true to life or to the intent of the photographer, not an AI-based algorithm that works autonomously without user input to make something the majority of people using phones would find pleasing. Intent and concious decisions are important to make the right compromises to achieve the desired outcome.
A lot of those algorithms would fail to produce an acceptable outcome in high-resolution images when viewed up close. Additionally, camera companies do not have access to the vast quantities of user photos to train their algorithms as serious photographers using dedicated cameras don't always upload their unfinished works online and they are also often conscious of copyright, privacy issues etc. which the camera phone and other AI tech companies largely seem to ignore and then afterwards call it standard accepted practice in the field or something like that, when they never really asked the users if this was ok usage in such a way that the users would legitimately be able to opt out of data collection. Regulation comes 10 years behind, and is ignored. What the phone companies can do with the processing of images is not so much due to special software or hardware but access to vast quantities of user data (of course, due to the volume of their business, they also have advanced hardware and software resources available).
I think the camera companies should pay attention to current user needs and trends but stick true to photography as a recording of light and leave the extensive post-processing of the images to the user's own computer systems and software.
p.3 #12 · Sony and Canon losing market share in Japan, Nikon gaining
The other day I was looking at the SOOC jpegs from the 102MP GFX100RF on my phone and also on a large display, and I thought those actually looked good; the link to the images: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1895510/69#16822959
Thus, I remain unconvinced that "A lot of those algorithms would fail to produce an acceptable outcome in high-resolution images when viewed up close." While I have the utmost respect to the artists who "make those processing decisions in order to make the image more true to life or to the intent of the photographer" and myself I spend more time doing post-processing than taking the photos, I don't think this is unrealistic or unreasonable to ask for an entry-level camera that can generate good quality SOOC jpegs. These don't need to be art, just reasonable good quality for a consumer who isn't proficient in post-processing (yet who might become interested in this aspect later on).
p.3 #13 · Sony and Canon losing market share in Japan, Nikon gaining
ruthenium wrote:
The other day I was looking at the SOOC jpegs from the 102MP GFX100RF on my phone and also on a large display, and I thought those actually looked good; the link to the images: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1895510/69#16822959
Thus, I remain unconvinced that "A lot of those algorithms would fail to produce an acceptable outcome in high-resolution images when viewed up close." While I have the utmost respect to the artists who "make those processing decisions in order to make the image more true to life or to the intent of the photographer" and myself I spend more time doing post-processing than taking the photos, I don't think this is unrealistic or unreasonable to ask for an entry-level camera that can generate good quality SOOC jpegs. These don't need to be art, just reasonable good quality for a consumer who isn't proficient in post-processing (yet who might become interested in this aspect later on). ...Show more →
Are you guys saying that current entry-level cameras (e.g. A7III?) cannot generate acceptable SooC jpegs?
p.3 #14 · Sony and Canon losing market share in Japan, Nikon gaining
EB-1 wrote:
It seems like the stats were chosen to demonstrate what mattered to that brand. Fuji is completely neglected since they make cameras in sub-miniature and medium formats but not 24x36mm format.
EBH
It wasn't all that long ago that Nikon was struggling to stay ahead of Olympus/OM Systems in the Japanese market. Showing only full-frame camera sales is just cherry-picking the data to make Nikon look better.
p.3 #18 · Sony and Canon losing market share in Japan, Nikon gaining
j4nu wrote:
Are you guys saying that current entry-level cameras (e.g. A7III?) cannot generate acceptable SooC jpegs?
You have to realize the standards here are extremely high.
Personally the fundamental problem with SooC jpegs is that the camera is processing for some generic monitor as the target.
This also means that the jpeg will likely not look good in print, because it’s not optimized for your printer!
When I make a print, I make a completely different edit for each printer+paper type I want to print on. They will look different from something optimized for the screen.
Soon we will have to optimize for HDR monitors with huge color volume (90%+ of bt2020). These monitors already exist (qd-oled, and the incoming rgb led backlight tech) when this becomes mainstream jpegs may become redundant because they are only 8 bit.
p.3 #19 · Sony and Canon losing market share in Japan, Nikon gaining
ruthenium wrote:
The other day I was looking at the SOOC jpegs from the 102MP GFX100RF on my phone and also on a large display, and I thought those actually looked good; ...
I think you missed his point. The algorithms used in cameras to significantly improve the images taken on camera sensors are meant to be viewed small. They tend to produce output that isn't particularly convincing when viewing the image on a big high quality display (or when printing). So bringing more phone style processing to cameras will be a rather mix bag. I'm confident that will happen anyway, but at least for now we can still shoot RAW and ignore it.
On my phone I have the option to shoot RAW, which allows to bypass most (but not all) of the processing and view the difference between the SOOC and what was actually captured. Turns out the camera sensor is better than what I would have guessed from the SOOCs. I have to admit though that the otherwise overcooked look of those SOOCs works rather well on the phone screen.
p.3 #20 · Sony and Canon losing market share in Japan, Nikon gaining
jp.gomez wrote:
Nikon's success from 2 key areas:
- aggressive pricing strategy on their latest bodies
- 3rd party lens support
Winning formula for both Nikon and consumers
Cheaper products are less profit per product, and they are still cheap products.
Who here wants a Z5II rather than a Z8 or Z9, or even a camera with more resolution like Canon and Sony had already in the 2010s?
.
...