p.3 #1 · At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
chez wrote:
They might sell more cameras, but they’d sell less lenses. Sony probably knows the elasticity with their cameras and lenses.
Possibly, but I can't help but feel like someone buying the Sigma 300-600mm f4 is not the same as the person buying the Sony 600mm f4. If you're buying the Sigma lens, either the zoom is very important for you or the price is very important for you. Currently, no other manufacturer has an f4 or faster zoom greater than 400mm. Even if Sony does make one, it will probably be double the price.
A Sony 600mm (14,098) + a1ii (6,998) = 21,096
A Sigma 300-600mm (6,599.00) + S1RII (3,297) = 9,896
That's a bit less than 1/2 the price. Sony might be getting away with it for now, but if L mount gains a good stacked sensor camera, or Nikon opens up the Z mount to Sigma, the market will quickly start to look quite different. People are already adapting the 300-600mm to Nikon Z.
p.3 #2 · At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Possibly, but I can't help but feel like someone buying the Sigma 300-600mm f4 is not the same as the person buying the Sony 600mm f4. If you're buying the Sigma lens, either the zoom is very important for you or the price is very important for you. Currently, no other manufacturer has an f4 or faster zoom greater than 400mm. Even if Sony does make one, it will probably be double the price.
A Sony 600mm (14,098) + a1ii (6,998) = 21,096
A Sigma 300-600mm (6,599.00) + S1RII (3,297) = 9,896
That's a bit less than 1/2 the price. Sony might be getting away with it for now, but if L mount gains a good stacked sensor camera, or Nikon opens up the Z mount to Sigma, the market will quickly start to look quite different. People are already adapting the 300-600mm to Nikon Z....Show more →
I’m sure Sony knows all this…just like Canon understands their closed system might alienate some. But the fact is Canon leads all manufactures in total camera sales and Sony leads all manufactures in mirrorless sales. Until that changes ( both Nikon and the L alliance are well behind ) I don’t see the urgency with either Canon nor Sony.
p.3 #3 · At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
chez wrote:
I’m sure Sony knows all this…just like Canon understands their closed system might alienate some. But the fact is Canon leads all manufactures in total camera sales and Sony leads all manufactures in mirrorless sales. Until that changes ( both Nikon and the L alliance are well behind ) I don’t see the urgency with either Canon nor Sony.
Agreed, which is why I don't see anything changing in the next few years. But I do think the camera market is fairly fluid. It only took a few years for Sony to go from the new kid on the block, with a system that might make a good travel kit, to breaking up the Canon and Nikon duopoly. It only took a few years for Nikon Z to go from questionable future to arguably the best mount for hybrid users and wildlife photographers. It only took a few years for Zeiss to fall from a premier lens maker to people wondering if they are even still relevant. The L mount alliance is now up to 10 companies and looking stronger by the year.
The good thing for us is it's forcing basically all companies in the photo and video markets to stay innovative and price competitive
p.3 #4 · At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
Nikon has never opened up their mount, so no reason to think it'll happen. Just some handpicked tamron's that benefit them.
And L-mount is a bit of a joke tbh...And no stacked sensor, even 8+ years since the a9.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Possibly, but I can't help but feel like someone buying the Sigma 300-600mm f4 is not the same as the person buying the Sony 600mm f4. If you're buying the Sigma lens, either the zoom is very important for you or the price is very important for you. Currently, no other manufacturer has an f4 or faster zoom greater than 400mm. Even if Sony does make one, it will probably be double the price.
A Sony 600mm (14,098) + a1ii (6,998) = 21,096
A Sigma 300-600mm (6,599.00) + S1RII (3,297) = 9,896
That's a bit less than 1/2 the price. Sony might be getting away with it for now, but if L mount gains a good stacked sensor camera, or Nikon opens up the Z mount to Sigma, the market will quickly start to look quite different. People are already adapting the 300-600mm to Nikon Z....Show more →
p.3 #5 · At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
Since photography these days is 90% hobbyists, it has to do more with pricing and weight. I'd never, ever touch the 400 2.8 or 600 f4. My life is travel and I have no interest in buying a lens solely for tripod use. The 300 2.8? Bought it instantly. For me it is about weight, not money. For many, many others it is about money. So yes, tons and tons are interested in wildlife or casual sports and have budget as the limiting factor.
And if someone does have a A1 or A9 variant, using it as half speed is definitely not cool and really not enough. You are getting literally half the poses and moments.
Not to mention that the 400 is old and fairly weak compared to modern lenses.
isyoox703 wrote:
I get it, but if you are shooting wildlife or sports and are serious about it, are you really shooting a 500 5.6 over a 400 2.8 or 600 4? Maybe you are, that's what I would love to know (if only because data reveals a lot about aggregate behavior). I've only seen people in the "good enough" camp (nothing wrong with that) with the 500 5.6, and I would argue 15fps is also good enough there. I am not even that serious but I want a 400 2.8 for my kids' sports, but 15fps still seems fine. I guess BIF is different, not something I am into...
p.3 #6 · At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
why would they, sony can control the quality of there lens to match there pro cameras, imagine if a 3rd party lens didnt focus greater than 99% there would be hell to play and negative comments from canon and nikon fanboys.
p.3 #7 · At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
shadow9d9 wrote:
Since photography these days is 90% hobbyists, it has to do more with pricing and weight. I'd never, ever touch the 400 2.8 or 600 f4. My life is travel and I have no interest in buying a lens solely for tripod use. The 300 2.8? Bought it instantly. For me it is about weight, not money. For many, many others it is about money. So yes, tons and tons are interested in wildlife or casual sports and have budget as the limiting factor.
That's the opposite if what I care about. IQ is the #1 priority, with price being #2, and weight a distant 3rd. I've taken hundreds of of thousands of frames with 500/4 and 600/4 lenses, every one required traveling thousands of miles to reach the species of interest. Modern teles are not very heavy compared to what we had 30+ years ago. I figure around 70s many people are slimming down to an OM 150-400 or something, but I'm a fair ways from there and sucking it up as long as practical.
p.3 #8 · At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
I'm not interested in comparing to 30 years ago. We are living now, not then. We have stellar options now that are super light.
The olympus 150-400 got tepid reviews and is stuck on a poor 20 mp sensor. It truly isn't comparable. When I switched away from M43, I directly compared shots between the two. It isn't even close.
EB-1 wrote:
That's the opposite if what I care about. IQ is the #1 priority, with price being #2, and weight a distant 3rd. I've taken hundreds of of thousands of frames with 500/4 and 600/4 lenses, every one required traveling thousands of miles to reach the species of interest. Modern teles are not very heavy compared to what we had 30+ years ago. I figure around 70s many people are slimming down to an OM 150-400 or something, but I'm a fair ways from there and sucking it up as long as practical.
p.3 #9 · At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Agreed, which is why I don't see anything changing in the next few years. But I do think the camera market is fairly fluid. It only took a few years for Sony to go from the new kid on the block, with a system that might make a good travel kit, to breaking up the Canon and Nikon duopoly. It only took a few years for Nikon Z to go from questionable future to arguably the best mount for hybrid users and wildlife photographers. It only took a few years for Zeiss to fall from a premier lens maker to people wondering if they are even still relevant. The L mount alliance is now up to 10 companies and looking stronger by the year.
The good thing for us is it's forcing basically all companies in the photo and video markets to stay innovative and price competitive ...Show more →
At the end of the day it comes down to the dollar bill vs the customer for these manufacturers. Decisions on what they offer are based upon potential profitability. We all want them to do more from our own biased perspectives but those desires have to align with their business models for them to have any chance of being implemented. The reality is we have limited influence. That's not to suggest it isn't worth voicing our desires or that they don't pay attention to them but expecting quick implementation of them has proven to be quite elusive. Then there is of course the engineer's 'not invented here syndrome'. The classic that comes to mind is how long it took Sony to finally evolve to updating camera firmware via a media card vs the convoluted process they clung to for a number of years.
