The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
p.2 #1The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
olegkin wrote:
I don't know about other edges but Sony's flash connector is a terrible design that should not exist. Profoto connect trigger is already broken after one use, and looks like a Godox flash is next after a few uses. Together with other small issues it makes me question if I want to deal with Sony at all.
True that. What Canon and Nikon did with third-party lenses, Sony is in effect doing with its flash mount.
I don't know about other edges but Sony's flash connector is a terrible design that should not exist. Profoto connect trigger is already broken after one use, and looks like a Godox flash is next after a few uses. Together with other small issues it makes me question if I want to deal with Sony at all.
True that. What Canon and Nikon did with third-party lenses, Sony is in effect doing with its flash mount.
Jul 08, 2026 at 07:49 AM
p.2 #2The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
umut_h_toprak wrote:
I find Sony sufficiently innovative but I also feel we would all benefit if they had more competition in the sensor space from e.g. Samsung or Chinese players.
I have the feeling Samsung tried and decided it wasn't worth their while.
If the Chinese enter this market seriously with dependable tech, reliable gear and decent customer service, the Japanese would be in severe trouble. I'm not sure it's worth their while either, though.
I find Sony sufficiently innovative but I also feel we would all benefit if they had more competition in the sensor space from e.g. Samsung or Chinese players.
I have the feeling Samsung tried and decided it wasn't worth their while.
If the Chinese enter this market seriously with dependable tech, reliable gear and decent customer service, the Japanese would be in severe trouble. I'm not sure it's worth their while either, though.
Jul 08, 2026 at 07:54 AM
p.2 #3The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
Jack Flesher wrote:
I can make an argument in favor of any current camera manufacturer as the “best” choice.
They all pretty much offer a pinnacle of something. Choose your ammunition.
Yup.
From an objective (or subjective) perspective, no camera or brand is perfect, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. If one is looking for a “perfect” camera system, the search will be in vain.
I can make an argument in favor of any current camera manufacturer as the “best” choice.
They all pretty much offer a pinnacle of something. Choose your ammunition.
Yup.
From an objective (or subjective) perspective, no camera or brand is perfect, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. If one is looking for a “perfect” camera system, the search will be in vain.
Jul 08, 2026 at 09:06 AM
p.2 #4The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
The main feature that keeps from looking away from Sony is size and weight. Both Canon and Nikon don’t take these features seriously so I’m firmly in the Sony camp. I can live with the other Sony warts.
Jul 08, 2026 at 09:32 AM
p.2 #5The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
FWIW I couldn't be happier with the A7RVI. Big step up in several areas vs the A7RV and now I can shoot landscapes and birds with the same cam.
Jul 08, 2026 at 09:33 AM
p.2 #6The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
gdanmitchell wrote:
They all pretty much offer a pinnacle of something. Choose your ammunition.Yup.
From an objective (or subjective) perspective, no camera or brand is perfect, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. If one is looking for a “perfect” camera system, the search will be in vain.
On one hand I'm sometimes thankful that what feels like a legacy market gets any attention at all. On the other, these things aren't exactly cheap and the reaction to criticism of "their" brands from of a lot of users seems to border on Stockholm syndrome.
And I think everyone has pretty much given up on "perfect". I'd be really happy with a relationship with my main suppliers in this area that didn't feel borderline abusive ;-)
(And to be clear if you participate in other more competitive markets for niche complex high-end consumer products (high end bicycles and components come to mind in my case) you will have expectations for far better relationships courtesy of the fact that the vendors there need to compete harder and (perhaps?) have a history of standardization.)
Jack Flesher wrote
I can make an argument in favor of any current camera manufacturer as the “best” choice.They all pretty much offer a pinnacle of something. Choose your ammunition.
From an objective (or subjective) perspective, no camera or brand is perfect, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. If one is looking for a “perfect” camera system, the search will be in vain.
On one hand I'm sometimes thankful that what feels like a legacy market gets any attention at all. On the other, these things aren't exactly cheap and the reaction to criticism of "their" brands from of a lot of users seems to border on Stockholm syndrome.
And I think everyone has pretty much given up on "perfect". I'd be really happy with a relationship with my main suppliers in this area that didn't feel borderline abusive ;-)
(And to be clear if you participate in other more competitive markets for niche complex high-end consumer products (high end bicycles and components come to mind in my case) you will have expectations for far better relationships courtesy of the fact that the vendors there need to compete harder and (perhaps?) have a history of standardization.)
Jul 08, 2026 at 10:41 AM
p.2 #7The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
Hmmm... aside from the price tag IMO the A1 II is about as close to perfect for my use cases as a camera can be.
When factoring in the lens ecosystem I won't be switching any time soon.
Everything is a compromise to one degree or another.
. Pick your poison.
The size of the Nikons - nope. The bulk / cost / limited choices of the Canon lenses are a big downside imo.
When factoring in the lens ecosystem I won't be switching any time soon.
Everything is a compromise to one degree or another.
. Pick your poison. The size of the Nikons - nope. The bulk / cost / limited choices of the Canon lenses are a big downside imo.
Jul 08, 2026 at 11:26 AM
p.2 #8The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
liggy wrote:
Hmmm... aside from the price tag IMO the A1 II is about as close to perfect for my use cases as a camera can be.
When factoring in the lens ecosystem I won't be switching any time soon.
Everything is a compromise to one degree or another.. Pick your poison.
The size of the Nikons - nope. The bulk / cost / limited choices of the Canon lenses are a big downside imo.
Fourteen thousand dollars and I would still be using a lens with a teleconverter (teleconverter not shown in CS but you get the idea):
https://camerasize.com/compact/#937.1200,ha,t
I would call that a lot of things but close to perfect wouldn't be one of them : ) And yes, the Z8 is too heavy (and I don't want to be juggling two different menu systems in any case) but that doesn't mean that Sony gets a pass from me (or probably more importantly from their perspective the $14k : ).
How hard would it be for Sony to lift their restrictions on third party lenses where there is no reasonable first party equivalent? That kind of thing is where I stop being happy with them as a supplier.
Edited on Jul 08, 2026 at 01:05 PM · View previous versions
Hmmm... aside from the price tag IMO the A1 II is about as close to perfect for my use cases as a camera can be.
When factoring in the lens ecosystem I won't be switching any time soon.
Everything is a compromise to one degree or another.
. Pick your poison. The size of the Nikons - nope. The bulk / cost / limited choices of the Canon lenses are a big downside imo.
Fourteen thousand dollars and I would still be using a lens with a teleconverter (teleconverter not shown in CS but you get the idea):
https://camerasize.com/compact/#937.1200,ha,t
I would call that a lot of things but close to perfect wouldn't be one of them : ) And yes, the Z8 is too heavy (and I don't want to be juggling two different menu systems in any case) but that doesn't mean that Sony gets a pass from me (or probably more importantly from their perspective the $14k : ).
How hard would it be for Sony to lift their restrictions on third party lenses where there is no reasonable first party equivalent? That kind of thing is where I stop being happy with them as a supplier.
Edited on Jul 08, 2026 at 01:05 PM · View previous versions
Jul 08, 2026 at 12:58 PM
p.2 #9The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
johnvanr wrote:
I have the feeling Samsung tried and decided it wasn't worth their while.
If the Chinese enter this market seriously with dependable tech, reliable gear and decent customer service, the Japanese would be in severe trouble. I'm not sure it's worth their while either, though.
I agree with you on both points. With the AI demands' effect on electronics, I don't think any new player will be rushing into the niche large camera sensor market. This leaves us with two players of which Canon only designs and produces for itself. I don't think this is ideal and I also don't have much hope that this will change anytime soon.
umut_h_toprak wrote
I find Sony sufficiently innovative but I also feel we would all benefit if they had more competition in the sensor space from e.g. Samsung or Chinese players.If the Chinese enter this market seriously with dependable tech, reliable gear and decent customer service, the Japanese would be in severe trouble. I'm not sure it's worth their while either, though.
I agree with you on both points. With the AI demands' effect on electronics, I don't think any new player will be rushing into the niche large camera sensor market. This leaves us with two players of which Canon only designs and produces for itself. I don't think this is ideal and I also don't have much hope that this will change anytime soon.
Jul 08, 2026 at 01:02 PM
p.2 #10The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
umut_h_toprak wrote:
I have the feeling Samsung tried and decided it wasn't worth their while.
If the Chinese enter this market seriously with dependable tech, reliable gear and decent customer service, the Japanese would be in severe trouble. I'm not sure it's worth their while either, though.I agree with you on both points. With the AI demands' effect on electronics, I don't think any new player will be rushing into the niche large camera sensor market. This leaves us with two players of which Canon only designs and produces for itself. I don't think this is ideal and I also don't have much hope that this will change anytime soon.
I do think the situation in Japan is more complicated than we know. Pretty sure both Nikon and Sony are somewhat dependent on each other in terms of either parts used in the final products and/or tech used in the manufacturing process, and that's what I've heard about in the grapevine speaking to product reps over time. I imagine there are more instances of many Japanese companies being interlinked in some way.
AI will come down to earth soon enough and then chip and storage demand will return to pre-hype levels. That doesn't change the fact that cameras nowadays are pretty much good enough and consumers like us don't have to buy the latest because the previous model was lacking in some way.
It would be interesting to see what the Chinese will be doing, but it's overall a pretty small market and I assume the margins are pretty low, compared to other markets. We'll see. So far, the weakness of most Chinese companies is servicing and long-term durability. No problem if you buy a lens for a few hundred dollars, but a real issue when you start talking about cameras.
johnvanr wrote
umut_h_toprak wrote
I find Sony sufficiently innovative but I also feel we would all benefit if they had more competition in the sensor space from e.g. Samsung or Chinese players.If the Chinese enter this market seriously with dependable tech, reliable gear and decent customer service, the Japanese would be in severe trouble. I'm not sure it's worth their while either, though.
I do think the situation in Japan is more complicated than we know. Pretty sure both Nikon and Sony are somewhat dependent on each other in terms of either parts used in the final products and/or tech used in the manufacturing process, and that's what I've heard about in the grapevine speaking to product reps over time. I imagine there are more instances of many Japanese companies being interlinked in some way.
AI will come down to earth soon enough and then chip and storage demand will return to pre-hype levels. That doesn't change the fact that cameras nowadays are pretty much good enough and consumers like us don't have to buy the latest because the previous model was lacking in some way.
It would be interesting to see what the Chinese will be doing, but it's overall a pretty small market and I assume the margins are pretty low, compared to other markets. We'll see. So far, the weakness of most Chinese companies is servicing and long-term durability. No problem if you buy a lens for a few hundred dollars, but a real issue when you start talking about cameras.
Jul 08, 2026 at 01:36 PM
|
p.2 #11The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
seaSharp wrote:
When factoring in the lens ecosystem I won't be switching any time soon.
Everything is a compromise to one degree or another.. Pick your poison.
The size of the Nikons - nope. The bulk / cost / limited choices of the Canon lenses are a big downside imo.Fourteen thousand dollars and I would still be using a lens with a teleconverter (teleconverter not shown in CS but you get the idea):
https://camerasize.com/compact/#937.1200,ha,t
I would call that a lot of things but close to perfect wouldn't be one of them : ) And yes, the Z8 is too heavy (and I don't want to be juggling two different menu systems in any case) but that doesn't mean that Sony gets a pass from me (or probably more importantly from their perspective the $14k : ).
How hard would it be for Sony to lift their restrictions on third party lenses...Show more →
I'd be happy if Sony would give 3rd party lenses full functionality to be sure.
Disagree on the 300 2.8 thing - it's a beautiful lens. Agree that it does need a teleconverter for the way I use it.
It's about $1K more but 1/2 the weight of the Nikon.
It's about 50% less expensive than the Canon 400 2.8. I love that they have a 100-300 2.8. That would be a cool Sony lens.
Particularly if they made it lighter and less $$$ than the Canon.
liggy wrote
Hmmm... aside from the price tag IMO the A1 II is about as close to perfect for my use cases as a camera can be.When factoring in the lens ecosystem I won't be switching any time soon.
Everything is a compromise to one degree or another.
. Pick your poison. The size of the Nikons - nope. The bulk / cost / limited choices of the Canon lenses are a big downside imo.
https://camerasize.com/compact/#937.1200,ha,t
I would call that a lot of things but close to perfect wouldn't be one of them : ) And yes, the Z8 is too heavy (and I don't want to be juggling two different menu systems in any case) but that doesn't mean that Sony gets a pass from me (or probably more importantly from their perspective the $14k : ).
How hard would it be for Sony to lift their restrictions on third party lenses...Show more →
I'd be happy if Sony would give 3rd party lenses full functionality to be sure.
Disagree on the 300 2.8 thing - it's a beautiful lens. Agree that it does need a teleconverter for the way I use it.
It's about $1K more but 1/2 the weight of the Nikon.
It's about 50% less expensive than the Canon 400 2.8. I love that they have a 100-300 2.8. That would be a cool Sony lens.
Particularly if they made it lighter and less $$$ than the Canon.
Jul 08, 2026 at 01:43 PM
p.2 #12The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
nhmorgan wrote:
The electronic shutter negates the dynamic range advantage anyway because that DR advantage only comes when using mechanical shutter. However, the ES DR is still very good. The max 1/8000 shutter speed with ES is a genuine puzzle for me since that seems to be artificially placed on the sensor to maintain segmentation. That sensor should be capable of a faster ES top speed. Shooters are going to hit that with 1.2 lenses in daytime conditions especially with the base ISO of 100.
I think you raise some valid points. I use a variety of brands and the Sony is...Show more →
These are the exact type of rough edges I had in mind. The shutter speed one is an example of an arbitrary restriction that leaves me scratching my head on a high end camera. The color one is one I have experienced too.
seaSharp wrote:
Sony definitely could use an attitude adjustment. The gimping of third party lenses really hurts in situations where there is no native equivalent (e.g. the 500mm f5.6 Sigma that I'm trying to figure out right now). I've thought about getting a $5.5k Z8 and a 500mm 5.6 pf just for birding (my A7R5 and A7CR pretty much cover everything else right now) - rather than moving to a $10k AII and a Sigma 500mm (stuck at 15 fps with no teleconverter) or $8k A7R6 + Sigma (maybe a bit slow on ES and still no 30 FPS or TC). (Getting...Show more →
Agreed, the third party lens restrictions annoy me too. If you want to photograph action at over 10fps you need to spend about 7k and then if you want to use a third party lens, you are limited to 15fps and no TC. In my case, it was the Sigma 300-600mm. This is the exact kind of rough edges I am talking about. It would be much easier to justify the premium price of the a1ii if it didn't have such restrictions. But when a Z8 + adapter is about 2k less than an a1ii and gets you more fps, and TC support, it leaves me scratching my head.
________________________________
Thank you to everyone who has engaged civily. My whole point in making this topic was to see if other people were feeling this too, or are my expectations just too high. I noticed especially when reading about the a7rVI and 100-400mm f4.5 that when people brought up valid concerns, they were often minimized or dismissed, similar to some of the replies here, which unfortunately isn't productive or helpful to anyone. It's much more useful when people say something such as they chose Sony because they make the smallest full frame cameras. Since even if they value size more than me, it's a fully valid and constructive comment. It shows that there is a market segment where size is a major decision factor.
I also completely agree that every manufacturer has their shortcomings. I purposely left any brand comparisons, such as color science, out of my initial post, not to turn this into a brand war thread. I was more interested in hearing about people's thoughts on how Sony is doing. Otherwise, I would have posted which brand is the best and leave it at that
The electronic shutter negates the dynamic range advantage anyway because that DR advantage only comes when using mechanical shutter. However, the ES DR is still very good. The max 1/8000 shutter speed with ES is a genuine puzzle for me since that seems to be artificially placed on the sensor to maintain segmentation. That sensor should be capable of a faster ES top speed. Shooters are going to hit that with 1.2 lenses in daytime conditions especially with the base ISO of 100.
I think you raise some valid points. I use a variety of brands and the Sony is...Show more →
These are the exact type of rough edges I had in mind. The shutter speed one is an example of an arbitrary restriction that leaves me scratching my head on a high end camera. The color one is one I have experienced too.
seaSharp wrote:
Sony definitely could use an attitude adjustment. The gimping of third party lenses really hurts in situations where there is no native equivalent (e.g. the 500mm f5.6 Sigma that I'm trying to figure out right now). I've thought about getting a $5.5k Z8 and a 500mm 5.6 pf just for birding (my A7R5 and A7CR pretty much cover everything else right now) - rather than moving to a $10k AII and a Sigma 500mm (stuck at 15 fps with no teleconverter) or $8k A7R6 + Sigma (maybe a bit slow on ES and still no 30 FPS or TC). (Getting...Show more →
Agreed, the third party lens restrictions annoy me too. If you want to photograph action at over 10fps you need to spend about 7k and then if you want to use a third party lens, you are limited to 15fps and no TC. In my case, it was the Sigma 300-600mm. This is the exact kind of rough edges I am talking about. It would be much easier to justify the premium price of the a1ii if it didn't have such restrictions. But when a Z8 + adapter is about 2k less than an a1ii and gets you more fps, and TC support, it leaves me scratching my head.
________________________________
Thank you to everyone who has engaged civily. My whole point in making this topic was to see if other people were feeling this too, or are my expectations just too high. I noticed especially when reading about the a7rVI and 100-400mm f4.5 that when people brought up valid concerns, they were often minimized or dismissed, similar to some of the replies here, which unfortunately isn't productive or helpful to anyone. It's much more useful when people say something such as they chose Sony because they make the smallest full frame cameras. Since even if they value size more than me, it's a fully valid and constructive comment. It shows that there is a market segment where size is a major decision factor.
I also completely agree that every manufacturer has their shortcomings. I purposely left any brand comparisons, such as color science, out of my initial post, not to turn this into a brand war thread. I was more interested in hearing about people's thoughts on how Sony is doing. Otherwise, I would have posted which brand is the best and leave it at that
Jul 08, 2026 at 01:59 PM
p.2 #13The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
DWOfPaul wrote:
I think you raise some valid points. I use a variety of brands and the Sony is always top notch for tech (but always with some weird tradeoffs like you mention), but my biggest complaint is that they just don't understand color science like the brands with a longer history of being photography companies. I find the files harder to edit to the end result I want. I used to think that was just something I got in my head, but I've found it to be the case in so many different environments that I don't doubt it now. Not to say you can't get good results, but for me it just takes longer to get there and makes the editing process feel more frustrating.These are the exact type of rough edges I had in mind. The shutter speed one is an example of an arbitrary restriction that leaves me scratching my head on a high end camera. The color one is one I have experienced too.
It's weird when buying into a whole new system is the low cost option...
[Prices are new on B&H Edu.]Agreed, the third party lens restrictions annoy me too. If you want to photograph action at over 10fps you need to spend about 7k and then if you want to use a third party lens, you are limited to 15fps and no TC. In my case, it was the Sigma 300-600mm. This is the exact kind of...Show more →
I’m thinking the rough edges are only minor nuances given that people replying here shoot Sony. If they had major issues with the Sony system I would think they’d be on a different system.
nhmorgan wrote
The electronic shutter negates the dynamic range advantage anyway because that DR advantage only comes when using mechanical shutter. However, the ES DR is still very good. The max 1/8000 shutter speed with ES is a genuine puzzle for me since that seems to be artificially placed on the sensor to maintain segmentation. That sensor should be capable of a faster ES top speed. Shooters are going to hit that with 1.2 lenses in daytime conditions especially with the base ISO of 100.I think you raise some valid points. I use a variety of brands and the Sony is always top notch for tech (but always with some weird tradeoffs like you mention), but my biggest complaint is that they just don't understand color science like the brands with a longer history of being photography companies. I find the files harder to edit to the end result I want. I used to think that was just something I got in my head, but I've found it to be the case in so many different environments that I don't doubt it now. Not to say you can't get good results, but for me it just takes longer to get there and makes the editing process feel more frustrating.
seaSharp wrote
Sony definitely could use an attitude adjustment. The gimping of third party lenses really hurts in situations where there is no native equivalent (e.g. the 500mm f5.6 Sigma that I'm trying to figure out right now). I've thought about getting a $5.5k Z8 and a 500mm 5.6 pf just for birding (my A7R5 and A7CR pretty much cover everything else right now) - rather than moving to a $10k AII and a Sigma 500mm (stuck at 15 fps with no teleconverter) or $8k A7R6 + Sigma (maybe a bit slow on ES and still no 30 FPS or TC). (Getting the R6 would let me sell my A7RV for something but would still probably be more expensive.)It's weird when buying into a whole new system is the low cost option...
[Prices are new on B&H Edu.]
I’m thinking the rough edges are only minor nuances given that people replying here shoot Sony. If they had major issues with the Sony system I would think they’d be on a different system.
Jul 08, 2026 at 02:08 PM
p.2 #14The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
seaSharp wrote:
When factoring in the lens ecosystem I won't be switching any time soon.
Everything is a compromise to one degree or another.. Pick your poison.
The size of the Nikons - nope. The bulk / cost / limited choices of the Canon lenses are a big downside imo.Fourteen thousand dollars and I would still be using a lens with a teleconverter (teleconverter not shown in CS but you get the idea):
https://camerasize.com/compact/#937.1200,ha,t
I would call that a lot of things but close to perfect wouldn't be one of them : ) And yes, the Z8 is too heavy (and I don't want to be juggling two different menu systems in any case) but that doesn't mean that Sony gets a pass from me (or probably more importantly from their perspective the $14k : ).
How hard would it be for Sony to lift their restrictions on third party lenses...Show more →
The Sony a1II is the same price Canon charged for the DsIII way back in 2007 and the 300GM released at the same price Canon charged for both the 300L IS and II when they released. Nikon's pricing wasn't vastly different for their premier combos. So, thanks mostly to our unprecedented inflation, we actually pay less today for a significantly smaller, lighter combo with capabilities far beyond what used to be offered at the price point. Their 100-400/4.5 is very expensive, sure, but, in 1995, Minolta wanted about $4k for their 400/4.5 APO G, so a few hundred more for an objectively better performing zoom that's also lighter doesn't even seem like inflation at work. Overall, the high-end pricing hasn't changed significantly for decades, despite inflation, and even the mid and low tiers have in no way kept up with inflation.
The purchasing power of the dollar has been nearly cut in half between 2000 and 2026. More than half if you dial it all the way back to the Minolta's release. I'm not thrilled with camera gear pricing and never have been, but I am thankful for the relative stability.
liggy wrote
Hmmm... aside from the price tag IMO the A1 II is about as close to perfect for my use cases as a camera can be.When factoring in the lens ecosystem I won't be switching any time soon.
Everything is a compromise to one degree or another.
. Pick your poison. The size of the Nikons - nope. The bulk / cost / limited choices of the Canon lenses are a big downside imo.
https://camerasize.com/compact/#937.1200,ha,t
I would call that a lot of things but close to perfect wouldn't be one of them : ) And yes, the Z8 is too heavy (and I don't want to be juggling two different menu systems in any case) but that doesn't mean that Sony gets a pass from me (or probably more importantly from their perspective the $14k : ).
How hard would it be for Sony to lift their restrictions on third party lenses...Show more →
The Sony a1II is the same price Canon charged for the DsIII way back in 2007 and the 300GM released at the same price Canon charged for both the 300L IS and II when they released. Nikon's pricing wasn't vastly different for their premier combos. So, thanks mostly to our unprecedented inflation, we actually pay less today for a significantly smaller, lighter combo with capabilities far beyond what used to be offered at the price point. Their 100-400/4.5 is very expensive, sure, but, in 1995, Minolta wanted about $4k for their 400/4.5 APO G, so a few hundred more for an objectively better performing zoom that's also lighter doesn't even seem like inflation at work. Overall, the high-end pricing hasn't changed significantly for decades, despite inflation, and even the mid and low tiers have in no way kept up with inflation.
The purchasing power of the dollar has been nearly cut in half between 2000 and 2026. More than half if you dial it all the way back to the Minolta's release. I'm not thrilled with camera gear pricing and never have been, but I am thankful for the relative stability.
Jul 08, 2026 at 04:09 PM
p.2 #15The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
Just realize that it is called the photography BUSINESS, that is what it is. Any of these companies will do what they can to maximize shareholder value and returns.
It is all about segmentation with features and functions. No one wants to make the Golldilock system because then we as consumers/customer would be less inclined to upgrade and spend more money.
I don't fault Sony for the a7RVI or a7V. The 3rd party fps limitation is a bit ridiculous, but not a deal killer for most people. I hate Canon's position way more with locked lens mount.
Sony's most silly product has to be the RX1R III though - $5,100 + tax for a camera without IBIS, a 13 yrs old lens design, half a decade old EVF and LCD tech, old battery...
It is all about segmentation with features and functions. No one wants to make the Golldilock system because then we as consumers/customer would be less inclined to upgrade and spend more money.
I don't fault Sony for the a7RVI or a7V. The 3rd party fps limitation is a bit ridiculous, but not a deal killer for most people. I hate Canon's position way more with locked lens mount.
Sony's most silly product has to be the RX1R III though - $5,100 + tax for a camera without IBIS, a 13 yrs old lens design, half a decade old EVF and LCD tech, old battery...
Jul 08, 2026 at 04:13 PM
p.2 #16The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
patotts wrote:
Sony's most silly product has to be the RX1R III though - $5,100 + tax for a camera without IBIS, a 13 yrs old lens design, half a decade old EVF and LCD tech, old battery...
And yet people buy it…because there is nothing else like it.
Sony's most silly product has to be the RX1R III though - $5,100 + tax for a camera without IBIS, a 13 yrs old lens design, half a decade old EVF and LCD tech, old battery...
And yet people buy it…because there is nothing else like it.
Jul 08, 2026 at 04:43 PM
p.2 #17The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
nhmorgan wrote:
I think it's a fair criticism. For example the A7RVI has one of the best EVFs and one of the worst rear screens. The best high res sensor in FF and caps it at 1/8000. It drives me nuts that the a7r series is now one of the best systems for astrophotography by you still can't zoom progressively and are capped at 10x zoom. Does it make the cameras unusable? Of course not. Is it frustrating for real world users? It is for me.
So complaining the A7R6 doesn't have Sony's best autofocus or that the 200-600 has focus breathing but failing to mention the lousy autofocus on the Z8 or the limit of 20fps RAW, complete lack of RAW pre-capture or the soft Z 180-600 when used at f/6.3 or the slow readout on the R5ii, the pre-capture autofocus that doesn't work - that's what you call fair criticism.
duncangr wrote
What a ridiculous post.So complaining the A7R6 doesn't have Sony's best autofocus or that the 200-600 has focus breathing but failing to mention the lousy autofocus on the Z8 or the limit of 20fps RAW, complete lack of RAW pre-capture or the soft Z 180-600 when used at f/6.3 or the slow readout on the R5ii, the pre-capture autofocus that doesn't work - that's what you call fair criticism.
Jul 08, 2026 at 05:33 PM
p.2 #18The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
chez wrote:
And yet people buy it…because there is nothing else like it.
Yep. Value of the RX1rIII is not the specs, but the shooting and carrying experience. Fuji is making a killing with the X100VI, a camera that has no business being so popular on paper, when you can snag an a7cII for less money. I don't own an X100VI, but I totally get why.
I will stay out of the lane of the often very vocal sports and wildlife guys who need their big lenses and AF specs, and FPS, but for a lot of the rest of us, the shooting and carrying experience matter a whole lot because we are integrating a camera as an everyday carry item and documenting our day to day lives. There is value to striking a strong balance between the carrying/shooting experience and having a strong sensor, lens, and decent AF in a compact package when you're trying to toss a camera in the bag without making too many compromises on the IQ front.
I don't own the Rx1RIII, but have a Q2 currently. I had the Rx1RII at one point, but the MKIII address most of the issues I had with the MK II. I'm sure its a great camera that executes well where its supposed to.
patotts wrote
Sony's most silly product has to be the RX1R III though - $5,100 + tax for a camera without IBIS, a 13 yrs old lens design, half a decade old EVF and LCD tech, old battery...Yep. Value of the RX1rIII is not the specs, but the shooting and carrying experience. Fuji is making a killing with the X100VI, a camera that has no business being so popular on paper, when you can snag an a7cII for less money. I don't own an X100VI, but I totally get why.
I will stay out of the lane of the often very vocal sports and wildlife guys who need their big lenses and AF specs, and FPS, but for a lot of the rest of us, the shooting and carrying experience matter a whole lot because we are integrating a camera as an everyday carry item and documenting our day to day lives. There is value to striking a strong balance between the carrying/shooting experience and having a strong sensor, lens, and decent AF in a compact package when you're trying to toss a camera in the bag without making too many compromises on the IQ front.
I don't own the Rx1RIII, but have a Q2 currently. I had the Rx1RII at one point, but the MKIII address most of the issues I had with the MK II. I'm sure its a great camera that executes well where its supposed to.
Jul 08, 2026 at 05:48 PM
p.2 #19The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
chez wrote:
And yet people buy it…because there is nothing else like it.
I don't blame Sony - it surely has to be their highest margin product.
I honestly don't think they sell tons of it. They would sell even less if Leica made the Q3 with a 35mm lens, but then a lot of people would stop buying Leica M glass and cameras. Why pay $6,900 for a Summilux 35/1.4 FLE II if you could get a Q3 35 (Summilux or APO design) for $7,300?
If you like the value prop of the RX1R III, I'm all for it - be happy. The equation just doesn't work for me.
patotts wrote
Sony's most silly product has to be the RX1R III though - $5,100 + tax for a camera without IBIS, a 13 yrs old lens design, half a decade old EVF and LCD tech, old battery...I don't blame Sony - it surely has to be their highest margin product.
I honestly don't think they sell tons of it. They would sell even less if Leica made the Q3 with a 35mm lens, but then a lot of people would stop buying Leica M glass and cameras. Why pay $6,900 for a Summilux 35/1.4 FLE II if you could get a Q3 35 (Summilux or APO design) for $7,300?
If you like the value prop of the RX1R III, I'm all for it - be happy. The equation just doesn't work for me.
Jul 09, 2026 at 04:55 AM
p.2 #20The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
gdanmitchell wrote:
Yup.
From an objective (or subjective) perspective, no camera or brand is perfect, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. If one is looking for a “perfect” camera system, the search will be in vain.
seaSharp replied, in part:
(And to be clear if you participate in other more competitive markets for niche complex high-end consumer products (high end bicycles and components come to mind in my case) you will have expectations for far better relationships courtesy of the fact that the vendors there need to compete harder and (perhaps?) have a history of standardization.)
What I wrote applies to every commodity market I’ve experienced, from the most mundane to the most specialized. (Speaking of “Specialized,” I was but no longer am pretty deep in the cycling community, and I owned — still own — a bunch of high end stuff from that time. It is true there, too. I’ve also been involved in it with specialized and sometimes extremely expensive classical music instruments, computers, outdoor gear, and a few other things.)
It is essentially unavoidable that once someone makes an excellent either they or someone else comes up with a way to make it better and the original thing seems even less perfect than it once was.
- - -
johnvanr wrote:
It would be interesting to see what the Chinese will be doing, but it's overall a pretty small market and I assume the margins are pretty low, compared to other markets. We'll see. So far, the weakness of most Chinese companies is servicing and long-term durability. No problem if you buy a lens for a few hundred dollars, but a real issue when you start talking about cameras.
I would not bet againsn China eventually producing photography equipment at the same level as Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al. Heck, they are already making gear for those companies.
They already manufacture and increasingly design some of the best products — look at where they are with batteries and EVs for example. (If you travel outside of the US you already see quite a few of their EVs.)
- - -
patotts wrote:
Just realize that it is called the photography BUSINESS, that is what it is. Any of these companies will do what they can to maximize shareholder value and returns.
That’s true, and it is useful to keep it in mind. At the same time, companies have “cultures,” and some of them are focused also on their reputations for things like quality and innovation. (Internally, it isn’t as simple as “just a business,” which is why you’ll hear about internal competition between the marketing department, the designers, the engineers, and finance.
Yup.
From an objective (or subjective) perspective, no camera or brand is perfect, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. If one is looking for a “perfect” camera system, the search will be in vain.
seaSharp replied, in part:
(And to be clear if you participate in other more competitive markets for niche complex high-end consumer products (high end bicycles and components come to mind in my case) you will have expectations for far better relationships courtesy of the fact that the vendors there need to compete harder and (perhaps?) have a history of standardization.)
What I wrote applies to every commodity market I’ve experienced, from the most mundane to the most specialized. (Speaking of “Specialized,” I was but no longer am pretty deep in the cycling community, and I owned — still own — a bunch of high end stuff from that time. It is true there, too. I’ve also been involved in it with specialized and sometimes extremely expensive classical music instruments, computers, outdoor gear, and a few other things.)
It is essentially unavoidable that once someone makes an excellent either they or someone else comes up with a way to make it better and the original thing seems even less perfect than it once was.
- - -
johnvanr wrote:
It would be interesting to see what the Chinese will be doing, but it's overall a pretty small market and I assume the margins are pretty low, compared to other markets. We'll see. So far, the weakness of most Chinese companies is servicing and long-term durability. No problem if you buy a lens for a few hundred dollars, but a real issue when you start talking about cameras.
I would not bet againsn China eventually producing photography equipment at the same level as Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al. Heck, they are already making gear for those companies.
They already manufacture and increasingly design some of the best products — look at where they are with batteries and EVs for example. (If you travel outside of the US you already see quite a few of their EVs.)
- - -
patotts wrote:
Just realize that it is called the photography BUSINESS, that is what it is. Any of these companies will do what they can to maximize shareholder value and returns.
That’s true, and it is useful to keep it in mind. At the same time, companies have “cultures,” and some of them are focused also on their reputations for things like quality and innovation. (Internally, it isn’t as simple as “just a business,” which is why you’ll hear about internal competition between the marketing department, the designers, the engineers, and finance.
Jul 09, 2026 at 08:46 AM