This is bad news from the perspective of wanting to see competition in the market. On the other hand, Sony’s sensor business does not appear to stifle the camera market unduly and hopefully they would be good stewards of the lens market too.
Fortunately the Samyangs and Viltroxes of the world are fast becoming credible alternatives to Japanese lenses and will keep the big companies honest. I wonder if the Koreans and Chinese will make an attempt at the sensor market too?
snapsy wrote:
Sony Semiconductor is an independent division and corporation owned by Sony, organized specifically so that they would not compete with Sony's imaging customers, ie to give them the operational flexibility to sell image sensors to anyone.
1. They all fall under Sony's coordinated corporate guidance and strategies. They are not independent companies.
2. The sensor sales are in fact going to the Sony's camera competition.
Sadly, this purchase will most likely happen. As usual, we the consumers will end up getting the worst of the deal. Higher retail prices, less choices all while stockholders and corporations make a ton of money. I learned a long time ago that being a "loyal fan" of any company (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc.) is a complete waste of time. These companies exist ONLY to make a profit. If they discovered that making toilet paper would make them more money, they would cease camera/lens manufacturing immediately and start making toilet paper instead.
So, enjoy what you have and don't count on your "favorite" camera or lens manufacturer to be there in the future for you. For all we know, Taco Bell might take up producing lenses in the near future if they deem that they will make more profit doing so.
Looking back to slr and slr days, especially on the "consumer" side, I seem to recall a range of re-labled or closely related lens for several mounts. I don't know all the players but would hope they are interested in expanding product lines and our purchase opportunities/their sales opportunities as opposed to some buyer looking to drain money and run off at the end if the purchased company doesn't survive.
chiron wrote:
1. They all fall under Sony's coordinated corporate guidance and strategies. They are not independent companies.
2. The sensor sales are in fact going to the Sony's camera competition.
Sony Semiconductor Solutions press release when formed in 2015 (source):
"In the semiconductor business, where image sensors are a primary area of focus, Sony will establish Sony Semiconductor Solutions Corporation ("Sony Semiconductor Solutions") to further reinforce this business, and concentrate on sustained growth. R&D, business control, sales and other operations related to the semiconductor business, which are currently overseen by business groups and R&D units within Sony Corporation, will be transferred to Sony Semiconductor Solutions."
Sony Semiconductor Solutions CEO statement in 2025 (source):
"Since our establishment as an independent business entity, we have expanded our operations primarily through image sensors for smartphones."
snegron7 wrote:
Sadly, this purchase will most likely happen. As usual, we the consumers will end up getting the worst of the deal. Higher retail prices, less choices all while stockholders and corporations make a ton of money. I learned a long time ago that being a "loyal fan" of any company (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc.) is a complete waste of time. These companies exist ONLY to make a profit. If they discovered that making toilet paper would make them more money, they would cease camera/lens manufacturing immediately and start making toilet paper instead.
So, enjoy what you have and don't count on your "favorite" camera or lens manufacturer to be there in the future for you. For all we know, Taco Bell might take up producing lenses in the near future if they deem that they will make more profit doing so....Show more →
It occurs to me that there is one little tricky bit for Sony in all of this, and it might end up encouraging something that will not necessarily be bad for pricing.
One of the appeals of the Tamron brand is and long has been lower prices than the OEM lenses. Right now Tamron makes lenses for (at least) Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Fujifilm, as I understand it. So the company’s success depends on producing good and less-expensive lenses for all of those brands, not just Sony.
As I understand it, Tamron also is able to leverage lens designs by applying them to products that work across brands — largely, I would imagine, by taking the optical designs and adapting the mounts and electronics to work with them.
In large part, their success relies on that — good optical designs, shared across multiple brands, and lower costs.
If you look at this from a somewhat blinkered “Sony only” perspective, I can see how having Sony own (and potentially control?) one of the popular third-party brands that Sony users rely on could look like bad news — and potentially take away one of the low cost alternatives.
However… it isn’t quite that easy for Sony to just raise those prices and keep the Tamron brand successful.
Tamron would still have to compete against the other third-party lens manufacturers in order to remain profitable. It would also have to continue to share its lens designs in products for the other brands — and we’d assume that they would have to keep the prices lower for those products… or else the whole value proposition of the company would be out the window. Which would not be a very good investment strategy for Sony.
snapsy wrote:
Sony Semiconductor Solutions press release when formed in 2015 (source):
"In the semiconductor business, where image sensors are a primary area of focus, Sony will establish Sony Semiconductor Solutions Corporation ("Sony Semiconductor Solutions") to further reinforce this business, and concentrate on sustained growth. R&D, business control, sales and other operations related to the semiconductor business, which are currently overseen by business groups and R&D units within Sony Corporation, will be transferred to Sony Semiconductor Solutions."
Sony Semiconductor Solutions CEO statement in 2025 (source):
"Since our establishment as an independent business entity, we have expanded our operations primarily through image sensors for smartphones."
This seems to be the prudent way forward. Move your focus to aspects of the market that have the greatest prospect for future growth. If they had announced that they were going to expand into film stock and cameras, the CEO would be gone. I’m pleased that they have maintained a presence in the digital photography/videography market. Should this acquisition proceed, it means that such a consolidation is viewed as a positive move for Sony. In a way, this is a further commitment to the market we value. There might also be some view to the future where manufacturing in China becomes more difficult. Both companies also make their lenses in Japan, Vietnam and China. Perhaps, after a buy-out, lens manufacturing can better be consolidated within Japan and Thailand.
old-gregg wrote:
Hold on. Are you actually rooting for this? Are you aware that the CCP’s official industrial policy openly calls for the forced deindustrialization of the West? Their grip on rare earths is not an accident, it's an implementation of the long term strategy. Are you aware that many Chinese manufacturers operate at a loss by design, with the government closing the liquidity gap through subsidized loans? Are you aware that Chinese companies are instructed to avoid buying Western products whenever possible?
China, by the way, could easily be the underlying reason for this merger. Japanese automakers are already openly calling for government-assisted industry consolidation to defend against the Chinese onslaught. This has nothing to do with competitiveness. Privately funded companies, with obligations to shareholders and operating under strict labor, intellectual-property, and environmental laws, cannot possibly compete with quasi-governmental companies perpetually funded by the state, operating under loose labor laws, stage-assited with industrial espionage, and relaxed environmental restrictions. ...Show more →
100% this. The Chinese government funneled billions into Huawei and they became a formidable competitor by copying innovations made by Western companies such as Ericsson, Nokia, Cisco, Juniper and others.
If Huawei was "version 1," "version 2" is the Chinese automakers and consumer imaging companies. Just look at the products from BYD and Insta360, and you'll realize that it is now fast innovation and not merely copying.
I could forsee a Chinese company coming in and offering a fully networked and AI powered offering on PL or L mount and completely upending the interchangeable lens camera market. They start with bodies using Sony sensors and a few features like decent phone integration (check out the Insta360 app if you doubt their software capabilities). Next step - BOOM! - gen 2 use Chinese designed high res 45MP+ global sensors that can AI cull and process your photos (based on learning your LR or C1Pro catalogs) on the primary card slot for $2000 and they offer a competitive 70-200 f/2.8 for $900 to the mix and eventually $4000 400 and 600 primes. It sounds far fetched, but not any harder than what they've already done.
The real question is whether the market is big enough for them to pursue. I would suspect not, but we don't really know.
Purely from an economic standpoint, Sony acquiring Tamron reduces competition in the lens market, which is unambiguously bad. Even if Tamron is going to be run as a unit "independent" from the camera business, Sony management would be negligent if they did not maximize profits across those units. Which could mean the lens selection would b e optimized as not to cannibalize Sony lens sales (bad for consumers). How it affects other lens mounts is more complicated; a better selection of Z-mount lenses increases lens sales but makes Z-mount cameras more attractive. Plus, licensing agreements most likely constrain what lenses they can produce.
I do not know anything about the Sony semiconductor sensor business, but I would be very very surprised if other manufacturers had access to the latest and greatest sensors.
Tamron being bought by private equity could be worse, though, if they suck the company dry, and then let it die.
snapsy wrote:
Sony Semiconductor Solutions press release when formed in 2015 (source):
"In the semiconductor business, where image sensors are a primary area of focus, Sony will establish Sony Semiconductor Solutions Corporation ("Sony Semiconductor Solutions") to further reinforce this business, and concentrate on sustained growth. R&D, business control, sales and other operations related to the semiconductor business, which are currently overseen by business groups and R&D units within Sony Corporation, will be transferred to Sony Semiconductor Solutions."
Sony Semiconductor Solutions CEO statement in 2025 (source):
"Since our establishment as an independent business entity, we have expanded our operations primarily through image sensors for smartphones."
Yes, but none of this bears on the question of whether Sony would continue to sell lenses for Sony's competitors' cameras, except for the implication that they might be willing to do so because they have done something similar in the past. If Sony owns Tamron, a sale of a lens for Nikon made by Tamron brings them no less profit than the sale of a lens made for a Sony camera body, all other things beig equal. If Sony is selling Nikon users the sensor and the lens, then Nikon is virtually a semi-subsidiary of Sony.
It's more or less the same principle as Microsoft making software for Apple comuters.
chiron wrote:
Yes, but none of this bears on the question of whether Sony would continue to sell lenses for Sony's competitors' cameras, except for the implication that they might be willing to do so because they have done something similar in the past. If Sony owns Tamron, a sale of a lens for Nikon made by Tamron brings them no less profit than the sale of a lens made for a Sony camera body, all other things beig equal. If Sony is selling Nikon users the sensor and the lens, then Nikon is virtually a semi-subsidiary of Sony.
It's more or less the same principle as Microsoft making software for Apple comuters. ...Show more →
Whatever Sony does after the acquisition, we know that they will want to maximize profits from Tamron and not reduce the incoming cash flow.
macwest wrote:
Just a fun fact sonys main revenue is from its insurance company business.
SFGI (the insurance/finance business, which is independent and Sony only owns a stake in) reported 2025 adjusted net income of 105.1 billion yen in 2025, of which 84.8 billion yen was from the Insurance business.
ET&S (the business which includes cameras) had an operating income of 158 billion yen. Gaming & Network Services had an operating income of 463.3 billion yen and is Sony's largest business unit even prior to the SFGI spin-off.
chiron wrote:
Yes, but none of this bears on the question of whether Sony would continue to sell lenses for Sony's competitors' cameras, except for the implication that they might be willing to do so because they have done something similar in the past. If Sony owns Tamron, a sale of a lens for Nikon made by Tamron brings them no less profit than the sale of a lens made for a Sony camera body, all other things beig equal. If Sony is selling Nikon users the sensor and the lens, then Nikon is virtually a semi-subsidiary of Sony.
It's more or less the same principle as Microsoft making software for Apple comuters. ...Show more →
I completely agree, which is why I find the situation so interesting from a strategy POV. One might argue Sony could earn more profit by making a competing system less attractive by discontinuing Tamron production for other systems, which could plausibly reduce camera sales for competing systems and increase them for Sony, meaning there's more at stake than just lenses when considering the profit impact. I'm not so sure myself and could be persuaded either way on that.
Sensors are a bit different because they're so capital intensive to design and manufacture, so it makes a lot more sense to sell sensors to everyone than it might for lenses.
Regarding the whole buyout story, there is a lot that don’t know and probably cannot know. Among these things are Sony’s intentions. They could include:
1. Acquiring some intellectual property from Tamron.
2. Enlisting Tamron’s manufacturing for Sony products.
3. Trying to buy out and then close a potential competitor.
4. Seeing Tamron as a cross-platform entre to selling to users of other camera brands.
5. Expecting that Tamron will be profitable by selling a less expensive line of lens to budget conscious buyers.
6. Any number of other possibilities.
The concerns mentioned in the thread are potentially real, including the fear that Sony might become so big in the photography gear market that they manage to reduce competition.
Time will tell.
- - -
On a different subject…
Newenglandrocks wrote:
100% this. The Chinese government funneled billions into Huawei and they became a formidable competitor by copying innovations made by Western companies such as Ericsson, Nokia, Cisco, Juniper and others.
If Huawei was "version 1," "version 2" is the Chinese automakers and consumer imaging companies. Just look at the products from BYD and Insta360, and you'll realize that it is now fast innovation and not merely copying.
I could forsee a Chinese company coming in and offering a fully networked and AI powered offering on PL or L mount and completely upending the interchangeable lens camera market. They start with bodies using Sony sensors and a few features like decent phone integration (check out the Insta360 app if you doubt their software capabilities). Next step - BOOM! - gen 2 use Chinese designed high res 45MP+ global sensors that can AI cull and process your photos (based on learning your LR or C1Pro catalogs) on the primary card slot for $2000 and they offer a competitive 70-200 f/2.8 for $900 to the mix and eventually $4000 400 and 600 primes. It sounds far fetched, but not any harder than what they've already done.
The real question is whether the market is big enough for them to pursue. I would suspect not, but we don't really know. ...Show more →
Since you are replying to his post, which was itself a reply to something I wrote, when this poster asks me, “Hold on, are you actually rooting for this?”…
No. I’m not.
Nnowhere in my original post did I say or suggest that this was a good (or a bad) idea, so, no, I was not “rooting for this.”
