Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor The point is that historical camera companies (and by historical, I mean those that had a significant activity during film era) are no longer innovating in this field. And that is mainly because the biggest names, Canon and Nikon, are too concerned about rocking the boat by producing radical new camera designs. So the new designs pop out from outside this restricted circle: Apple, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, Sony, Lytro. Or from companies that are trying to grow again, like Fuji.
Maybe you can say they desperately want to enter markets they know little about?
No doubts that newcomers must try something new, but that isn't necessary an innovation they must try to survive. Apple's greatest innovation isn't its iPhone for example, but the AppStore, iTunes, iOS, OS X, etc. People are hooked to the quality of their software and service (and machines do look good too). Similarly, people are hooked to photography companies that have comprehensive lens systems. Lens system is "all or nothing" in photography, or a software equivalent. That is why Leica still has its faithful; their camera bodies are nothing special when compared to the quality of their lenses.
Players like Sony, despite buying rights for the whole A-mount, seem not to understand what's the real stake there. Sony really shines in standalone, compact cameras like the RX1, or RX100. They can build a small gadget, and ask Zeiss to supply a good lens for it. But when *they* must build a system that really makes sense, and which evolves around lenses, they become clueless because in their mind everything starts from small camera bodies, electronic miracles. Then lenses are thought about at a later stage … which we see from their offer and market behaviour.
They get things upside down, as many beginners to photography do. When beginners make a few steps, and start to think, they suddenly realise Sony isn't the best company for them. And then they switch to Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Leica …