Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-02-2014, 11:05 AM   #256
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by GlassJunkie Quote
A basic analysis of the financial results of SONY continue for the fourth quarter to show the outright hemorrhaging of cash from the Photo division. Rumors of deep discussions in reducing losses are rampant in English and Japanese financial circles. The Mirrorless line (an advocacy play for SONY sensors and an attempt to squeeze out DSLRs) is not working in a commercial sense (sustainable and making money) since the higher end user demands a decent viewfinder and the ability to "tweak" AF results. It is driving a conversation about mirrorless (a7s in general), but with the M4/3 and other units, a road to nowhere... Hasselblad will be the next strategic mover. SONY is a DMW (Dead Man Walking) in photo (highend). Their glass has been bottle-grade since the SRT101 and similars were replaced with the tripe.... It does however make Nikon's glass look better... IMHO...[COLOR="Silver"]

.
That does not jive with what i've read before. You'll have to link me to your references before i believe any of that. Obviously all camera companies were hurt by the loss of the compact (PS) sales, but i've read that the sensor division and mirrorless are doing quite well.

12-02-2014, 11:20 AM   #257
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,906
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
That does not jive with what i've read before. You'll have to link me to your references before i believe any of that. Obviously all camera companies were hurt by the loss of the compact (PS) sales, but i've read that the sensor division and mirrorless are doing quite well.
Believe what you will - here's the published fact (though not available for linking in this kind of a public Forum).

As have many global electronics manufacturers, Sony is repositioning itself for the next 40 years to penetrate emerging and developing markets, where there will be rapid growth. Traditional western markets (NA, EU) are saturated and demographically positioned contrary to rapid growth.

As part of a general, multi-year restructuring which has included significant writedowns of capital investments and line discontinuations (still projecting a significant earnings loss for FY 2015 March) Sony restructured the Imaging Products & Solutions segment,which accounted for 9% of total sales in FY14, to include compact digital cameras, video cameras, interchangeable single-lens cameras, broadcast and professional-use products. It is very challenging to read through reports and understand whether Sony's MILC cameras are contributing profit within this segment, but even if they are profitable, they amount to a tiny fraction of Sony's overall revenue. ISL cameras are not going to attract significant, market-breaking attention from Sony anytime soon..

Sony's sales generally lack vibrancy in Consumer Discretionary products - especially high-end products - as the slow global economic environment continues to inhibit consumers from making the marginal purchase or marginally more expensive purchase. Sony products have historically been priced as premium technology at premium prices (4K HD and OLED/AMOLED TV), which is not easily marketable in today's environment. Until consumer electronics are stimulated by revolutionary technology, rather than mere evolution, such trends are expected to continue. MILC is not revolutionary technology. The only two bright spots in consumer spending are smartphones and tablet computers.

Last edited by monochrome; 12-02-2014 at 11:32 AM.
12-02-2014, 12:00 PM   #258
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,375
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
of course there is light loss in a lens, we just don't see it there because this testing is apparently done on camera jpegs that have corrections applied... it's the only explanation for zero light loss.
Or it's too low for their test to measure, or they round to the nearest 1/10th of a stop and that happened to be 0.0EV.

They talk about their testing procedure for Tstops here:

Light transmission - DxOMark

and it relies on the testing for ISO-sensitivity here:

ISO sensitivity measurement protocol - DxOMark

while they don't mention jpeg or raw on either of these, given that they take the trouble to verify the exposure times instead of just trusting what the manufacturer reports them to be, I'm willing the make the assumption that they are smart enough to realize jpegs would have (more) uncontrollable processing applied. It would probably be best if they used a method that was independent of the camera, but they do at least take steps to factor this out.
12-02-2014, 12:11 PM   #259
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by GlassJunkie Quote
A basic analysis of the financial results of SONY continue for the fourth quarter to show the outright hemorrhaging of cash from the Photo division.
unsubstantiated rubbish... why post things that you can't prove.

sony doesn't have a "photo division", but they do they have a big camera division, and as of earlier this year, it was bigger than the nikon camera division:
Sony camera division is now bigger than Nikon camera division: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

the sony camera division includes pro video gear as well, so those are not dslr/milc-only numbers.

according to the latest(11/25/2014) sony market forecast, "the still camera market is expected to shrink significantly, but the mirrorless ilcs will increase"... we knew that already... more from the imaging products and solutions division forecast:
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/info/irday2014electronics/IPandS_E.pdf

that backs up the cipa figures posted earlier... dslrs are on the way out.

"The operating profit outlook for Sony's imaging, music and device units was also increased. Strong sales of image sensors and batteries, as well as a weaker yen, propelled the devices business to a quarterly operating profit of 29.6 billion yen, up 149 percent year on year."
Leaner Sony gains smartphone lift despite its own mobile malaise | Reuters

---------- Post added 12-02-2014 at 11:35 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Or it's too low for their test to measure, or they round to the nearest 1/10th of a stop and that happened to be 0.0EV.
too low to measure would be good... but why don't all of their lens tests then show zero light loss? i think it's more of a case of camera manufacturers tweaking sensor iso... for instance, we know that the iso100 measurement is not held to any standard, right? it's only whatever the camera company says it is:
An Open Letter To The Major Camera Manufacturers

12-02-2014, 12:44 PM   #260
Pentaxian
Rimfiredude's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Washington
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,177
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
of course there is light loss in a lens, we just don't see it there because this testing is apparently done on camera jpegs that have corrections applied... it's the only explanation for zero light loss.

the real question is, if pentax corrected it's lens vignetting in-camera, why is the sony showing so much vignetting... did they simply correct it less than pentax did? the sony 35/2.8 does have significant vignetting, and there is evidence that the correction is written to the raw as well.

---------- Post added 12-02-2014 at 08:47 AM ----------



the only reason that dvd sales dropped was because of new technology that competes with it... i was in the dvd creation business for years, i know all about it... everything is online now.

sony is still selling dslrs, that use a-mount lenses, that can be mounted on sony mirrorless cameras with the lea4... you get pdaf with that adapter, it has a mirror in it.

it's not as sophisticated as the k-3 autofocus system.

---------- Post added 12-02-2014 at 08:52 AM ----------



we are referring to mirrorless cameras that have evf displays, so they are handled just like dslrs with an ovf... you put your eye up to the viewfinder.

shoot only with the viewfinder, except maybe when you want to tilt the rear lcd display for a ground or overhead shot.
Guess I should have read the whole thread and not ASSumed. Like I said the NX1 really looks cool. I would love to see one in person.
12-02-2014, 12:57 PM   #261
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
unsubstantiated rubbish... why post things that you can't prove.

sony doesn't have a "photo division", but they do they have a big camera division, and as of earlier this year, it was bigger than the nikon camera division:
Sony camera division is now bigger than Nikon camera division: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

the sony camera division includes pro video gear as well, so those are not dslr/milc-only numbers.

according to the latest(11/25/2014) sony market forecast, "the still camera market is expected to shrink significantly, but the mirrorless ilcs will increase"... we knew that already... more from the imaging products and solutions division forecast:
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/info/irday2014electronics/IPandS_E.pdf

that backs up the cipa figures posted earlier... dslrs are on the way out.

"The operating profit outlook for Sony's imaging, music and device units was also increased. Strong sales of image sensors and batteries, as well as a weaker yen, propelled the devices business to a quarterly operating profit of 29.6 billion yen, up 149 percent year on year."
Leaner Sony gains smartphone lift despite its own mobile malaise | Reuters

---------- Post added 12-02-2014 at 11:35 AM ----------



too low to measure would be good... but why don't all of their lens tests then show zero light loss? i think it's more of a case of camera manufacturers tweaking sensor iso... for instance, we know that the iso100 measurement is not held to any standard, right? it's only whatever the camera company says it is:
An Open Letter To The Major Camera Manufacturers
From 2013 report of "Imaging Products & Solutions (IP&S):
"Sales decreased 2.0% year-on-year (a 16% decrease on a constant currency basis) to 741.2 billion yen (7,196million U.S. dollars). This decrease was primarily due to a significant decrease in unit sales of compact digital cameras and video cameras reflecting a contraction of these markets, partially offset by the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates during the current fiscal year."

16% of their earning is 118 billion of yens, more than 4 time than the operating income. Would the exchange rate have stayed flat, the "Imaging Product & Solutions (IP&S)" would have a negative operating income of 92 billions yens. This is not exactly good that you made to stay positive only out of luck in forein exchange rate... The exchange rate may not continue to evolve in the right direction in the years to come and may not continue to hide the realilty that this division is losing money.
12-02-2014, 01:00 PM   #262
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,906
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
sony doesn't have a "photo division", but they do they have a big camera division, and as of earlier this year, it was bigger than the nikon camera division:
Sony camera division is now bigger than Nikon camera division: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

the sony camera division includes pro video gear as well, so those are not dslr/milc-only numbers.
Don't be so sure - Sony cameras are NOT bigger than Nikon cameras.

In point of fact, Sony no longer has a camera division. It has been restructured into the omnibus 'Imaging Products and Solutions' segment.to include compact digital cameras, video cameras, interchangeable single-lens cameras, broadcast and professional-use products.

The DPR post notes Sony lost only 2% sales for FY 2014 in this segment - but it fails to note that the comparison numbers include broadcast television equipment (major revenue item) and other professional products such as digital cinematic cameras and broadcast and cinematic editing equipment where it isn't clear all of these were present in the prior year numbers.

Broadcast and Professional Use Products:

Broadcast & Pro A/V
Camcorders
System Cameras
Decks, Recorders and AV Servers
Switchers and Live Systems
Professional Monitors
Professional Audio
Creative Software
Professional Media

Broadcast Solutions
Live Production
Content Management and Delivery
News Production

4K Digital Cinema
4K Projectors
3D Projection Systems
High Frame Rate Software
Theatre Management Solutions
Accessories

Professional Displays
Public Displays
Accessories

I left out Projectors and Medical Imaging because I can't separate the professional projectors from the Home Theater, and I don't know for certain whether digital radiological cameras and display equipment arein this segment.

Last edited by monochrome; 12-02-2014 at 01:05 PM.
12-02-2014, 01:13 PM   #263
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
of course there is light loss in a lens, we just don't see it there because this testing is apparently done on camera jpegs that have corrections applied... it's the only explanation for zero light loss.

the real question is, if pentax corrected it's lens vignetting in-camera, why is the sony showing so much vignetting... did they simply correct it less than pentax did? the sony 35/2.8 does have significant vignetting, and there is evidence that the correction is written to the raw as well.
Pentax option to process vigneting is an option and apply only to jpeg. The 0.7EV vigneting of DA50 is the actual real vigneting. This is because DA50 althrough made for APSC is derived from an FF design, meaning you don't really get the extreme border performance of the actual lense on APSC.

As for Sony, they seems to have an habit to under design their lenses toward vigneting performance. This is really something to take into account as to apply the correction, noise is increased on the borders.

12-02-2014, 01:15 PM   #264
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,375
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
too low to measure would be good... but why don't all of their lens tests then show zero light loss?
Because not all lenses have Tstop so close to the fstop? There's no reason they should, it's a property of the lens design, coatings, etc., they won't all be this good.

QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
i think it's more of a case of camera manufacturers tweaking sensor iso... for instance, we know that the iso100 measurement is not held to any standard, right? it's only whatever the camera company says it is:
An Open Letter To The Major Camera Manufacturers
Did you read the testing links I gave? They first test the iso of the camera vs reference standards (these results are including in camera body tests). They use this to factor out the lying manufacturers iso claims when determining the Tstop of a lens.

However, it looks like they'd be hooped when it comes to lens specific manipulations the camera performs on raw files, but we're getting into deep conspiracy theory territory to believe Sony would do this specifically to win at a Tstop test for a couple of expensive lenses.
12-02-2014, 01:24 PM   #265
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,209
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Because not all lenses have Tstop so close to the fstop? There's no reason they should, it's a property of the lens design, coatings, etc., they won't all be this good.



Did you read the testing links I gave? They first test the iso of the camera vs reference standards (these results are including in camera body tests). They use this to factor out the lying manufacturers iso claims when determining the Tstop of a lens.

However, it looks like they'd be hooped when it comes to lens specific manipulations the camera performs on raw files, but we're getting into deep conspiracy theory territory to believe Sony would do this specifically to win at a Tstop test for a couple of expensive lenses.
companies playing with processing on system lenses even at raw level is getting more common. Fuji has lens profiles that apply (you can however turn them off) I don't think a lot of DXO because their whole system is predicated on everyone using the Bayer array . Don't use it and you don't exist, it's not the only game in town. It's a shaky foundation but it's how they figured they could equalize everyone.
I think Photo-zone does better lens tests though
Taking DXO at face value ignores that they have compromises to make their system work, and they want to sell their system .
12-02-2014, 01:37 PM   #266
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Did you read the testing links I gave? They first test the iso of the camera vs reference standards (these results are including in camera body tests). They use this to factor out the lying manufacturers iso claims when determining the Tstop of a lens.

However, it looks like they'd be hooped when it comes to lens specific manipulations the camera performs on raw files, but we're getting into deep conspiracy theory territory to believe Sony would do this specifically to win at a Tstop test for a couple of expensive lenses.
We know for sure Pentax was blurring raws of K5 to make them look better in high iso... In practice it made K5 to win all high iso test at that time. K5 had also an iso 80 setting that was some sort of trick applied to the sensor but still... It provided it with more dynamic range than other sensor. The 2 things combined made more of less the K5 the APSC body of its time with the best dynamic range and best high iso. It helped it a lot to get the honors 'camera of the year" or equivalent back in time and to get the best rating in many reviews. This is funny because many people are still convinced K5 has har supperior sensor to K3 and the difference come mostly from the smaller pixels of K3... while most of the difference comes from the iso80 mode and blured high isos raws of K5. They decided to stop their cheating with K3 but it made it look worse than the previous product.

When I was into getting to get the best graphic card, it was common for me to look at benchmark result to figure-out what graphic card would give the best bang for the buck. One graphic card maker was known to recognise the executable file of the benchmark and to perform optimization specificaly for it, even decreasing quality so to get higher scores... But it allowed them to get higher score and sell more graphic cards.

There is no deep overall conspiracy, that's for sure but to think that everybody is kind and perfectly honest all the time is a little naive. One can think that Sony and Pentax cook their raws only to help the poor customer that is the victim of low quality raw processing software... Or that they do this to make they camera look better... I tend to think this is more the second case...

Last edited by Nicolas06; 12-02-2014 at 01:43 PM.
12-02-2014, 01:40 PM - 1 Like   #267
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
From 2013 report of "Imaging Products & Solutions (IP&S):
"...This decrease was primarily due to a significant decrease in unit sales of compact digital cameras and video cameras reflecting a contraction of these markets, partially offset by the favorable impact of foreign exchange rates during the current fiscal year."
which affected *all* camera manufacturers, not just sony.

whatever tweaked math that you think that you are pointing at sony applies to all of 'em, and is therefore irrelevant.
12-02-2014, 01:42 PM   #268
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,375
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
companies playing with processing on system lenses even at raw level is getting more common. Fuji has lens profiles that apply (you can however turn them off) I don't think a lot of DXO because their whole system is predicated on everyone using the Bayer array . Don't use it and you don't exist, it's not the only game in town. It's a shaky foundation but it's how they figured they could equalize everyone.
I think Photo-zone does better lens tests though
Taking DXO at face value ignores that they have compromises to make their system work, and they want to sell their system .
The raw manipulations would be matching up just perfectly to cancel the light loss on two specific lenses, but not the other sony fe lenses I looked at, that makes me think it's not likely the major cause here.

DxO is just another piece of data, I'd never take them as the sole source of anything if I can help it. Same with photo-zone, or any other group.

I can't find anywhere else that measured the transmission of the sony lenses in question, all the references I've found seem to point back to DxO
12-02-2014, 01:45 PM   #269
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Pentax option to process vigneting is an option and apply only to jpeg.
that's what people used to think about sony... i suspect that it would be difficult to prove one way or the other.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
The 0.7EV vigneting of DA50 is the actual real vigneting.
see above.
12-02-2014, 01:47 PM   #270
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,375
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
There is no deep overall conspiracy, that's for sure but to think that everybody is kind and perfectly honest all the time is a little naive. One can think that Sony and Pentax cook their raws only to help the poor customer that is the victim of low quality raw processing software... Or that they do this to make they camera look better... I tend to think this is more the second case...
Oh, I agree they can all be duplicitous. This would be something fairly specific though, and lining up perfectly enough that you'd expect people to catch you if you were in fact cheating in this case. I wouldn't say it's impossible, it just seems unlikely to me here.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
35mm, camera, cameras, canon, compromise, dslr, evf, frame, kit, lcd, lenses, market, mirrorless, ovf, pentax, photography, pm, post, rangefinder, sensor, size, slr, slrs, sony, steve, system, weight
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Dying Flowers Dr Orloff Photo Critique 3 02-02-2014 07:36 PM
Landscape The living and dying. BigJPR Photo Critique 25 05-09-2013 05:51 AM
Dying voice of reason.... jeffkrol General Talk 3 12-14-2012 11:25 AM
GOP problem: 'Their voters are white, aging and dying off' jeffkrol General Talk 42 05-22-2012 08:40 AM
Are all FILM SLRs safe with older flashes? ismaelg Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 5 03-29-2012 08:53 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:49 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top