Sony camera sales plunge

Jonathan Mac · 12-12-2015, 03:06 AM

I think Fuji took a lot of business from Sony - same sized sensors, much better lenses, better prices, better looks, better marketed....

osv · 12-12-2015, 10:36 AM

those fuji cameras look good, and they have a better lens rep overall i suspect.

however, 16mp fuji isn't competitive with 24mp sony in the pq department, you can see that with the fuji jpegs, they are oversaturated, soft, and lacking detail.

16mp x-t10 will cost you $699 for just the body, the 24mp a6000 is $398(same size evf in both? but higher rez in the fuji)... $300 savings will buy some decent glass, and you'll have better pq, because of more pixels.

24mp ff a7 body is $998, 16mp crop xt1 is $999, ff is a no-brainer.

no mirrorless camera company can compete with sony in the pq vs. price department... companies like zeiss are releasing some serious glass for e-mount; once you are in the sony ecosystem, you aren't limited like you are with crop sensor companies.

normhead · 12-12-2015, 11:26 AM

I paid $157 dollars for my first SLR in 67. I shudder to think what that translate to today, but, that summer, I was paid $25 a week as a "semi-volunteer" parks and recreation playground leader. That camera took every cent I made all summer, while living at home not paying room and board.

Good cameras have never been cheap. IN fact, I'd suggest now, you can get something good for much cheaper than you could back then. As for phone technology, it's interesting that it's built into a phone, but there have always been cameras that fit in a pocket for people who didn't care much about IQ, and just wanted a few snapshots to jog their memory. There were also always way more people using those little pocket cameras than there were using larger format cameras.

And there was always mirrorless. Some people used those little rangefinder cameras that folded down to practically nothing, but gave you 5x7 negative that would blow 35mm away.

From the limited perspective of new developments taking place over a few years it may seem like things are changing... but looking at the long haul and big picture... it isn't what they think.

It is what it's always been.

osv · 12-12-2015, 11:48 AM

$157 in 1967 is about $1127 in 2015 dollars :-0 a pretty serious purchase.

normhead · 12-12-2015, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by osv

$157 in 1967 is about $1127 in 2015 dollars :-0 a pretty serious purchase.

That was my year at Ryerson doing photography, it was a course requirement. pay up or drop the course. And in fairness, my mom chipped in, but ya it was a lot of money. I got the SV and a light meter, not the Spotmatic, because I had to have the light meter for my studio class with the 8x10 view cameras, and the Spotmatic was 50 bucks more, still a huge amount of money for a student a the time.

Christine Tham · 12-13-2015, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by tim60

It is simplistic. My point there was that products considered good in one market may not be of much interest, for a variety of reasons, in another. And some can become such a passion that they lead to deleterious results.

Sounds like a straw man argument to me. You are hypothesising a possible variance in demand that even if true has no relevance since observable market behaviour does not support your hypothesis.

And, given I was born in a non-first world non-Western "culture", I completely reject your hypothesis anyway.

mecrox · 12-13-2015, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by osv

those fuji cameras look good, and they have a better lens rep overall i suspect.

however, 16mp fuji isn't competitive with 24mp sony in the pq department, you can see that with the fuji jpegs, they are oversaturated, soft, and lacking detail.

16mp x-t10 will cost you $699 for just the body, the 24mp a6000 is $398(same size evf in both? but higher rez in the fuji)... $300 savings will buy some decent glass, and you'll have better pq, because of more pixels.

24mp ff a7 body is $998, 16mp crop xt1 is $999, ff is a no-brainer.

no mirrorless camera company can compete with sony in the pq vs. price department... companies like zeiss are releasing some serious glass for e-mount; once you are in the sony ecosystem, you aren't limited like you are with crop sensor companies.

It's not about "competition" or slavish comparison of specs. It's about what people want and the pleasure and utility of the experience. Clearly for a lot of people that comes out equating to Fuji or the company would not sell a single camera. Besides, 16 mpx would seem plenty for Nikon and Canon's $5000 pro cameras (no one berates them for "soft" images), as well as for the Nikon DF, and chances are Fuji will produce a 24 mpx model in 2016 anyway. Some folks don't want FF or a Sony camera, much preferring something else. People can be funny in that way. Like, just about every Pentax user - when specs comparisons would often point heavily towards buying a Nikon or a Canon. But no, some folks just insist on not doing that. They want Pentax, or Fuji.

**Rondec** · 12-13-2015, 04:10 AM

I do wonder if India and China will skip the stage where people who aren't really interested in shooting with an ILC will buy one anyone and then put it away, never to use it -- using their cell phones instead. It felt like there was a stage in the United States where cell phone cameras were still pretty poor and a lot of people bought SLRs, because shutter lag, etc were so much better on them. Now, I seldom see ILCs in public spaces, but everyone really is shooting with their cell phones.

philbaum · 12-13-2015, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I do wonder if India and China will skip the stage where people who aren't really interested in shooting with an ILC will buy one anyone and then put it away, never to use it -- using their cell phones instead. It felt like there was a stage in the United States where cell phone cameras were still pretty poor and a lot of people bought SLRs, because shutter lag, etc were so much better on them. Now, I seldom see ILCs in public spaces, but everyone really is shooting with their cell phones.

Everyone??? I don't see a lack of people posting on photography forums. After 6 years of doing a lot of shooting for a local playhouse, i've been cutting back to just doing their promo shots and head shots for the program. I still get calls from them to do other kinds of shooting for them but refer them to other photogs who might be interested. The times they have tried to do their own shooting of plays and portraits with a variety of PS, bridge and cell phone cameras haven't turned out well. But i'm part of a gallery now, and you have to choose where you are going to spend your time.

Fewer photographers for gallery work is probably a good thing, although i'm now the only photographer in a gallery of 26. They actually treat me quite well, perhaps its because they think of me as a dinosaur not long for this world. (i.e. as in he still takes pictures with a regular camera)

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the continuing hotly contested debates about camera design, i.e. mirrorless or DSLR, when fewer and fewer people are buying either.

normhead · 12-13-2015, 10:51 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by philbaum

Everyone??? I don't see a lack of people posting on photography forums. After 6 years of doing a lot of shooting for a local playhouse, i've been cutting back to just doing their promo shots and head shots for the program. I still get calls from them to do other kinds of shooting for them but refer them to other photogs who might be interested. The times they have tried to do their own shooting of plays and portraits with a variety of PS, bridge and cell phone cameras haven't turned out well. But i'm part of a gallery now, and you have to choose where you are going to spend your time.

Fewer photographers for gallery work is probably a good thing, although i'm now the only photographer in a gallery of 26. They actually treat me quite well, perhaps its because they think of me as a dinosaur not long for this world. (i.e. as in he still takes pictures with a regular camera)

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the continuing hotly contested debates about camera design, i.e. mirrorless or DSLR, when fewer and fewer people are buying either.

Which brings to mind the image of the last two photographers using something other than a phone, one EVF one OVF sitting in a coffee shop arguing "EVF or OVF".

Scintilla · 12-13-2015, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by mecrox

People can be funny in that way. Like, just about every Pentax user - when specs comparisons would often point heavily towards buying a Nikon or a Canon. But no, some folks just insist on not doing that. They want Pentax, or Fuji.

Personally, when I bought my K-30 in 2013, the specs vs. Nikon and Canon were a huge part of the reason. IBIS, WR, twin control dials, 100% prism VF, AF micro-adjustment -- nothing came close for the price. And the DR was a significant upgrade over my (Christmas gift) Canon Rebel T3 to boot.

But then, that's just in the entry- to mid-level segment.

12-12-2015, 10:36 AM	#47
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	those fuji cameras look good, and they have a better lens rep overall i suspect. however, 16mp fuji isn't competitive with 24mp sony in the pq department, you can see that with the fuji jpegs, they are oversaturated, soft, and lacking detail. 16mp x-t10 will cost you $699 for just the body, the 24mp a6000 is $398(same size evf in both? but higher rez in the fuji)... $300 savings will buy some decent glass, and you'll have better pq, because of more pixels. 24mp ff a7 body is $998, 16mp crop xt1 is $999, ff is a no-brainer. no mirrorless camera company can compete with sony in the pq vs. price department... companies like zeiss are releasing some serious glass for e-mount; once you are in the sony ecosystem, you aren't limited like you are with crop sensor companies. Last edited by osv; 12-12-2015 at 10:41 AM.

12-12-2015, 11:26 AM	#48
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448	I paid $157 dollars for my first SLR in 67. I shudder to think what that translate to today, but, that summer, I was paid $25 a week as a "semi-volunteer" parks and recreation playground leader. That camera took every cent I made all summer, while living at home not paying room and board. Good cameras have never been cheap. IN fact, I'd suggest now, you can get something good for much cheaper than you could back then. As for phone technology, it's interesting that it's built into a phone, but there have always been cameras that fit in a pocket for people who didn't care much about IQ, and just wanted a few snapshots to jog their memory. There were also always way more people using those little pocket cameras than there were using larger format cameras. And there was always mirrorless. Some people used those little rangefinder cameras that folded down to practically nothing, but gave you 5x7 negative that would blow 35mm away. From the limited perspective of new developments taking place over a few years it may seem like things are changing... but looking at the long haul and big picture... it isn't what they think. It is what it's always been. Last edited by normhead; 12-12-2015 at 11:33 AM.

12-13-2015, 10:51 AM - 1 Like	#55
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448	Originally posted by philbaum Everyone??? I don't see a lack of people posting on photography forums. After 6 years of doing a lot of shooting for a local playhouse, i've been cutting back to just doing their promo shots and head shots for the program. I still get calls from them to do other kinds of shooting for them but refer them to other photogs who might be interested. The times they have tried to do their own shooting of plays and portraits with a variety of PS, bridge and cell phone cameras haven't turned out well. But i'm part of a gallery now, and you have to choose where you are going to spend your time. Fewer photographers for gallery work is probably a good thing, although i'm now the only photographer in a gallery of 26. They actually treat me quite well, perhaps its because they think of me as a dinosaur not long for this world. (i.e. as in he still takes pictures with a regular camera) I'm still trying to wrap my head around the continuing hotly contested debates about camera design, i.e. mirrorless or DSLR, when fewer and fewer people are buying either. Which brings to mind the image of the last two photographers using something other than a phone, one EVF one OVF sitting in a coffee shop arguing "EVF or OVF". Last edited by normhead; 12-13-2015 at 11:12 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What the history of camera sales looks like with Smartphones included	monochrome	General Photography	12	04-10-2015 09:12 PM
Sony Sensor Sales Policy	philbaum	General Photography	7	10-03-2014 07:07 AM
2013 Japan Camera sales report from BCN	JPT	Photographic Industry and Professionals	35	01-13-2014 04:05 PM
Camera Store TV team :Sony A7r is the best camera of the year 2013	jogiba	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	21	12-29-2013 06:30 AM

12-12-2015, 03:06 AM	#46
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,879	I think Fuji took a lot of business from Sony - same sized sensors, much better lenses, better prices, better looks, better marketed....

12-12-2015, 11:48 AM	#49
osv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: So Cal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,080	$157 in 1967 is about $1127 in 2015 dollars :-0 a pretty serious purchase.

12-12-2015, 11:53 AM	#50
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,448	Originally posted by osv $157 in 1967 is about $1127 in 2015 dollars :-0 a pretty serious purchase. That was my year at Ryerson doing photography, it was a course requirement. pay up or drop the course. And in fairness, my mom chipped in, but ya it was a lot of money. I got the SV and a light meter, not the Spotmatic, because I had to have the light meter for my studio class with the 8x10 view cameras, and the Spotmatic was 50 bucks more, still a huge amount of money for a student a the time.

12-13-2015, 01:59 AM	#51
Christine Tham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,269	Originally posted by tim60 It is simplistic. My point there was that products considered good in one market may not be of much interest, for a variety of reasons, in another. And some can become such a passion that they lead to deleterious results. Sounds like a straw man argument to me. You are hypothesising a possible variance in demand that even if true has no relevance since observable market behaviour does not support your hypothesis. And, given I was born in a non-first world non-Western "culture", I completely reject your hypothesis anyway.

12-13-2015, 03:54 AM	#52
mecrox Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	Originally posted by osv those fuji cameras look good, and they have a better lens rep overall i suspect. however, 16mp fuji isn't competitive with 24mp sony in the pq department, you can see that with the fuji jpegs, they are oversaturated, soft, and lacking detail. 16mp x-t10 will cost you $699 for just the body, the 24mp a6000 is $398(same size evf in both? but higher rez in the fuji)... $300 savings will buy some decent glass, and you'll have better pq, because of more pixels. 24mp ff a7 body is $998, 16mp crop xt1 is $999, ff is a no-brainer. no mirrorless camera company can compete with sony in the pq vs. price department... companies like zeiss are releasing some serious glass for e-mount; once you are in the sony ecosystem, you aren't limited like you are with crop sensor companies. It's not about "competition" or slavish comparison of specs. It's about what people want and the pleasure and utility of the experience. Clearly for a lot of people that comes out equating to Fuji or the company would not sell a single camera. Besides, 16 mpx would seem plenty for Nikon and Canon's $5000 pro cameras (no one berates them for "soft" images), as well as for the Nikon DF, and chances are Fuji will produce a 24 mpx model in 2016 anyway. Some folks don't want FF or a Sony camera, much preferring something else. People can be funny in that way. Like, just about every Pentax user - when specs comparisons would often point heavily towards buying a Nikon or a Canon. But no, some folks just insist on not doing that. They want Pentax, or Fuji.

12-13-2015, 04:10 AM	#53
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	I do wonder if India and China will skip the stage where people who aren't really interested in shooting with an ILC will buy one anyone and then put it away, never to use it -- using their cell phones instead. It felt like there was a stage in the United States where cell phone cameras were still pretty poor and a lot of people bought SLRs, because shutter lag, etc were so much better on them. Now, I seldom see ILCs in public spaces, but everyone really is shooting with their cell phones.

12-13-2015, 10:32 AM	#54
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Originally posted by Rondec I do wonder if India and China will skip the stage where people who aren't really interested in shooting with an ILC will buy one anyone and then put it away, never to use it -- using their cell phones instead. It felt like there was a stage in the United States where cell phone cameras were still pretty poor and a lot of people bought SLRs, because shutter lag, etc were so much better on them. Now, I seldom see ILCs in public spaces, but everyone really is shooting with their cell phones. Everyone??? I don't see a lack of people posting on photography forums. After 6 years of doing a lot of shooting for a local playhouse, i've been cutting back to just doing their promo shots and head shots for the program. I still get calls from them to do other kinds of shooting for them but refer them to other photogs who might be interested. The times they have tried to do their own shooting of plays and portraits with a variety of PS, bridge and cell phone cameras haven't turned out well. But i'm part of a gallery now, and you have to choose where you are going to spend your time. Fewer photographers for gallery work is probably a good thing, although i'm now the only photographer in a gallery of 26. They actually treat me quite well, perhaps its because they think of me as a dinosaur not long for this world. (i.e. as in he still takes pictures with a regular camera) I'm still trying to wrap my head around the continuing hotly contested debates about camera design, i.e. mirrorless or DSLR, when fewer and fewer people are buying either.

12-13-2015, 11:01 AM	#56
Scintilla Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 347	Originally posted by mecrox People can be funny in that way. Like, just about every Pentax user - when specs comparisons would often point heavily towards buying a Nikon or a Canon. But no, some folks just insist on not doing that. They want Pentax, or Fuji. Personally, when I bought my K-30 in 2013, the specs vs. Nikon and Canon were a huge part of the reason. IBIS, WR, twin control dials, 100% prism VF, AF micro-adjustment -- nothing came close for the price. And the DR was a significant upgrade over my (Christmas gift) Canon Rebel T3 to boot. But then, that's just in the entry- to mid-level segment.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search