[Serkevan]

Me and the Canon lady next to me are utterly uninterested in either EVFs or video, count us in the "we" camp

---------- Post added 08-12-19 at 03:14 AM ----------

They *are* sales figures, couldn't be clearer, Neokind. You will not be able to get a model by model breakdown because that information is so privileged even shareholders don't get to see it.

I'm not sure you understand how bad the situation is for Sony and the rest of the industry. Best if you can read those sales figures in conjunction with these ones as well:

Sony downward spiral continues, -20% camera customers, -11% $ sales - PentaxForums.com

mirrorless sales down -14.8% in units and -19.1% in value - PentaxForums.com

Mirrorless and DSLR dinosaur collapse cont'd: Sony Q4 camera profits dropped by -73% - PentaxForums.com

CIPA camera shipments figures for June 2019 - trends - PentaxForums.com

It makes for pretty ugly reading. We're at a point now where if DSLR sales drop, mirrorless sales drop too, so the companies have to think real hard. Why should a board approve expenditure to acquire share in a shrinking market of ILCs? If it can't get 8 percent returns developing new cameras and lenses why wouldn't it invest instead into medical or industrial imaging, or park its money in investment funds so it at least doesn't make a loss?

The numbers are like a slap to the face, honestly. Once the profits start dipping into (or close to) the red we will see how the big boys react... Olympus has been hanging in there but, after years of straight up losses, the 3000€ dual-grip MFT camera sounds like a "we are out with a bang, see ya never".

[Winder]

Sony hasn't shipped a new camera since the A7III last year (A7r4 isn't shipping yet). They have been waiting to see what Canon/Nikon/Panasonic are going to do. I'm sure they are feeling the crunch just like everyone else, but I think you will see an improvement with multiple new bodies shipping later this year and more new glass. When the lens line-ups for Canon/Nikon/Panasonic mirrorless get filled out, I expect you will see improvement for those brands as well. People don't seem to be taking the sales cycle into account when looking at YoY sales.

[photoptimist]

Well-stated. I know several professionals. I have learned from them, that they can make enough, from one job, to buy one of those ~$3500 cameras.
And then, write the cost off as a business expense.

That's true, but paying even $1 more for equipment than required is bad for the bottom line even if it's a tax write-off.

If a professional photographer can create good pictures with their old $1500 camera (which they can!), they get to keep $2000 in extra profit for other things. Even if they have to pay tax on the $2k, they still come out ahead by avoiding unnecessary expenses.

But I doubt that "pros" are the true target for these cameras even though that's how they are marketed. It's the wealthy amateur who wants the latest and greatest and does not have to prove that a 61 MP camera costing twice as much as a 36 MP camera really is twice as good. Amateurs probably out-number working pros 10:1 and probably upgrade twice as often as working pros.

[surfar]

The A6400 is the latest $$$ony

[Serkevan]

Amateurs probably out-number working pros 10:1 and probably upgrade twice as often as working pros.

A professional photographer is just someone who uses a camera as a working tool. You don't buy a tool because it's flashy and expensive and performs better than anything else, you buy a tool because it gets the job done, is comfortable to use the entire day every day and, hopefully, lasts long enough to be a family heirloom. While being as cheap as possible. And when it breaks, or doesn't let you work as your work demands, you get another one.

[RonHendriks1966]

A professional photographer is just someone who uses a camera as a working tool. You don't buy a tool because it's flashy and expensive and performs better than anything else, you buy a tool because it gets the job done, is comfortable to use the entire day every day and, hopefully, lasts long enough to be a family heirloom. While being as cheap as possible. And when it breaks, or doesn't let you work as your work demands, you get another one.

Not always. Some buy a Hasselblad.....to show of. And when the bulk work has to be done, the Canon comes out.

[Dan Rentea]

That's true, but paying even $1 more for equipment than required is bad for the bottom line even if it's a tax write-off.

If a professional photographer can create good pictures with their old $1500 camera (which they can!), they get to keep $2000 in extra profit for other things. Even if they have to pay tax on the $2k, they still come out ahead by avoiding unnecessary expenses.

But I doubt that "pros" are the true target for these cameras even though that's how they are marketed. It's the wealthy amateur who wants the latest and greatest and does not have to prove that a 61 MP camera costing twice as much as a 36 MP camera really is twice as good. Amateurs probably out-number working pros 10:1 and probably upgrade twice as often as working pros.

A photographer has 20+ weddings a year. In Romania wedding photographers ask from 1000$ for a wedding and they may ask for 2500$+ if they are very known. This means they make 20.000$+ in a single year, only from weddings. But in between weddings they have lots of private parties, corporate parties, etc. After 2-3 years they end up having 200.000+ clicks on the main body and they sell it for 1300$-1500$ so that they can buy a new one. This is typical among wedding photographers here, in Romania.

Some of them buy the same model as the one they replace, mostly because they are happy about the performance. Some of them buy the new model for a certain reason. But the price is not a problem because again, the pro bodies from Canon, Nikon and Sony are always around the 3500$ when comes to price. D850, 5D Mark III and Mark IV are the most selling cameras for wedding photographers and saying that there aren't many photographers willing to spend 3500$ on a camera is not quite true.

There are also the ones like me, shooting for pleasure most of the time and even for money just to cover my expenses when comes to photography. I haven't spent a single $ on gear that hasn't been covered from shootings. And I also have available budget for upgrades. The thing is, to me the asking price of 3500$ is not the problem when comes to gear. My "problem" in this particular case would be the resolution. It was the same when 5DsR was released. I took it for tests, I was impresed by the details in the files, but it wasn't for me. The ones shooting weddings with D850 are very happy about resolution so it seems that preferences differ from person to person. After all, there are wedding photographers shooting with Phase One or Hasselblad.

[surfar]

19

All Blacks.

That many wont help unless theres 15 who finish the game!

But with those coloured jerseys at least they save on washing after the match is over!

[Rondec]

A photographer has 20+ weddings a year. In Romania wedding photographers ask from 1000$ for a wedding and they may ask for 2500$+ if they are very known. This means they make 20.000$+ in a single year, only from weddings. But in between weddings they have lots of private parties, corporate parties, etc. After 2-3 years they end up having 200.000+ clicks on the main body and they sell it for 1300$-1500$ so that they can buy a new one. This is typical among wedding photographers here, in Romania.

Some of them buy the same model as the one they replace, mostly because they are happy about the performance. Some of them buy the new model for a certain reason. But the price is not a problem because again, the pro bodies from Canon, Nikon and Sony are always around the 3500$ when comes to price. D850, 5D Mark III and Mark IV are the most selling cameras for wedding photographers and saying that there aren't many photographers willing to spend 3500$ on a camera is not quite true.

There are also the ones like me, shooting for pleasure most of the time and even for money just to cover my expenses when comes to photography. I haven't spent a single $ on gear that hasn't been covered from shootings. And I also have available budget for upgrades. The thing is, to me the asking price of 3500$ is not the problem when comes to gear. My "problem" in this particular case would be the resolution. It was the same when 5DsR was released. I took it for tests, I was impresed by the details in the files, but it wasn't for me. The ones shooting weddings with D850 are very happy about resolution so it seems that preferences differ from person to person. After all, there are wedding photographers shooting with Phase One or Hasselblad.

I don't think the point is that there aren't people who buy high end cameras. Clearly there are and there are plenty who will buy the A7r IV.

But people act as though the number of high end photographers who are ready to expense out a new 3500 dollar camera is large and I think it is fairly small. As I mentioned, the median income for professional photographers in the US is in the 40,000 range. If you are there or lower, you are going to turn over your gear when you need to, not when Sony turns out a new camera. Odds are, you'll buy a little older camera like the A7r III to save a thousand dollars over the newest release.

[Chris Mak]

G master! Sony target audience is the average enthusiast photographer who like to use high tech things.

There's a change of paradigm in the camera industry that none of the DSLR brands seem to have understood like Sony. Canon is the symbol of the camera maker that makes cameras for producing photographs, Pentax would be all about image quality and intuitive use of camera. On the other hand, Sony are into designing cameras and communication to geeks, running a technology race of their own, selling to the same people who change their smartphone every year because they want to always have the latest tech. To me, it looks like the interest for photography is quite low, the market now is all about electronic toys and Sony is the company best as surfing that wave. Canon and Nikon traditional approaches just will miss that geek market.

Quite a cynical look on the photography business and Sony in particular. As well as on their effort with the Sony A7r4.
I wholeheartedly disagree, I own three Loxia lenses that will no doubt produce stunning images on the A7r4 (they already do on the A7RII and have no problem resolving that sensor to the max.), and I have a Canon 400DOII that will also benefit a lot from the 61mp sensor. The A7r4 has a one-button touch switch between FF and APS-C mode. Add to that the 5,76 EVF which will no doubt be stunning esp. in APS-C mode, the AF with full coverage of the APS-C field, and all the latest of Sony's AF wizardry, and I feel this may well be a single camera that makes all other cameras redundant. I found the money I spent on the Pentax KP well wasted for instance.

I think people shooting off Sony as a tech/toy profit business must secretly be very envious...

[Serkevan]

I think people shooting off Sony as a tech/toy profit business must secretly be very envious...

I keep wondering.Is it so difficult to believe that some people would rather dial back the specs and use something that doesn't make them cry blood because of how utterly uncomfortable the Sony things are? Like, really.

All camera makers are profit businesses, all of them. And unless they are rugged, durable and comfortable machines, they are toys more than tools. That is not a bad thing, but apparently some people get offended by the thought that, *gasp*, the expensive toy that gives them enjoyment is called... a toy?

[Dan Rentea]

I don't think the point is that there aren't people who buy high end cameras. Clearly there are and there are plenty who will buy the A7r IV.

But people act as though the number of high end photographers who are ready to expense out a new 3500 dollar camera is large and I think it is fairly small. As I mentioned, the median income for professional photographers in the US is in the 40,000 range. If you are there or lower, you are going to turn over your gear when you need to, not when Sony turns out a new camera. Odds are, you'll buy a little older camera like the A7r III to save a thousand dollars over the newest release.

If we speak about Sony and their one and a half year between releases, then the numbers may not be that big. If we speak about Canon, Nikon and even Pentax, people tend to buy the new model because the time between releases is 3 to 5 years. I rather spend 1000$ more to get the latest model knowing that it will pass another 4 years until I see a new model.

[Rondec]

If we speak about Sony and their one and a half year between releases, then the numbers may not be that big. If we speak about Canon, Nikon and even Pentax, people tend to buy the new model because the time between releases is 3 to 5 years. I rather spend 1000$ more to get the latest model knowing that it will pass another 4 years until I see a new model.

There is a basic calculation when photographers are buying gear, price versus features. The thing is that you can get an awfully nice camera for 2000-2500 dollars. And I don't think the cameras in that price range are going to take significantly worse photos or wear out a bunch faster than those in the 3500 dollar range and in fact if you wait 9 to 12 months, they will be priced quite a bit cheaper than they are at release.

The odd thing with Sony in particular is that they continue old models. So traditionally a company tries to have most of its old product sold by the time the replacement product is released, but Sony keeps all of the old models and sells them simultaneously. In some ways this probably boosts their overall sales, but I do think it can be a bit confusing to customers who are trying to figure which of the A7 models actually fits them.

[Fogel70]

The odd thing with Sony in particular is that they continue old models. So traditionally a company tries to have most of its old product sold by the time the replacement product is released, but Sony keeps all of the old models and sells them simultaneously. In some ways this probably boosts their overall sales, but I do think it can be a bit confusing to customers who are trying to figure which of the A7 models actually fits them.

I see the same from many other manufacturers, maybe only to a little less degree.

I think it is Pentax that is doing it completely differently. And may even stop selling the old model years before the new one is out.

[biz-engineer]

I wholeheartedly disagree, I own three Loxia lenses that will no doubt produce stunning images on the A7r4 (they already do on the A7RII and have no problem resolving that sensor to the max.), and I have a Canon 400DOII that will also benefit a lot from the 61mp sensor. The A7r4 has a one-button touch switch between FF and APS-C mode. Add to that the 5,76 EVF which will no doubt be stunning esp. in APS-C mode, the AF with full coverage of the APS-C field, and all the latest of Sony's AF wizardry, and I feel this may well be a single camera that makes all other cameras redundant. I found the money I spent on the Pentax KP well wasted for instance.

There is nothing in those sentences that consider anything practical of taking pictures. Everything written here is about specifications, and there is nothing in your comment about photography. You mention about how good is the 5.76M EVF, how good is that in practice? How good is 5.76M EVF compared to optical, in practice? Now about Canon, for example, Canon have mostly never cared about their sensor dynamic range, because when you print, or display images on a 4K monitor, the dynamic range is limited to 10ev at most. On the other hand, Canon have cared a lot about the choice of lenses, stability of lenses over temperatures in winter and summer , weather sealing (that's practical). But now, customers care about mega pixels when they never print, they can about dynamic range that they never use and they care about AF full coverage of the sensor area when focusing in the corner will never yield a good photograph because good image are focused around 1/3rd of the frame, most of the time. Canon also offer after sales services better than anyone else, something Sony doesn't offer. Overall, Canon made cameras for being great tool practically, but now cameras buyer mostly readers on online reviews are attracted by Sony, who make camera for looking good on internet abstract vacuum, so in fact you are part of the target market of Sony who care about spec sheets and never confront how the specs translate in real use. Sony are looking after market share, they are doing things to offer camera systems that serve photography well. The motive of the Sony buyer isn't photography, the Sony buyer likes to own high tech. Yeah, that cool to have 500 AF points that cover the whole image frame, but I'd like to know which of those AF point are locked for successful images, most the 1/3th area around the center of the frame, exactly like it is for DSLRs.