Kimio Maki is Senior General Manager at Sony’s Digital Imaging and also considered the “father” of the RX and A7-A7r series. Dpreview (Click here) posted a long Interview with him and here are some interesting key info:
– The QX series has been designed for the younger generation: “The younger customers demand better pictures to get more positive feedback from their peers – more ‘likes’ on Facebook.”
– On the other hand, the kind of customer I had in mind for the RX100 and RX1 products was someone who wants to be able to carry the best image quality possible in their pocket or bag.
– The RX10 is different – that’s the camera I wanted for events, like sport, when my children are playing soccer and basketball.
– He explains the difference between E and A-mount: “We can make E mount cameras and lenses smaller than A-mount. But for A mount we can realize superior image quality with better new technologies“.
– Also interesting is the answer he gave about why no other company created something like the RX or A7 series: “Our company philosophy of creating new products, of course, plus a fighting spirit. We are a challenger. We are not kings in this industry. In professional broadcasting we’re one of the biggest companies, but in the still imaging industry we’re still challengers, so we have the freedom to experiment. ”
– He is sure Full Frame will become cheaper: “Sony is the number one manufacturer of imaging sensors, and if we can sell a lot of them, the price will come down!”
It’s a very interesting interview and Mr. Kimio Mati really appears like a very curious and innovative man. I can’t wait to see what his next creation will be!
112 Responses
I like challenges and challengers!
Definitely far more interesting to watch!
I’m looking for a Grand Torino model!
That’s an interesting read. I wonder what the next crazy camera he is developing for us. I think Sony should make a B&W NEX 3 camera and a small ILCE super 16 video camera.
Are there benefits to making a B&W only capable sensor? Or would it be the same sensor, just limited to black and white output?
Hopefully a Voigtländer kind-of-guy..
I personally applaud his tenacity to push the envelope and become an innovator, instead of a duplicator.
I have been frustrated with sony in past, but it appears there on the long awaited path that professionals
like myself can stand behind with confidence.
Thanks for listening to your supporters.
Kimio Maki needs to learn that customers knowing a system is going to be around sells cameras. There is zero faith in Sony, they are too busy with their “freedom to experiment” and A-mount continues to stagnate.
Where is it stagnating? Where? Where? Where?
Glass would be the obvious area where innovation isn’t carrying over… Imho, given the number of gaps that are plugged by sigma/tamron, they should open up the a-mount like they did with the e-mount.
E-mount will always have wider support for lenses because the short-flange makes it so easy adapt. Doesn’t mean A-mount is not a fully capable system especially when third parties like Tamron and Sigma also contribute to the line-up.
In the years since the A100 where are all the lenses, flashes and accessories? Sony have concentrated on a shotgun approach to releasing bodies and mostly missed the target.
They continue blindly on with this shotgun approach rather than building a SYSTEM around A-mount. Even now after years of being in business, we have one low-end over-priced full frame, an outdated and out-gunned top-end APS-C and a beginner/mid-end APS-C with an identity crises.
However, fan-boys will be fan-boys…
Agree 100%. Spot on Alphaguy.
Sony have been hit and miss, mostly miss over the years.
A100 ok to start, A700 was good and should have had a MkII but they let it die. A900, again they did not develop this.
They messed around with the 5 series cameras.
Now we have one dated higher end APS-C model, an A65 which is too long in the tooth, and a rather weak A58 which screams cheapo and uninteresting.
But by far the biggest missed opportunity is the A99. What could have been a genuinely affordable FF using new technology, ended up priced up to D800 levels.
This guy doesn’t convince me QX is a turkey, RX is ok, RX10 is dead on arrival due to overpricing. If you notices he talks about “us and we” never about “our customers” and what they want.
Sony are all over the place with models trying everything they can, rather than actually do a decent job with A mount. And no another junky A5x model won’t do it, another overpriced crop body won’t either. Sony are lost..shooting rounds all over the place, yet never really hitting the target
Shot gun approach with matching shot gun shutters. Technological capabilities? Where are they? LOL.
+1
Way too focused on Cameras ONLY instead of a system. Maybe this is due to the “I want to do something else in 6 months… instead of building a system”
I disagree. The focus had always been on the sensors. Well made cameras are made by others using those sensors. A few years later, they get sold in Sony assembled shells.
Totally agree!
When this guy talks about ‘customers’ he means *new* customers, as the ones he already has are boring to him
Sony need to realise that people buying into a camera *systems* like A-mount or E-mount are usually buying for specific characteristics that system has and want to see continuity of those characteristics as new models are released. There is nothing wrong (in fact there is a lot right) with having a few innovative and ‘leftfield’ product releases but the main lines need to be supported as well with appropriate roadmaps, updates of existing models and the ‘boring’ accessories we need to use the equipment effectively
I notice that the guy doesn’t seem to have worked on any E-mount or A-mount equipment prior to the A7
I wonder if the ‘legend within Sony’ was a label that he gave himself to the interviewer? I see a very ambitious and self-centred individual there
I don’t like his approach, and don’t care for his obvious ego much either – openly talking about how ‘out of touch’ his direct manager was, how much smarter he was and even giving the guy’s age so that he could be more easily identified!
” Overprice ” is a word of poor people.
And I can say ” Canon image sensor is crappy ”
Oh … Nikon DF about 3000 USD for 1/4000s and crappy video rec.
I am in agreement with you. “Over-priced” is used by people who have little appreciation for the amount of R&D $$$ that goes into developing new technologies and products.
Too many people here want Sony to create a $999 USD “D800E”… but it will likely not happen anytime soon… if ever! Too many SAR readers want cutting edge design… innovation… and technology… but then only want to pay a ‘FIRE SALE’ price.
+1 AlphaGuy. My thoughts exactly.
Not that I really disagree with you, but you are presenting a very bleak picture. The a100 was released 7 years ago. And for 7 years you do have quite a few lenses and cameras. Could it be better? Sure.
The a850 was discontinued in 2011, so it has been only two years since Sony doesn’t have a cheaper FF offering in A-mount. The top-end APS-C, i.e. A77, is hardly outgunned, what is so much better about the the 70D, for example?
Absolutely agree with AlphaGuy, Sony must build up a trusty and refined line of cameras and lenses. Otherwise Pro’s are not going to invest $20’000 into a full line of equipment. It is surprising that one man only has such an impact on a strategy. Maybe this is the Japanese authoritative leadership.
As much as I admire the innovative spirit Sony has, this innovative spirit is only one element for the success-formula. Nowadays Sony-customers seem to be more biased towards gear lust and new tech stuff than to reliable intuitive tools for taking pictures with a sustainable camera line.
A bit disappointing is the statement, that the A-mount can provide better IQ and the E-mount is meant for smaller cameras. I don’t know how to interpret that. Are E-mount lenses worse or how is that meant. At least Mr. Kimo Make makes a strong statement for the future of the A-mount. Interesting times ahead.
Emount is meant to be smaller and their optics will follow that. doesn’t mean that the quality will be inferior, just that we can’t expect f1.4 primes (or faster) nor 2.8 zooms.
Thanks Bear for your explanation. I am looking forward to Zeiss bringing high quality manual focus glass for the E-mount. That will be my point in time to make a decision. I believe EVF is just on the edge to surpass OVF in terms of focus accuracy for manual focus lenses. The A7R seems to qualify well for that purpose.
If you are looking at this from the company perspective, I don’t see anything disappointing. All the restructuring started in 2011, I believe, it has been merely two years. It is pretty obvious, that it is going to be a messy period, but I have only seen amazing cameras coming from Sony these last years, so I do have high hopes. It certainly looks way better, compared to 2009 or 2010, when people were still waiting for a replacement to the a700.
And while I don’t think they are geniuses, I also don’t believe that they are as clueless, as you think. And that thing “Sony-customers seem to be more biased towards gear lust and new tech stuff than to reliable intuitive tools for taking pictures with a sustainable camera line” is just preposterous.” Sony actually makes some quite intuitive and reliable cameras and Sony users know it.
That ‘Sony users know it’ is the point. Canon and Nikon users should know it too. As a Canon shooter I was confident with the launch of the Sony A7 as a second smaller system or as a replacement. But this interview with this kind of personality and the statement that ‘every six months something new’ is not what improves confidence.
Yep, I do see your point here. From a user standpoint, especially a more proficient one, there are clearly issues. What I am arguing is simply that Sony is clearly in a transition process (for good or bad). I do think they have a clear direction. And it would be nice for them to share it.
To quote Dave: “As much as I admire the innovative spirit Sony has, this innovative spirit is only one element for the success-formula. Nowadays Sony-customers seem to be more biased towards gear lust and new tech stuff than to reliable intuitive tools for taking pictures with a sustainable camera line.”
I wonder if Sony is not remiss in doing this though, compared to the success of Apple. Given Kimio-san’s own comment about Sony being a consumer electronics company, they’re probably more inclined to operate in a manner similar to a tech company, not an optics/film company. Old school computer enthusiasts like myself have been complaining for years that Apple’s products keep getting more impossible to fix and upgrade yourself, forcing us into upgrading whole systems as the software advances and leaves that hardware behind. The result can be gear lust, especially when it behooves the company for you to get the next piece of hardware. We can see this clearly in the iphone and ipad.
The RX line seems very reminiscent of this strategy: if you provide an easy to use, superior quality product, people will pay plenty of $$$ for it, even if the hardware is not at all up-gradable (i.e. fixed lens). The piece that Sony is missing in this analogy though is software (i.e. firmware) updates, which is something that Apple makes easy to do. That said, I’m not sure this will work for interchangeable lens cameras. The A7R shakes things up a bit being lens agnostic, compact, and full frame, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see them refresh the A7 line every year.
To my mind, I feel like the market is shifting towards the perception that cameras outside of smartphones are luxury items by the very fact that to own one you are likely carrying around a redundant piece of technology. Granted, I’m not arguing that smartphones can do it all (not at least without some ground breaking new physics (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/jul/03/lensless-camera-acquires-images-efficiently), but with this comment I feel like Kimio-san is clearly targeting me and my cohort:
“The concept of the RX1 is simply to create the best image quality that we can in camera you might use walking around, in everyday situations, for weekend snapshots… I didn’t want to use an APS-C format sensor or anything smaller. I want to get the best picture quality. Personally I wanted a great camera for the weekends, but existing full-frame cameras were too big for me. So that was the challenge when creating the RX1. The RX10 is different – that’s the camera I wanted for events, like sport, when my children are playing soccer and basketball. The lenses on the RX100 and RX1 aren’t long enough for that. Also for movies – as you know we use every pixel on the sensor for video recording, therefore the movie quality is better than some professional video systems.”
I’m a 30 something with a growing family, I like photography, I’m looking to up my photographic game, and I have some extra income. I’m used to carrying around a silent and discrete smartphone with a camera available all the time. I want much better sensor performance and I want a very specific tool to do the job I’m looking for. Do I want to get an ILC camera and then invest in possibly non-compatible glass (of which I’ll probably only really need a couple lenses), or am I willing to buy a fixed lens RX1 or RX10 (or X100s, etc) and upgrade 3-5 years down the road like I do now with my laptops and tablets? The line of thinking is very similar…
It’s maybe a mentality issue. I asked my ten years younger asian brother in law: Would you buy the cheapest screwdriver that works for one year or the most expensive that works for ten+ years? His answer was, he would buy the cheapest one and get a more modern one in one year. You won’t be surprised, that my european answer was to buy the most expensive one that although outdated will do the job for 10 years and results finally to be the cheaper version. I do not want to over-simplify mentality issues, but I think you get my point. Maybe younger (asian) people (Sony’s customer target) have other preferences than ‘older :-)’ westerners, who stick with conservative Canon and Nikon but lust for more innovation. Now Sony should find the good mix to catch the Canon- and Nikonpeople too.
Great read indeed!
That was a cool read. Thanks for that XD
I want new technology and better image quaility in E-mount product too. I am not unsatisfied with A7/A7R but is Sony want to introduce some advantages with February announced new A-mount product? If they are, I want them with e-mount too 🙂
Sony’s FF will be cheaper. Which means Nikon’s FF will be cheaper? And Canon is left to… what about the supposedly Fuji FF? will that be that co-op with Panasonic? Or will Sony sell 24mp sensors to Fuji from the ‘unsold’ closet?
I think his logic is sound for the whole new cameras that have come up. He’s right, Sony isn’t a dominating player, so they have more leeway to experiment and I find that encouraging for pushing the boundaries just that little bit further.
Certainly a positive read from an a-mount perspective. It’s not been getting a lot of love lately so it’s good to know that it still has a clear place in the lineup.
“But for A mount we can realize superior image quality with better new technologies“.
Can you? Go for it!
Hehe. Yea – sounds more like a song of future than anything that happens right now (just don’t compare Sony to Canon APS-C, please).
It’s all well and good being in the forefront of new technology but Sony really should spend some money and get firmware writers who know what they are doing. If Sony’s picture quality firmware was as good as Fuji’s or Pentax’s then Sony really would start taking on CaNikon.
SONY JPGs are getting better. JPGs from A7 look impressive to me. I think JPG quality is partly limited by available CPU and battery power. SONY cameras are CPU and power more demanding – EVF, high pixel count, high FPS. Better JPGs require more CPU processing and battery power. Optimizing firmware for CPU usage is hard. Latest ARM cores deliver more and more power but we still need more CPU power per watt. They could trade better JPGs for lower FPS but that would not be welcome either.
I completely agree with him about the cell phones. I think cell phones and picture sharing are the best thing that can happen to the camera industry. Now, virtually every single person has a camera on them. How many of those people will catch the bug and say… “I like this…” and that’s how you get a camera enthusiast. The cell phone camera is the gateway drug of photography, and everybody is taking it.
My initial impression was that the QX100 was ridiculous when it was first presented here. However it’s turned out to be one of Sony’s most successful products. The guys at the Sony helm clearly know what they’re doing.
Image-Resource has posted very good image quality comparisons for different ISO of Sony A7/A7r and Canon 5D Mk 3, Nikon D800E and Pentax 645D medium format:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/11/04/sony-a7r-image-quality-analysis-medium-format-quality-35mm-body-judge-yours
http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/a7r/#IQC
They are impressive results even though the new sharpening algorithm for blue skies is affecting the red fabric. You wouldn’t think it could compete so well with the medium format camera. It’s interesting that they say that Sony now leads the field with their in camera processing of jpegs.
Bosse, thank you for the link. It’s very interesting indeed!
Thanks for the links, very encouraging indeed, well-done Sony!
I like the comparison. It is only a pity a little that it is jpeg based, cause I am only RAW shutter.
Get the RAWs and compare in black-and-white. Disable sharpening and adjust exposure, if necessary. It works even if your converter doesn’t have A7 tone curves. In darktable, A7 RAWs look waaay better than those notorious JPEGs.
Don’t forgot. Also the RX1R. I think the comparisons in this link are very interesting. I love that Sony is pushing the rest of the photo industry. Canon and Nikon are not doing anything interesting at all. EVF and mirrorless will be the future for the majority of photographers. I love small sized cameras and do a lot of cycling and hiking and I am not going to pack big gear on my adventures. Let’s express some gratitude for these amazing engineers from Sony, Olympus, Fuji and Panasonic who are pushing high IQ in a small body. That Sony A7R is an amazing feat.
The telling part of the interview is where he describes the A7 and A7R as designed to attract Canikon users as a second system, not a replacement. I wondered why they would create a system needing all new lenses, and here’s the answer. He’s not selling the A7’s to existing Sony A-mount users, but to Canikon users who already would need to buy new lenses for Sony (or use an adapter, as A-mount users could do).
Typical Sony view “I imagine a customer with a good knowledge of camera systems….”
Not “The customer I ask …. etc…”
He got lucky with his guesses but it would be even better to ask the market.
Calle he make the things all right. It’s more clever to follow the product philosophy to design fully new products, innovations that market haven’t got seen unti the day you bring them out. Market breakthroughing innovative and disruptive technologies are better than conaervative old style old fashioned products.
Like Steve Jobs don’t hear to the market and costumer stupid, create just new innovative products which people even don’t know that they will want them. People/consumers often don’t really what they really want until you bring the new innovative products to market. So you must create as manafucter the reality and give people consuners to know, what they want. Look at stupid things like smartphones. Only Apple e.g. could make smartphones with touchscreen to standard in mobile market, because they didn’t hear at old costumers and market reasearchera. They just innovate zhe market with the new multitouchscreen technology, better user interface in smartphones and throw away the bad stylus touchscreen concept without multitouch! That’s the way.
All great Managers should learn from the Philosophy of Steve Jobs and Harvard Business School idea of ,,disruptive technologies”.
Costumer research is bullshit, when you only hear at your old costumer market, you won’t get fully new costumer markets. That’a the point in innovation process. See the disruptive technology site.
Read ,,The Innovator’s Dilemma” from Harvard Bussiness School Prof. Clayton M. Christensen.
Photongraph, I totally agree with you. Disruption is the prefered way to innovation although it is also the riskiest. When the NEX-5 was released I was all over it because of small, large sensor, interchangeable lenses as well as it’s design. I think Sony will do well pursuing it their way: “I Dreamt About It. Sony Made It” which applies at least since the first Walkman even though there had been hyatuses when Bozos were at the helm since Bozos can only follow…
Steve Jobs was what I call “product centric” which meant he was obsessed with one thing: the product. In all it aspects: performance, touch, feel, design, build, materials, detailing, less is more, etc… And naturally the rest followed since he made a “dent in the universe”. Sony may well try to adopt some of it, why not ?
So, he said “I imagine” and your conclusion is that Sony just never does any research?
– “He explains the difference between E and A-mount: “We can make E mount cameras and lenses smaller than A-mount. But for A mount we can realize superior image quality with better new technologies“.
I must be missing something from this statement, but every E. Mount camera has superior image quality than the Equivalent A mount.
Nex 5n has superior image quality to A55/57
A7r has superior image quality to A99
Where is the A mount camera that has superior image quality over Amount?
A mount cameras, seem to be a bit behind at this moment.
I still waiting for the A mount camera with superior image quality to A mount. I don’t think it exists.
If the E mount cams have such better picture quality with the same sensor then they must have written some new and much better firmware.
Why then can’t (or won’t) they write good firmware for A mounts, or adapt the E mount algorithms, and put out a decent firmware update to show us they really can do it for us.
Don, I do agree with you – but I hope he means that this is their new strategy. Because you are right – with same sensors E-mount has had IQ superior to A-mounts, which is safe to say is due to the light fall-off in the mirror. So those who say “stfu with whining about the SLT mirror it’s only 1/3 light” … I’d say that’s alot and should be removed completely or reduced to max 1/10. The thing is that A-mount is more suitable for larger lenses…
LOL you really think one-third light loss affects over-all IQ? Get a life mate!
Last I saw photography was about gathering light for a period of time on a sensor… So yes it does matter. For same f-stop and shutter speed, you need 33% higher ISO to get the same equivalent light captured by the sensor when 1/3 light is lost on the way. Higher ISO = more noise etc. I don’t know in what universe you live when saying that less light into a camera sensor doesn’t worsen the IQ.
Sure it does matter. But it’s still only 1/3 EV. Considering that E-mount doesn’t offer a single f/1.4 lens – A-mount still got an advantage 😉
That is getting crazy. Tell me, in your universe, what would be the situation where the D600 would be ok and the A99 won’t be?
@Vlad (I don’t know which Vlad you are but anyway…)
How can you make the argument that there is no situation where 1/3 of a stop matters (in fact, the mirror takes a 1/2 stop), and at the same time get all excited about fullframe vs. APS-C. (What would be a situation where 1 stop of difference would matter?)
@skeptical which Vlad I am would be impossible to answer 🙂
The a99 and D600 are pretty much the same at least up until 1600. Take the two cameras, shoot in difficult conditions, then scale down the photo for web or make a print and tell me how much of a problem it is _in reality_. I bet you’ll see a marginal improvement at 3200 with the d600 and maybe something more substantial at 6400. And that would be it. The issue is overblown.
As to being excited about full frame, I am not particularly so, but to answer your question, I want dynamic range and resolution.
Alright – this is some anecdotal evidence. I don’t have an A99, but it is well known that it doesn’t do particularly well in ISO tests. In DxO, it gets a score of 1555, as opposed to ~3000 for Nikon FF cameras. The Nex-5n already gets something like 1100. If this cannot be blamed on the mirror, I don’t know what else.
(I have heard there is one Vlad who does not like DxO scores very much. For sure, it’s not the whole story, but I don’t think it’s rigged and this is a big difference.)
Re. dynamical range & resolution: I will agree completely that there are other reasons you might prefer fullframe. For myself, I have no desire for more resolution… I’m not a pro, I don’t print posters and I don’t have an 8K TV.
@skeptical I don’t agree that it is anecdotal evidence. There are quite a few tests out there already comparing the two cameras, such as this one: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50626110 (simply one of the first I googled). Imho, that “well known that it doesn’t do particularly well in ISO” is based on DXO numbers. I don’t really have a problem with DXO numbers and I don’t think they are rigged (not the same Vlad), but they simply don’t translate that clearly in real life. It does sound horrible when you say 1500 vs 3000, but that says a very small part of the story.
Hi Vlad, (I deduce that you are the “reasonable Vlad”)
This is interesting and surely, in real life there might not be a lot of difference. But for the sake of technical comparison, I want to point out one more thing. A home test at the same ISO (as reported by the camera) is not necessarily the best thing to do. Cameras often misreport the actual sensitivity to make themselves look better, and DxO measures that as well. You can go to Measurements -> ISO sensitivity, and you can see that while the Nikon D600 inflates its ISO numbers by about 1/2 stop, the A99 does so almost by 1 full stop. So that’s 1/2 stop difference right there. Another 1/2 comes from the mirror, which would explain the 1 stop difference in the DxO test. I agree that this difference manifests itself mainly at higher ISOs (which is the purpose of this test). Up to ISO 1600, both would be very good of course.
That’s because you took a few words out of context and applied it to bodies only, not accounting for focusing (speed, which also relates to the bodies…) and glass.
What he clearly means is that the A mount is less restricted in terms of size (or weight and indirectly also speed), thus glass can also be less compromised in every way. You won’t see long and/or fast tele lenses for the E mount any time soon, nore lenses with a huge entrance pupil (diameter). Nor SSM lenses relying purely on PDAF.
That contributes to picture quality too.
And I didn’t even mention IBIS, which also works with all prime lenses…
Focusing speed has no impact on Landscape and Studio Model Photography. And you don’t take those type of photos at f1.4
I think he simply went overboard with that statement, or he must be talking about cameras that have not yet been release
It seems some interpretations went overboard. There are thing like generalizations, overall focusing speed matters.
Anyway, imho, it simply means that they intend to make better glass for A-mount and will go for size priority with E-mount.
Yes, I didn’t understand the ‘superior IQ Amount’ arguement concerning A-mount either
I assume that he knows nothing about actual camera technology and is basically just a sales guy focusing on sticking his name on ‘whizz-bang’ product launches in order to further his internal political ambitions within the corporation
There isn’t much to get. The A mount simply has less design contraints regarding size and weight and can use fulltime PDAF.
Too many people focus on sensor+beamsplitter being the only deciding factor for picture quality.
Don1 1 hour ago | Reply – “He explains the difference between E and A-mount: “We can make E mount cameras and lenses smaller than A-mount. But for A mount we can realize superior image quality with better new technologies“.
I must be missing something from this statement, but every E. Mount camera has superior image quality than the Equivalent A mount.
Nex 5n has superior image quality to A55/57
A7r has superior image quality to A99
Where is the A mount camera that has superior image quality over Amount?
A mount cameras, seem to be a bit behind at this moment.
******************
Don1 wrote: “Where is the A mount camera that has superior image quality over {E}mount?”
Coming next year.
According to numerous rumours here… 🙂
.
Sorry, my intention was to erase all text above the asterisk line – unnecessary to repeat that. But I forgot, and as we all know, the comment edit function is unfortunately lost.
.
So A mount is for professionals and the E mount for amateurs/prosumers. Makes sense!
Nobody is going to buy A mount as a “pro system” if Sony decide to concentrate on higher priced bodies, it simply won’t work.
They don’t even have the lens range to support the pro market, nor the flash system (which is under developed) or the bodies (few pros want SLT cameras)
How that’s going to work well it just won’t.
The only way SLT might do ok is if Sony actually start pricing their products at “wow yes let’s take a look” levels. The A99 shot that idea down in flames
From what I understand, professionals look for tools, not their price tag. Cameras like D3/D4 are used because they are great tools, not because they are cheap… so the pricing strategy might work for high-level enthusiasts.
I think professionals rather need proper support, rental possibilities, fast service if something breaks, a complete and proper flash SYSTEM…
You are right about the prices. A99 was way to expensive (D800/5DMKIII territory) when in reality it was the counterpart of the likes of D600/6D.
Hovewer Sony is doing a great job in opening a new market: mirrorless FF. In maximum 2 years the other members of the big three (Nikon and Canon) will follow. I bet that in 5 or 6 years the market will be 99% mirrorless!
In reality it was and is the counterpart of a 5DmkIII. The D600 is about as much of a counterpart as the A77 is a counterpart for the D3200…
+1
No the A99 is not a pro camera it has SD slots not full mag alloy, scene modes
It’s D600 land not D800/5dMkIII
Only Sony would be dumb enough to try to price it like they did
As for price, Sony have no hope at the pro level so don’t bother. Sure pros don’t look at price, but they don’t look at SLT cameras, a weak flash system and a lens range that’s below par either.
Sony can slap as many 36mp FF SLT bodies out as they want at £2500 odd, few will buy them
The sensor performance of the D600 is way better than the one in the A99. Regarding the sensor, A99 is on par with the D7100 which costs almost a quarter!
The mkIII isn’t more of a pro camera than the A99 because of build. The lens mount of the mkIII connects directly to a fully plastic (…) chassis.
5DmkIII guts:
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2eud8m7Pl1qj0y3o.jpg
A99:
http://i0.sinaimg.cn/IT/cr/2012/1023/2223895440.jpg
http://www.houseofjapan.com/images/2012/11/sonya99tearnov8.jpg
And the 5DmkIII has plenty of scene modes too.
The A99 is not comparable to the D800 or the 5D Mark III in the average buyers books.
It’s AF and Flash system is not comparable, the sensor is 24MP compared to 36MP, and the high ISO performance is not better.
At best its comparable to the D610.
Simply, the camera is showing its age, even though it was not released too long ago, and show be priced to compete with the D610/6D.
They should have release an A mount camera, with a 36MP sensor to compete with D800 and 5D MK III.
@ Andrei:
You just proved my theory. “The sensor performance of the D3200 is way better than that of the A77!!”
First, not it’s not. The SLT mirror makes most of the difference. And second, even sharing the same or similar sensor does not make them counterparts. That’s like saying a Canon 7D and 600D are in the same class. A camera is more than its sensor.
The D600 has a lower grade build, less direct controls, a shutter that maxes out at just 1/4000th, shorter quoted shutterlife, no electronic first curtain, lower flash sync, no IBIS, not tilting LCD, hideous LV speed, slightly slower fps in FX, much slower in DX or smaller crop, longer shutterlag, longer focus delay, no direct aperture control in LV or video, no 60P full HD, no XLR options, built in mic just mono. Oh and no continuous oil stains. Need I go on? 😉
@ Don:
Another sensor stairer with selective glasses. If MP defines class, why not mention the fact that the 5DmkIII has less MP than the A99?
The point is, everyone can cherry pick one or two items to throw two random cameras in the same class or to separate them. Fact is, the A99 takes the 5DMKIII head on overall, not just based on 1 or 2 features.
By your logic I could say:
The mkIII is clearly from a lower class since it has much less DR and suffers greatly from banding on top of that.
It doesn’t work that way.
Ah, back at it again, are we?
@Denis So, an additional scene mode makes that camera a toy? You have some strange idea of what a pro camera is.
@Andrei Please, do define “way better”, I’d like to hear that!
@don1 Saying that “the A99 is not comparable to the D800 or the 5D Mark III” and then stating that the AF is not good and the the sensor is 24MP compared to 36MP, doesn’t make much sense. The D800 and 5D aren’t one camera, but nice try. And do let me know when I can see the “average buyers books”.
You mistake cameras with sensors. A99 features basicaly the same sensor like A7 which is better then D600. But A99 is SLT which means some light is lost the for main sensor due to pelicle mirror.
A99 sensor is completely different than the A7.
Dont1 wrote:
“A99 sensor is completely different than the A7.”
Enlighten us. List all the differences below.
Yes, it was rumored here as their long-term strategy. Curiously, there is A3000 which is not particularly pro. I think, they will launch A9000 soon and then fill the gap gradually.
I don’t think that is curious in this context, since the A3000 isn’t an A mount camera but indeed an E mount camera.
You right, I mixed up the form factor. I simply don’t want them to terminate the AX line with A9.
I can’t deside, should i sell my A-mount lenses and migrate to E-mount? Or not?
If you can’t decide – don’t make a switch. It’s expensive and usually a very long-term decision. Meanwhile it seems like all of the interesting glass will go to A-mount, so… if I were you I wouldn’t do any rush decisions.
Why migrate lenses? Migrate the body and get an adapter if you think E-mount will be the future. Then slowly replace your A-mounts whenever an equivalent E-mount lens becomes available. Until then: enjoy a mix of both.
I love how Sony gives us access to their designers and project leads, and let’s them explain their vision to us, rather than simply have some marketing guy talk up the marketing points.
I hope they continue to do this, and Sony is lucky to have Kimio Maki!
+1. Sony seems to be finally starting to communicate with its users lately. They should definitely continue to do so.
ROFLMAO!
Digital bodies vs lenses – the nature of the beast: Sony is a consumer electronics firm. Most current digital cameras will lose 50-75% of their marketable value in 5 years or less – they are essentially a disposable consumer item. The technology is moving very quickly and Sony must be “focused” on the next big thing to stay in the game.
Lenses will follow, I imagine – but system building is, of necessity, a secondary concern.
Somebody has to innovate, and part of innovation is that not all products will be successful. However, with the A7 and A7R Sony has brought to market something special which seem to appeal to many, (but not all) photographer, and which its competitors cannot at the moment produce, and, I suspect would dearly like to. Witness the Nikon, which has more than a hint of despeartion about it. The Sony lens line-up is lacking, but the two FE primes currently available seem to be very sharp, especially the 55 f1.8, from which the images so far, particualry as they are all JPEGs, look extremely good, and if the lens road map is followed, in twelve months the lens line up will be far more rounded. Nikon and Canon seem to some extent to be the victims of their own success, and the Microsoft/Apple comparison springs to mind. Fuji is doing some great things, but looks unlikely to have full-frame mirrorless ILCs for at least anotyher year, and when they do, they too wil require a new set of lenses. If Sony continues to innovate, particulary with sensor technology (3 layers, organic etc.), exciting times are ahead. Sony’s innovation doesn’t just drive Sony’s product’s forward, it gives a timely kick in the butt to the more complacent camera companies.
“which its competitors cannot at the moment produce”
invalid statement, any DSLR manufacturer can produce a mirrorless ILC. You do realize that a DSLR is much more complex and costly to produce than a mirrorless camera, right?
The only reason why Canikon has not adopted such strategy yet is that most of ILC customers still prefer OVF vs EVF and that mirrorless is not mature enough to replace DSLR yet.
But yea, Canikon could put out an A7 in six months if they wanted to. I think they should but it is not their strategy.
I think it is good that Sony exploits the holes in Canikon’s approach (crappy EOS-M, Nikon J1, no mirrorless body on their DSLR mounts) but:
1. they fail to execute: lens offering is sub-optimal
2. A-mount is going nowhere: no clear strategy (should have already removed SLT by now, A58 would have been a good test), no clear commitment. This is going to cost them A LOT in the heart of photography enthusiasts.
Sorry, should be ‘witness the Nikon DF’ – over-zealous spellchecker
Japanese companies are terrible, anyone in charge of a department doesn’t mean they’re qualified or understand the customer base, just means he’s done his 30+ years at the company agreeing with everyone before him.
It’s good to hear how somebody from very top puts everything in perspective.
And I particularly like about his A7 explanation.
Those of us here complaining about his approach and still demanding about “SYSTEM” from Sony with more mature approach with line of lenses, tech support etc. are the ones who wants a mature, reliable best friend to trust and get old living the rest of life in peace with.
Sony (now that is more clear after Mr. Maki’s description) is a young, rootless, unreliable, selfish frustrating mustang, but who is creative, innovative, new, exciting, attractive, full of surprises, experimental with more freedom than others … kind of friend to take.
It’s not gonna be replace my wife, it’s just a camera so, I’ll take it.
difference between E and A mount is easy.
Sony working on E mount.
A mount = not.
This Sony guy is playing around live some kind of designers wet dream, but ultimately people are looking for stability and confidence in a system..not sporadic products that some nerd thinks might be “different”
The QX is a very good example of a product nobody though about and nobody really wants. The RX10 is so expensive it’s not got a hope in hell of selling in any kind of serious numbers.
Need I remind people even Steve Jobs has dud moments, NeXT was a strange company with products most people didn’t want, it was not a successful venture but maybe some lessons were learnt.
I still see this nonsense about the A99 competing with the 5dMkIII and D800, it’s a fantasy at the best of times, A99 has part plastic body, the AF system ripped out of the A77 with poor frame coverage (which is ok but it’s not a pro AF system) As Denis says SD cards too. Anyone who thinks that’s a pro level body is dreaming.
Which is why it flopped in the market.
Sony are a weird company always trying to dabble, never mastering anything.
And yet their shoddy firmware they leave customers with problems and don’t fix them.
That speaks far more about Sony than anything else. Great have your fun with “new cameras” but at least try to fix the stuff you sold to people. A99 still have flash problems, bad jpegs and crippled video modes on other SLT models.
Don’t come looking for me to buy new stuff, until you fix the stuff we’ve paid for
Kimio is a dreamer nothing else, wrapped up in his massive ego
came across your old comment just randomly and kept thinking you couldnt have analyzed sony better LOL.
Based solely on the content of this interview it would seem that sony has no ambition to lead the still photography world but would prefer instead to be the leader in sensor production.
That would explain why sony only introduces minor sensor improvements rather than major ones to thier csmeras.
They do not want to beat thier competition but rather keep just enough pressure on them to keep them buying the latest sony sensors.
I never cared if my emount lenses were big. I would have made due. Please just make the focal lengths I need or I will stick with Nikon & slowly move away from sony, forever.
E-mount for smaller cameras
A-mount for more advanced technologies which requires more space & electricity
That make sense to me!
But FF E-mount lenses are designed from the ground up with very good resolutions
Some FF A-mount lenses are too just old (e.g. 35G)
So how can “we realize superior image quality with better new technologies” without new lenses ?