We have the Japanese market share data based on camera sales of 2013 (Source: BCNranking). As you can see Sony made a+6% jump in the mirrorless segment. The less good news is that Sony lost market share in the DSLR-SLT category. Sony also lost a tiny 1% share in the compact camera business.
Note that in Japan the mirrorless sales numbers are as big as DSLR. Would love to see worldwide results too but unlike Japanese other countries do not provide such detailed data. At leats in US you can make a very rough idea of what sells through Amazon US ranking (Click here to see). And as usual Compact Cameras and DSLR from Canon are on top.
0 Responses
Why do people keep buying Canon products? They had not much innovation recently, and the products are not very exciting either (or very expensive, when exciting).
Many people invest in the whole system,. They don’t just buy a sensor. Many factors have to be considered. For example, in my country, Sony service and support is very great only for Bravia LCD and Viao notebooks.
Not to disagree, but many people have no clue about systems, they just know the brand.
+1
Brand popularity is still with the big two.
The “popularity” is because am/enthusiasts see CaNikon pro users at every paid gig. And the Pros use CaNikon because they have the T/S lenses, Flash SYSTEMS, and VidRigging that Sony users have been crying for years to get. Not for everyone, but they are wanderlust items which allow am/enthusiasts to envision future potential expansion.
Pros won’t get serious about Sony until Sony gets serious about pros.
Seduce the pros, and the rest of the market will be trickle down gravy train.
Pro adoption is overrated. The truth, if you look at the history of photography, is that real innovation starts with consumers first and then works its way up to pros. In other words, its trickle-up, not trickle-down.
This is true of autofocus, zoom lenses, SLR cameras, 35mm film format, etc. All of these are accepted by pros now but were derided by pros when they were introduced. Right now, this is becoming true of tech like fixed-lens digital cameras, mirrorless compacts, and electronic viewfinders.
The other issue with going pros first is that the profits on the sale of pro equipment are quickly eaten up by pro-level support that you they expect. Beefing up your supply chain so that replacement bodies and lenses are in stock, accessible from anywhere in the world, is something that takes a lot of effort and money to build up.
Kodak had a monopoly on the pro-DSLR market early on but were never able to generate enough profits off of the pro market alone. Canon took over the market largely on the strength of consumer products like the D30, Digital Rebel and 20D.
Another example comes from Olympus, who tried to go for the pro-market with their 4/3 format with very expensive and high quality lenses plus a pro-level body. When that failed, they got a rare second chance with micro 4/3 and succeeded by started with consumer-grade equipment and then working up to pro-level stuff much later on.
Wesley, your second sentence… “innovation” is true enough in the context you mention. But this thread is not about innovation. It’s about market share. That comes from seducing pros. Because serious am/enthusiasts want to be like pros. And soccer moms get their referrals and validation from am/enthusiasts, regardless of what the camera sales person tells them. They come in the store asking for a specific brand.
I was in camera sales for a few years before becoming freelance. This is what I witnessed first hand.
True innovation will lead to marketshare based on its own merits, not based on simple brand loyalty.
Leica earned marketshare by introducing a more affordable camera for the low end at a time when no pro would touch such a tiny image size as 35mm film.
Canon and Nikon earned marketshare by targeting the low end with low-cost cameras and lenses made in Japan at a time when pros only bought cameras made in Europe.
Minolta earned marketshare by bringing autofocus to the low-end market first at a time when no pro would trust to electronics and a motor what they had spent years perfecting with their eyes, brain and hands.
If pro usage is really what leads to marketshare, why are the top 3 mirrorless makers Olympus (no real presence among protogs in decades), Panasonic and Sony (the latter 2 brands have zero association with professional photography)?
If pro brands are what matters, why is the Hasselblad Lunar the joke that it is? Why aren’t Leica-branded Panasonics flying off the shelves? Why are customers not walking into their local camera stores asking if Sinar and Phase One make cameras they can afford, or wondering if they can get Rodenstock and Angenieux lenses for their Rebels and D3x00s?
I’m not suggesting that Canon and Nikon don’t have an advantage in brand awareness – they certainly do – but pro buy-in isn’t what got them there. Canon and Nikon have the pro market because they built their brands up first in the eyes of all consumers.
Wesley “Canon and Nikon have the pro market because they built their brands up first in the eyes of all consumers.”
You mean like this?
http://www.kruger-2-kalahari.com/images/Canon-Nikon-black-lenses.jpg
And seriously, when was the last “time when pros only bought cameras made in Europe.”?
Your assessment that Hassy/Sinar doesn’t have am/enthusiast brand loyalty is because they don’t make the cameras necessary to allow such a thing. And the question about “Leica branded Panny” should be modified to ask how much worse they would have done if not for the affiliation. Was a smart move for an electronics company getting into stills cameras. They’ve only been doing that since 2001. They needed some leverage. What better way to get it?
The last time pros only bought cameras made in Europe was when Canon and Nikon entered the market. 😉
1948 – Nikon enters camera market making cheap knock-offs of German rangefinders of the day (Leica und Zeiss). No pros would touch this because “Made in Japan” was a sign of cheapness and unreliability.
1958 – A full decade later, Nikon finally builds up enough credibility to start taking marketshare away from the incumbents with the Nikon F. Pros are still skeptical but there are enough people (not just pros) producing good results with Nikon equipment (and saving boatloads of cash) that its not unheard of for aspiring pros to get their start with a Nikon.
1980 – Over 2 decades later, the Nikon F3 finally solidifies Nikon as the brand to have for pros.
I’m not as familiar with the specifics of Canon’s history but I can assure you it is no different – they built their success in the pro market on the back of their success in the consumer market. And it took a long time because true brands that inspire loyalty and withstand the test of time are not built overnight.
Fair enough Wesley.
I guess that’s why I’m so particular to continue the A9 series legacy that has captured a small foothold on the pro market since 1985. You’re right, it’s not built overnight. But A-Mount has now a 30 year legacy satisfying some pros, like myself.
Hard to lose standard functionality like pro flash system. CaNikon strobist literally cannot make the move to Alpha because of all they’d lose in the deal.
Regardless of our differences, I certainly don’t think you’d disagree that a more pronounced professional foothold would HURT Alpha. It could only help.
When a new user is going to buy a new camera he asks for whom?
Is not only a question of which system, but what “formers of opinion” use.
I totally agree on this one. I was recently in two shops, where I was saying that I couldnt decide for a 70D or D7100 CaNikon. Both never mentioned that there could be a nice and currently cheaper alternative with the A77.
However, when I approached one of them 2 weeks later to discuss the light loss through SLT, he started to argue pro Sony. You have to specifically ask for Sony or you get a CaNikon.
That’s exactly the same as the service center in my country. Sony has to train their staffs in charge in the photography boot more seriously than today.
They started early and was kinda innovative back then(early CMOS sensor user for example). Also a lot of people(or pros) already invested in EOS glass and other accessories. The current image quality of its DSLRS is also good. So I think those are the reasons why higher-end users stay with Canon. New uninformed users buy Canon because older users told them to do so.
i’m asking the same question: how dumb must be to buy a sony alt camera? but 7% prove me wrong… next year 5% and in 2017 ~1% dumbs.
Because their friends, colleagues and wedding tog bought one.
Because they advertise.
Because they support retail outlets.
In fact CaNikon do pretty much everything that Sony don’t do and then Sony wonder why they fail in the dSLR market.
Sony’s presence varies from country to country. In Asia, for example, Sony does a lot of advertising and they have retail space. In the U.S.? Not so much, at least for the imaging products. But there are signs of change.
Agree. Many getting into photography still have the image that bigger the camera (and lens) the better photographer you are. Who doesn’t like the feeling of being praised for having such a big camera? They think big = pro. That’s why DR are still selling well.
True. Google the new Nikon 4S. My biggest criticism of that camera is that it does not come with a one year free health club membership.
“Why do people keep buying Canon products? They had not much innovation recently, and the products are not very exciting either (or very expensive, when exciting).”
This is anecdotal but observing the first-time DSLR buyers I know in America – I’m sure they’re pretty typical – is they’re not photo nerds researching on-line reviews to death, reading blogs. They pretty much ask people they know with DSLRs and ask their advice after playing around a little with Canikons at some big-box mass merchandiser. I’ve actually overheard said discussions. They ALWAYS revolve around Canikon. No Pentax. No Sony.
When I chime in about Sony they look at me like I’m crazy. Sony DSLRs? They’re like how long have they been making DSLRs? Where can I try one? Oh, I can’t. Naw, I better stick with Canikon, my original choice.
I have to admit that I’ve once suggested 1st time buyer to get the big two instead of Sony. I think Sony camera system is for the well informed consumers like us. But I also told him that if DSLR is not a must, he can get a NEX instead.
While I don’t currently have a Canon, I still see them as leading the way as far as integrating video goes. I’m hoping Sony can close the gap in that area.
Video integration is something that Panasonic does best. Not Canon.
Canon’s stock video codecs are nothing special.
The 1D C, C100 and above are not stills cameras that have video attached. These are video cameras first in DSLR form factor.
Panasonic, on the other hand, have a better way of having stills and video harmony (GH3/G6/GX7)
Sadly enough, Sony still likes that horrible AVCHD codec and have no will to ditch it and give us something considerably less compressed (why?)
Agreed – the Panasonic video integration is much better! (I was referring more to full the full frame camera manufacturers/market)
The new Sony consumer 4K camcorder supports XAVC-S, AVCHD and MP4 codecs. It is basically an offshoot of the RX10. I would not be surprised to see Sony support these codecs in their future DLSTs and ILCs.
Canon is a solid investment and leading the FF-DSLR range, because whatever body or lens you buy, you’ll get a comparatively high level. From Sony you won’t get this without closer research. Some lenses, especially Zeiss ones offer better performance than Canon, but they’re also pricier. So if you simply wanna focus on taking photos and don’t like to care about much else, Canon’s system consistency is an advantage, Sony can’t beat – especially since many conservative Photographers insist on OVF via flip mirror. But if you’re into experimenting with eccentric glass E-Mount is unbeatable, especially since Sony’s α7R. Also I really don’t see any company capable to catch up on Sony’s extremely compact FF Mirrorless range in the near future. Additionally Sony might only need a Firmware Update to give their Mirrorless line a better Video Codec and/or RAW Video to lead the Dual-Use market so far taken by Panasonic GH3 and Canon’s 5D Mark III…
admin, this isn’t democracy. if you have problem with my post > edit it or email me whats wrong. but just not publish it it’s a stupid thing. why should i care that someone is blind and can’t see it ? sony sux. thats life. get over it.
democracy. publish my post or ban me from your site. i’m using only two pi’s. this one is the most used.
democracy:
i’m asking the same question: how dumb must be to buy a sony alt camera? but 7% prove me wrong… next year 5% and in 2017 ~1% dumbs.
Because there flash system actually works for one and they have a shit load of lenses and provide better pro customer service. I don’t actually care for or use canon besides there lenses on my e-mount but it is what it is, oh then there are brand loyalist that think canon is the best because it says canon. I had a few friends of mine try to convince me canon makes better cameras and lenses even though I take better pictures with my sony than they do with there canon. I know photographers that don’t even know sony makes dslr type cameras.
I bought A7 1 month ago as a everyday camera when I don’t want to carry my 5D, I’m aware it’s not SLT, but they do share EVF technology which is far from being a replacement to OVF, and guess what I ordered an extra battery and a charger and the dealer couldn’t get them in stock yet, well canon accessories you can almost buy them in the grocery store down the street. I have 270EX flash for the 5D when I don’t wanna drag the 580EXII with me if I am out with my family, for the A7, you can tell me what are the options out there. I have good glass for the 5D, I cannot dare to buy the equivalent for the sony (If I had SLT), you can check the difference in price between the 24-70L and the sony’s 24-70, and you’ll always have the wonderful cheap lenses like the 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2, even the wonderful 135 f/2L is so cheap for its performance. It’s not always about innovation, the A7 sensor is marvelous, but I don’t care about the DR as much I care about its size, if you expose right you’ll have amazing photos with any camera, people who want to make flat images care about DR.
” bought A7 1 month ago as a everyday camera when I don’t want to carry my 5D, I’m aware it’s not SLT, but they do share EVF technology which is far from being a replacement to OVF, ”
Many prefer the EVF over OVF, some are the opposite.
“and guess what I ordered an extra battery and a charger and the dealer couldn’t get them in stock yet, well canon accessories you can almost buy them in the grocery store down the street.”
Brand new camera with brand new accessories, give it a few months and they should be in stock. I expect you would have no issues getting a NEX 5N battery in a camera store or online. Canon is more widespread, but it is not hard to get Sony stuff.
“I have 270EX flash for the 5D when I don’t wanna drag the 580EXII with me if I am out with my family, for the A7, you can tell me what are the options out there.”
Sony just switched flash systems, mount type, so some reduction in choice but you can get the F-20M, F43M and F60M, low, med and high power flashes. Many third party flashes, but I think they all require an adaptor right now.
“I have good glass for the 5D, I cannot dare to buy the equivalent for the sony (If I had SLT), you can check the difference in price between the 24-70L and the sony’s 24-70, and you’ll always have the wonderful cheap lenses like the 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2, even the wonderful 135 f/2L is so cheap for its performance. It’s not always about innovation, the A7 sensor is marvelous, but I don’t care about the DR as much I care about its size, if you expose right you’ll have amazing photos with any camera, people who want to make flat images care about DR.”
The Canon 24-70 f/2.8L is $1,886 (B&H) versus $1,998 for the Sony, the Canon version II is $2,299. Even the F4 is $1,499 which although cheaper than the Sony is only a F4. The 24-70 for the A7 is also a F4 but is only $1,198 so is cheaper. Not seeing a big Canon advantage here. Canon does have more mid-level lenses than Sony. When Sony bought the Minolta camera line they did end up dropping a lot of the mid-level lenses. With Sony you have zoom lenses or expensive prime lenses for the most part. They have introduced some APS-C lenses that are primes and at very moderate prices, but that is of little interest to FF buyers. The bargain FF lenses for Sony are mostly used Minolta lenses and there are some really good deals there. The A7 of course being very new has none of that without adaptors, but you got to start somewhere.
Well said Bill, and all your points apply to a hobbyist like my self and not professionals who use photography to make their living. The battery and charger are not supposed to be a new system, A7 shares the same charger with NEX and they are out for a while now.
I don’t wanna invest in Minolta lenses just to sell them after a while and then invest in FE lenses when they are out, I used what I have from m42 lenses which they didn’t really work well with focus peaking so I used them with the aid of magnifier, I ended it up using 50mm 1.4 FD (S.S.C) which work extremely well on the A7 and focus peaking results are tack sharp. the 28-70 is very mediocre lens the corners are so bad that I was worried that the sensor had issues, and no it doesn’t compete with other kit lenses, but I had no option of buying body only at that time.
I like the EVF, but still miss the OVF.
The bottom line is, if I was a professional photographer, then definitely my choice would be either Canon or Nikon (mostly Canon) just for the availability and variety of their lenses, flashes, and accessories.
I dunno but below Pentax/Ricoh sounds quite bad.
Not in Japan. Pentax is kinda popular there.
The same applies to Minolta though…
True. That’s probably the reason why Sony ended the NEX branding. They want to push the Alpha branding which is Minolta’s. Probably.
Sony produced next to nothing in new dslr/dslt cameras in 2013 and sony has virtually no presence in most major stores that sell cameras.
Sony needs to do both to increase market share.
For one thing make a wholesale purchasing policy that makes it easier for stores to deal with sony and then reach out and convince those stores to carry sony line.
That must include the small retailer.
Well, they actually do have presence in Japanese stores. But, yes, they have released less cameras (a-mount) than Pentax.
IIRC the only a-mount body released in 2013 was the a58, which wasn’t exactly revolutionary. The a77 had to compete with the newly released 70d/7100 and the a99 was always going to be an also ran (spec wise it might compete with the 5d iii but it really needed to be priced more aggressively to get any serious attention). I can see why Sony had a bad year, but hopefully lessons have been learnt etc (yeah right!).
Sony has a great presence in Japanese stores like Yodobashy, Labi and Bic camera.
I would say that the square meters dedicated to Sony are almost equal to Nikon and Canon.
Also the quality of presentation and display, brochures available are fairly better than Canikon.
in the Dslr segment is just very difficult to dethrone Canon or Nikon.
Although on the the streets, the most seen cameras around are Olympus and Nex, by a considerable margin.
I would like to add that at Japanese electronic stores, Sony has way more leverage than Canikon, due to the much larger range of products they provide. If you exclude home appliance and and solar panels, Sony has top product at every floor of these stores. That is probably why the can get enough square meters to compete with canikon at the photo camera department.
“Sony has a great presence in Japanese stores”
Which makes the figures more shocking then.
More than 6% growth in mirrorless?
Careful. Those are market share numbers, not sales numbers. The market could have gone down in size and a 6% increase in market share could actually represent a decline in sales. Not saying that’s the case, but the word “growth” is incorrect here, as it implies something that may not be true.
The actual change we can talk about is a “6% improvement in market share.”
Yep, you are correct. Thanks.
Actually, CIPA figures says mirrorless grew by 22% worldwide in terms of sold units, Nov to Nov.
MILC, Avg price per Unit: Jan-Nov13
Japan 35 491 Yen.
EU 35 461 Yen.
Amer 35 881 Yen.
Asia 36 552 Yen.
So, biggest market (Asia) buys the most expensive units.
Bugger, really can’t count, MILC shrinked by some 20%.
@formeleyE: look again. As of November, column 4 (year-to-year) is 82% for mirrorless, which is a decline. In Japan, however, the number is 107%. So Sony’s market share gain is likely a strong sales gain. But we can’t be sure because there’s no direct linkage between CIPA and BCN numbers. That’s why I cautioned about using the word “growth.”
Well, Sony needs to wake up and smell the coffee here in America. News flash. There’s a DSLR market outside of their home Japanese one.
Watching Sony at CES confirmed they think of themselves as a premium brand. In DSLRs in America I hate to tell them they are viewed as a Johnny-come-lately amongst the general public. In fact, it’s really worse. I think the general public only knows of Canikon in DSLRs because that’s all they see at big-box mass merchandisers here. Small camera shops in a mid-size city like mine mostly shuttered their stores years ago. They aren’t where most photo noobs buy their first DSLR anyhow.
Since Sony dropped the well-known Minolta branding, Sony needs to aggressively market DSLRs in America. They need to forget the premium branding, discounts harm that perception mind-set – especially in a prolonged recession – and offer some aggressively priced starter DSLRs. If that means aggressively priced Target, Walmart, Best Buy, H H Gregg, etc. special ‘exclusive’ kits fine.
I can’t emphasize enough how desperately Sony needs shelf space exposure at big-box mass merchandisers the average consumer shops. The best on-line reviews at, say, Digital Photo Review isn’t going to save their market share here.
Obviously, most DSLR beginners will never get beyond their kit. If they like it maybe they’ll replace it with another start kit years later. However, some small percentage will get the bug, buy accessories, and move up the system product line. Canikon obviously realizes this here. Sony not so much.
And beyond just getting some shelf space – like with the NEX – they need to offer stores incentives to have their own displays with literature/videos pushing the brand advantage.
Admin
Please put back the short list of most recent comments on the homepage…
It made it much easier to use the comment system.
Admin
Do you notice how many fewer comments are posted without the teaser comments on the home page?
This is about as close as it gets to an apple to apple comparison.
Is it your intention to reduce the volume of comments?
+1
hardly indicative in a country where DSLR are dying
In what way is it not indicative of what?
Actually, mirrorless lost market share to DSLR in Japan last year. DSLR is hardly dying there.
So the 2014 award is actually for 2013? January 2014 hasn’t even finished and they hand out an award, based on what? Their own related sites sales numbers or what. Interesting, but a bit, well, could also go to the Gypsy palmist for better numbers…
That’s usually how it works for annual awards. The 2014 academy awards are given out for films released in 2013.
I hope Sony are playing the long game. If they are, these figures don’t mean too much and, with the recent innovative products, Canon and Nikon will be concerned.
Add to that the sensor manufacturing capability, together with the close tie between Sony and Zeiss and the investment in Olympus, I think Sony are in a very strong position to capitalise on market preferences.
In other words, despite the perceived strength in depth of Canon and Nikon, with their ranges of lenses, etc., if the market prefers the newer, lighter gear, Sony could easily leapfrog.
Of course, these changes will take time to shake out. An interesting future awaits!
Agreed and well put. Everyone seems to forget that big changes happen slowly and there are market forces beyond just clever advertising jingles and “me too” product development.
If this is right. Then i think that the next alpha DSL will be the last. I dont think that Sony will go further with this system. They will then put everything into the A7 and Nex system
Does anyone know how closely the US and Japan market data are?
I know that mirrorless is smaller… but the share data?
Sadly, they will need to outspend Canon by 2-3x for a long time to make an impact in the SLR market… a shrinking share and a fraction of the revenue means bleeding money. Shareholders will not support that for long.
That is precisely why they are not going the DSLR route, I believe.
The CIPA website has nice statistics: http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html
However, geographically they are talking about ‘Americas’, so North & South combined I guess.
In number of devices mirrorless is 1/4 of DSLR in 2013.
23% through November in terms of units, 21% in terms of dollars.
CIPA YTD-Nov #sold MLC: 4M/JP, 5M/EU, 3M/AM, 9M/Asia.
In other words, Asia is bigger than EU and Americas together.
And we think Amazon ranking means anything.
MLC% of ILC: JP=40%, EU=24%, Am=19%, Asia=34%
In fact: US isn’t such a big market, as it is only a (big) part of Americas.
Also, Americas stands out as conservative, not really fitting to Sony’s innovation approach.
Bugger , plz remome, it is wrongly calculated.
Honestly from somebody trades the stock market, most sne investors worry about ps4 sales :/ and don’t event know about the a7 or a7r.
AAAAA!!!
Now A7 costs 1309 € on redcoon.de !!!
People will stop buying it because it become cheaper every day 🙂
Against facts, no arguments!
Simply this.
Sony bought Konica Minolta for over 8 years and just never gave due attention to consumers.
For a company that only has a single fullframe SLT camera to suit all customers and creates a new system every 4 years, this is the result.
Sony is lost, launches a new product almost completely incompatible with the previous generation, FE, MIS and other “inventions”.
Yeah! Your can clearly see how FE & A7 have hurt them and put them almost in the lead in the mirrorless segment.
I’m sure they also cry about that.
A7 isn’t even a rounding error in BCN’s numbers. All the mirrorless buying is at the low end, particularly the NEX-3 models.
Overall, Sony’s interchangeable lens camera market share hasn’t really changed since they took over KM. Meanwhile their compact camera market share has gone down and they’ve slid from #1 worldwide to #3.
Be careful of equating a US$1800+ camera with “salvation.” Most of the buying activity for cameras is in the US$500-1000 range.
A7R is selling very well because it hascthe highest mp sensor.
A7 is not doing anywhere near as well despite substantially lower price because its just another 24mp sensor.
Since thes two cameras are virtually identical except for the sensor this is as close as it gets to an apple to apple comparison.
FF models are expensive and don’t account for the bulk of the sales. Most of the ILC’s being sold are not £1000+ mirror less models but £300 ones.
Even so they’re not really caught on in Europe and the USA that well.
The real sales are in the D3200/5300 and EOS 700d range as well as the D7100 and 60d area, somewhat less but still very important.
Sony won’t stand a chance if they price the new A77 at £1000+ all the action is lower end, and we have an end of life A65 and a cut down uninteresting A58. Quite predictable that Sony took a hit in 2013, very weak line up with very little going on with A mount.
The A7/A7r isn’t going to be enough to boost their sales, not even close.
I blame the lack of proper 5 series model (A58 is poor and not appealing) The A65 is too old and didn’t do that well for sales.
Canikon at every turn are blowing Sony away, they cut price their older models like the 60d and D7000 well below the A77 price reductions, Sony are out of the game in a big way.
Define “very well.” No doubt the camera has proven popular in the Internet Amplification Effect (e.g. fora), but it’s not selling out, which is the sign of a really hot product. Noise does not equal sales. At this point in the D800’s launch, there was a three-month backlog, and I believe Nikon was making more of them than Sony is A7’s at the moment.
Most of the buying is in the US$500-1000 range to start with. If you can’t dominate in that range, you’re not going to have a very large camera business.
#8 on amazon.
I wonder what the percentage is of returned A7R’s is. It seems every man and his blog had an A7R when they were released. Now though the number of active posters on forums seems to have decreased. No doubt though that it is the most popular Sony camera on the internet but has that translated into sales? One thing though I assume from the numbers is the hype helped sell more NEX cameras last year.
@animalsbybarry
The no 4 position in mirrorless sellers is not exactly flying off the shelves when you look at the sales of all digital cameras .The first mirrrorless camera the E-M1 comes in at 61st place the A7r is 100th on the list. The 5Dmk3 is in 10th spot , the 6D in 17th
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_pg_1?rh=n%3A172282%2Cn%3A!493964%2Cn%3A502394%2Cn%3A281052&ie=UTF8&qid=1389571625&ajr=0
See my comment below” the people most likely to buy”
I was amazed to discover that people actually buy the EOS-M. However, this is exactly why Canon invests in its top cameras. I am sure that they are not that profitable as a product, but the brand name pushes a lot of mid level popular cameras.
Agreed. Most haute couture labels (Valentino, Lacroix, etc) make most of their money selling jeans.
That sort of aspirational stuff is also in photography gear talk… its the low and mid end where the money happens. The websites banging on about 5-10% improvement at the high end and suchlike are mostly window dressing to 90% of the market.
This is why I keep saying that Sony should stop A-mount bodies, A-mount lenses, DSLR, or SLT. These things are needless, should be enough and put in museum. The future is E-mount and mirrorless.
Henry
“”This is why I keep saying that Sony should stop A-mount bodies, A-mount lenses, DSLR, or SLT. These things are needless, should be enough and put in museum. The future is E-mount and mirrorless.””
In theory this would be fine ,”IF” there was 100% compatibility with A mount lenses { full speed AF,C-AF & tracking on an adapter.Or failing that a comprehensive section of native mount lenses covering all the bases.Alas there are neither.
The Sony a7 and a7r are capable of excellent results but they are very limited for several types of shooter.Plus I do not think vagabonding their A-mount users would be a good long term selling strategy for Sony.
vagabonding is my Ipad interpretation of abandoning 🙂
Sony’s product line in 2013 was not good. Selling aging cameras such as the A77 and A65 clearly did not cut it. The A99 was not available through the year and then Sony released a capably spec’d camera with a slow processor. The NEX5r was basically the 5N (and so is the 5T). The NEX6 cannot carry sales by itself, especially since the NEX7 was aging. The effects of the RX introduction were yet to be fully felt.
Contrast that with what Sony is doing lately. The RX10, A7 and A7r are equipped with much improved processors. Sony is building cameras without excessive features but with unique features (RX10) or with features that are actually useful (A7, A7r). The A3000 needs to be an A6000, with an updated NEX6 inside a slightly smaller, less bulky SLR type body. An improved NEX6 and NEX7 would not hurt.
More importantly, update the A mount lens line, flush out the E mount APS-C line and build up the E mount full frame line. Doable? Yes.
Hirai seems to be infusing Sony with energy that Stringer could only dream of. The PS4 is a nice system, but the Playstation Now initiative could change gaming forever. Sony seems to be trending back to being the innovative Sony that existed years ago. I hope they succeed. And I think they will.
A mount is not going to die. The SLTs time, however, is coming to pass. That doesn’t mean that they’re useless. Improving the A99 and A77 is essential. Get rid of the silly f3.5 AF limit. Give users more control.
Give us an OM2, an XD11, or an FE in A mount digital form (full frame, APS-C). Those great cameras were functional, ergonomic, and were great designs.
Everyone in the DSLR/DSLT market is losing share. A Nikon with the D610, D7100, D5200, D4 in their product line (their best lineup ever) losing market share? A Canon with the 5D3, the 6D, the 70D losing market share? Once the market is saturated, the replacement cycle will extend to two to three years (if not more). A new replacement cycle is about to begin and Sony needs cameras and SYSTEMs to be able to compete and win. The cameras are coming. And the fact that FE lenses are making it to the market sooner that predicted indicates that Sony is acutely aware of what they need to do.
The Olympus and Sony partnership seems to be a good one. Let them both do well, even as they eventually become one.
I think Sony was (is) trying to command too high a price for the A99. While nicely spec’d, you need to consider the system as a ‘whole’ – just as the consumer does before they buy-in. Sony’s strategy with the A7/7r is much better. Offer better value, gain market share, and THEN, later on, you can command a higher price and profit.
Not everyone is losing market share. Market share is expressed as a percentage, so when someone loses, someone else gains. In 2013 it appears that Nikon and Ricoh/Pentax gained, while Sony and Canon lost. Why did Nikon gain so much (over 7 points?) My guess is they got it right for many with the high MP D800, and in-expensive FF D610. If the D600 issue hadn’t plagued them likely they would have gained even more.
Who will win the market share battle this year? The next few years will be very interesting I think!!
The thing is, there were reports late last year stating that Nikon’s profitability was decreasing (due to slackening worldwide sales of interchangeable lens cameras and associated equipment). The percentages do not indicate actual unit sales, which in the SLR market is decreasing. So while percentage of sales may be on the rise, it does not necessarily translate to greater unit sales.
It’s inaccurate and misleading to post 2014 numbers to compare with prior years.
Not hard to figure out why sony didn’t gain any ground in the 2013 DSLR / slt department: overpriced a99 and a58 downgrade. The should have released a77 full frame, cheap slt full frame, and a57r.
What is hard to figure out is why Canon continues to gain market share with the worst image sensor!
These are not 2014 numbers, but 2014 award based on 2013 numbers.
“What is hard to figure out is why Canon continues to gain market share with the worst image sensor!”
You really believe that it’s all about the sensor?
Sony does.
LOL
@pappy
Are u kidding? Once you pay $$$$$, it means that you are investing in a system. It’s not like a sensor. There are lots of things to consider such as a variety of lens types and lens cost, AF speed, AF-tracking accuracy, control&ergonomics, compatible accessories, professional support program, after-sale support policy, a number of professional consultants, etc. It is NOT just a sensor!!!
Yes, 2014 is based on 2013 sales. So, really, it’s “Market Share at the BEGINNING of 2014”
Sony is starting the year in a good position, especially considering many of the A7/7r sales will likely fall in the 2014 year.
Like other people already said, this drop for 2013 is not surprising at all considering they only released one beginner/amateur SLT in 2013 (A58), and virtually all camera sales data is showing is that the DSLR market is increasingly selling to professionals and semi-professionals. Beginners & amateurs are opting for compact interchangeable lens bodies instead of bulky SLRs.
Furthermore, while I love my A99, I must admit that the specs always felt like a mixed bag. The fact that I am forced to shoot in a crop mode even reach 10 FPS (while the A77 shoots 12 FPS at full 24 MP res) is unacceptable. The fact that the A99 buffer is so weak it can’t even sustain continuous 6 FPS to the size of the card is unacceptable. Also, reusing the same AF module from A77 is unacceptable. On A99, the AF sensors are too close to the middle of the frame, even in AF-D mode.
This being said, when ever objects are in AF sensor frame of the A99, in AF-D mode, it’s some of the fastest, most accurate AF I’ve ever used on any camera.
If Sony wants their A-mount system to survive for the long haul, they need to produce a proper $4-5k professional full frame body with an AF-module custom designed to match the full frame sesnor, with at least 12 FPS, un-cropped, and an unlimited buffer for continuous shooting to the size of the memory card. They should also degrade the amount of AF-points and buffer to a less expensive sub-$3K body. Sony also needs a professional service plan to match.
Last but not least, Sony needs to get their lenses & bodies in major NY, LA and Chicago rental houses (Adorama, Calumet, CSI, etc.). BorrowLenses.com and LensRentals.com are not enough.
Lack of rental support is the #1 reason so many pros stick with Canon over every other brand.
They really need to have a rethink with a-mount. If the demand isn’t there, don’t saturate the market with bodies. We need an entryish level apsc dslt (the a58 doesn’t cut it), an enthusiast apsc DSLT (A77 replacement) and 2 FF DSLTs (1 affordable and 1 pro-spec). FFS fix the flash system and open the a-mount spec so Sigma doesn’t need to worry about compatibility issues (or get your finger out and go toe to toe with them). Realise it’s 2014 and give us some serious muscle on the hardware front (big cache, fast SD write speeds, silly burst speeds and wifi tethering). Oh, and hire marketing departments for USA and Europe.
Can’t speak to Japan but Sony’s marketing in America blows, particularly DSLRs.
Coincidentally, for the 1st time since I bought my a65 in 2011 I decided to snoop around Saturday looking at digital cameras. Specifically, I wanted to see what all the fuss here is about the NEX since I much preferred handling a ‘clunky’ DSLR back then. So I did a sanity check.
I won’t diverge into my NEX impressions. My point is – like when I bought my a65 – Sony needs more of a mass-market presence. I first stopped at Best Buy. In the DSLR area the only Sony they carry is the a3000. Seriously? It was surrounded by a boat load of Canons. Nikons had a separate display. There’s a small selection of Canikon lenses. Like when I bought my a65, Sony has a nice display for the mid-range NEXs and some accessories.
I went to Target – yeah, Target – where Sony even in the cheap compact segment only has 2 products for sale. No DSLRs. No NEXs. But they have, say, the Nikon 1 and even sell an accessory lens for it. Nikon has a special end of the aisles DLSR display.
Yeah, stifle the laughter. Target? Best Buy? What self-respecting serious amateur buys their cameras there? But after Ritz Camera went tits-up in my area, there’s only 1 camera store left. Frankly, I’ve never visited it in the 50+ years I’ve lived in my city. Not very convenient.
My point is photo noobs starting out probably aren’t camera nerds who are going to spend endless hours researching this to death. Even if they are, if you can’t handle a camera a lot of people will be hesitant to buy it sight unseen off, say, Amazon. Right now, I’m not sure I could lay my hands on, say, an a99 here.
Worse, I don’t think a lot of people understand the rich heritage of Sony DSLRs. Everyone – I mean EVERYONE – I know I show my Sony to I have to explain comes from Minolta heritage because they assumed one day Sony just decided to become a me-too, Johnny-come-lately DSLR maker. No surprise they all own Nikons and Canons. Safe picks. I know it’s not a popular suggestion in these parts, but I wonder if Sony erred in not keeping the Minolta branding on DSLRs in America. They have very low brand recognition here in DSLRs amongst the general public.
I think your right. Maybe Sony should re-launch the Minolta brand in North America, and Europe. A Minolta DSLRs would probably have a better chance of capturing market share than Sony SLTs. I would buy one for sure.
With Market Share being a key metric it’s interesting to speculate how will respond.
Overall, I think they should be very happy with the 2013/2014 numbers, and have good reason to be optimist for next year!
Playing CEO for a day, here’s my address to the units:
MIRRORLESS DIVISION
Well done mirrorless team! We’ve gained significant ground in market share over the past year – I’m pleased. Very pleased indeed! This, combined with the your recent achievements and awards with the A7 shows that we’re clearly on the right path. I hope to see more of the same next year – more innovation, better sensors, more lenses. Keep up the good work! Also, I’m happy to announce that we will be increasing your funding and resourcing significantly this year. Let’s do this!!!
SLT DIVISION
Well, as you know, the numbers aren’t great over the past year. Granted, the market for SLT’s is in North America and Europe, not Japan. Still, the numbers there aren’t much better. But hang in there SLT division, and let’s see what happens with the market over the next year. I’m afraid we have no choice but to cut your funding somewhat – but we hope we can turn things around in future. We’re looking to see how we can integrate you more with our mirrorless team who have been having great success.
COMPACT CAMERA DIVISION
I know many of you have seen the numbers and are wondering what that mean to your area. I just want to assure that that it means absolutely nothing at all. We all know that the compact camera market is shrinking, and being overtaken by the cell phone market. Our goal is to continue to focus on high-end compacts and to that end, Market Share is completely irrelevant. All I care about here is the profit report. We’ll look at that next week.
And as the chairman of the board (;~) my response is:
MIRRORLESS: While you’ve improved the market share numbers you haven’t improved the sales numbers or made the category more relevant against the Canon/Nikon juggernaut in interchangeable lens camera sales. I like that the A7 is being well received by the media and customers, but we won’t sell enough A7’s to keep the factories working full time or make up for our other weaknesses.
DSLR/SLT: You promised me a 20% market share when I let you buy Konica/Minolta. You didn’t deliver. In most markets your market share is declining in a flat to declining marketplace. You’ve failed to make users believe that you’re fully in with DSLRs, with your accessory and lens offerings falling off, too. You are far from having the 80+ lens lineup of the dominant players, you’ve let models go stale, and you’ve taken models completely out of the market (which diminishes customer confidence in the other models). Please submit to me your plan for addressing all these problems, your plan for leaving this market, or submit your resignation.
COMPACT: It’s time for a reality check. Yes, the compact camera market has been shrinking dramatically. Yet somehow Nikon went from being the #5 player in compacts to being the #1 player worldwide and #2 in our key markets. It’s one thing to slip behind Canon, who we’ve fighting with for a long time, but you haven’t held serve in compacts. Let’s assume for a moment that cameras are going to stick around despite smartphones (if you disagree with that statement, please submit your plan for shutting down the camera group). When a Sony smartphone purchaser wants to move their imaging upscale, what’s your plan for selling them something better? Yes, I know your response is QX, but if that’s the case, you need to do a far, far better job with the product, as it is not living up to its hype. We on the board want a full family of products in imaging that we can point our other consumer electronics customers at–especially our smartphone customers–and we want to dominate the imaging industry. After all, we were one of the first making digital sensors, the first to make a digital camera, and we had the dominant market share in the last century. What happened to that? Who fumbled the ball? Name names and let’s shuffle them aside so that we can get back to where we should be.
DISRUPTION: I’m especially concerned that we’re getting myopic. How the hell did GoPro and RED and a number of other companies come in and disrupt our video business? How the hell did we fumble the smartphone decisions early on and get disrupted by Apple, one of our nemesis companies? I’m concerned that you’re not ready for disruption in photography, either. Please submit your analysis of the likely points at which a disruption could occur, and how you intend to monitor for the potential of that happening.
Thom, I am glad that you can take potshots at all the camera makers. All of them, to a degree or another, has dropped the ball in the last few years. That being said, I agree with your assessment that Sony let Red and GoPro disrupt their video market. Amazingly, Canon hasn’t had the same impact in the video space that Red and GoPro has had. And, Sony finally seems to be responding.
The DSLR market could be better. Sony new lenses are nice, but some of them (70-200mm G2) are priced too high. Not good. They need to market the advantages that SLT technology provides a lot better than they have and they do need to strengthen the lens/accessories offerings. All the A mount is doomed doomsayers need to be proved wrong (if they really do intend to stay in that market – and I think they will). The next year can be pivotal to Sony.
As I said, there will be a replacement cycle soon – when the Rebel T3s and Nikon 3000 and 5000 series camera owners feel the urge for newer technology. And since most of these people are not heavily invested in extra lenses and accessories, compelling products, marketed well, can make a big difference.
The QX cameras are at least a brave experiment. They are far from perfect, but hopefully they’ll learn that half baked solutions will not be long term sellers. That Sony is doing a lot of out of the box thinking (RX series, QX series) is at least encouraging.
Sony’s compact cameras, along with their smart phones, were somewhat left behind by the competition in the last few years. They seem to be getting out of their funk, however. The new Sony phones are actually quite nice.
I think there are reasons for optimism. Hirai seems to be running a tighter ship. I hope that the imaging division, like the Playstation division, are able to come up with great new products that can make better photographers of us all.
I don’t think the ‘consumer’ video market is as large or profitable as it once was – at least from what I’ve seen more and more people are capturing video on their camera. Camcorders are a rare site now at kids concerts, soccer games, family outings, etc.
Granted there is a niche sports/adventure market (ala Go Pro) and the professional camcorder market is seeing some growth return.
I haven’t seen numbers for the niche/professional market but I doubt that the sales of Go Pro and RED combined compare to the sales of Sony’s professional video division.
>people not heavily invested in lenses
It actually doesn’t seem to make a big difference, actually. I’ve regularly encountered large numbers of folk that want to stay in a brand because they have ONE lens that really won’t do them much good on a new camera. It’s the old “thinking of cameras and lenses as investments” problem in a slightly veiled form. When you survey consumers, you find that even having bought one extra lens increases their brand loyalty, no matter how inexpensive the lens.
I think it’ll take a major disruption to change the market space between the Japanese companies. Smartphones did it with compacts, GoPro and others did it with video, but we haven’t seen the still camera disruption that’ll shake up interchangeable lens cameras yet, IMHO.
I agree with most of what you said Tom… though perhaps the expectations are a little high for a down-turned market?
I do think the demand/market will increase again (with the exception of compact cameras) in part due to advancements in technology, and some of those high aspirations will in fact be achieved then.
Currently though, to a certain degree and for some imaging companies, it’s almost a battle for survival – I don’t think anyone is expecting an immediate high return on investment – rather it’s a matter of positioning for a longer term strategy/pay-back.
Banner years will follow for those who can weather the storm well, and position themselves, as Sony is doing.
Down markets are exactly the time to attack. At a minimum, you’ll put the cost advantages of the leaders at risk.
I usually point to the iPod as an example. Very down market, middle of a recession, and yet it basically stole the entire existing MP3 market and established a far, far bigger market. But there are plenty of other examples.
It’s actually difficult to attack in an up market, as the rising tide makes sales easier for your competitors. You have to do something much more dramatic in an up market to steal market share.
Mr. Chairman, with respect, when we bought Konica-Minolta our strategic plan was to gain market share at first through competitive pricing in the DSLR space. From nowhere we began to challenge Nikon and Minolta with our attractively priced 5 and 7 series DSLRs, with equally attractively priced lenses. To be sure, we were ‘buying’ market share, but this was a long term investment.
Under your pressure, we had to change that strategy, and in my opinion prematurely. Within 2 or certainly 3 years we chose a price parity model with our large competitors, and our growth sagged. We should have pursued that path for at least 5 years.
Now we are accused of model proliferation, high prices, and a lack of commitment. Did I mention high prices for a non-established brand?
Here is the proof: A consumer of our Sony DSLR (or DSLT or whatever we are calling them now) in the US wants to sell last year’s model. Almost impossible without a huge loss, disproportionate with that of our competitors. There is a huge value fall-off in the second hand market with Sony. In short, no Americans want to get stuck with our stuff.
Lack of second-hand demand is a reflection of new demand, but is also another reason for the consumer to go to some other brand.
I see what you’re trying to do here, but I’ve been pretty clear from the beginning that this “strategy of the day” thing won’t work. The customers see it for what it is. Sony has not had a clear “this is where we’re going and why you want to be invested in us” plan for still photography at any time in this century. If we make the best sensors, why are we giving them on exclusives to Nikon first? If we make the best DSLRs (or SLTs), why do we slow the updates and cancel projects and stop adding significant lenses to the mix? Are we incapable of doing two things at once?
Pick a strategy and stick with it. Execute it fully and iterate it quickly. Stop coming up with new things that require a new set of lenses and water down our optical team’s efforts in an area we want to compete in.
Getting lots of press is not the same as getting lots of sales.
If I were CEO for a day, I would do the following:
1. Increase advertising and begin to emphasize the roots to Minolta. I don’t think that many people realize that connection. Minolta is a good memory for most people and would help with the Sony image.
2. Begin to push sales in the US in stores like Wal-Mart, Target and Best Buy for lower end cameras like the Sony a5000. And in big box retailers push retailers like Costco in the US to carry mid range cameras. Costco has carried mid range Canon and Nikons (like the Nikon 5200), but never, ever a mid-range Sony.
3. Emphasize Sony’s working relationship with Zeiss through advertising. Educate the pubic about Zeiss optical quality.
4. Do more social media such as Facebook. I constantly get updates on Canon and Nikon, but never Sony.
5. Work harder on the cell phone connection emphasizing how Sony sensors are used on other cell phones. Then move to Sony cell phones and promote them more aggressively. Currently I can’t go to Verizon, T-Mobile, At&t, or Sprint to get a contract for a Sony phone. If I want one, I will need to spend $500.
6. Progress from the cell phone market to the QX series market and improve the workability of QX cameras with cell phones.
7. Work more closely with independent camera stores, especially those with large used camera departments. Emphasize how they can now sell many of those dusty lenses to be used on NEX and a7/r cameras.
8. Clean up the Sony web site. Make it more usable and informative. Offer good deals on a regular basis, not just stuff that is being discontinued.
9. Publish a magazine like Nikon’s N Photo. This is not only good public relations but good advertising.
10. Develop a relationship with Adobe and package a free copy of Photoshop Elements with some cameras. This doesn’t need to be the most current version but one that is a few years old.
11. Hire me as a consultant because you can see that I have some great ideas.
12. Go immediately into the virgin territory of China and make a name for yourself.
OK Sony, the ball is in your court. Let’s see you move aggressively. You’ve got the best technology going. Let everyone know your history, who you are today, and how you are the most innovative player in the market.
You forgot, lower prices.
Prices for the A7 lenses are outrageous.
Prices for high end products will be high, period.
The problem is that the products we need to sell the most of are the NEX-3 through 6 and the crop sensor SLTs. Exactly how much of the Internet Amplification Effect have we generated on those products in the past year?
None of your suggestions actually speak to the real problem: an inconsistent and unclear lineup that keeps changing every time the consumer looks at it. Are we in DSLRs, in mirrorless, in crop sensor, in full frame, in large sensor compact, and for those things we are in, what’s the long-term prognosis FROM THE CONSUMER VIEWPOINT?
First, we were going to dominate DSLRs. Then SLTs. Then mirrorless with NEX. Now mirrorless with full frame requiring a fourth set of new lenses. If you were a customer and bought into us early on and then followed us from the latest and greatest system to the next, you’d be buying your fourth kit zoom, your fourth 50mm equivalent, and so on. The message we’re sending is “if you want to upgrade with Sony, start over.”
Thus, while advertising, marketing, support, and distribution attention is needed for our offerings, we’re actually making the problem worse for ourselves rather than better. WHICH system should we be advertising and where? What we’re doing is the equivalent of betting all numbers in Roulette.
I’m also not a big fan of using Alpha for everything. Let’s see, we have four different lens groups that go on four different Alpha cameras. Someone has mixed things up. They are SONY cameras, not Alpha cameras. Alpha now means nothing other than “Sony camera with removable lens,” of which we have four variations. Way to water down a brand, guys. Yeah, I get it that the old KM group wants to establish their identity within Sony. But promoting it to MEAN Sony is not the answer. Next thing you know the Cyber-Shot cameras will be Alpha-Shots.
Saying “buy an Alpha” is no different than saying “buy a Sony.” Last time I checked with the board, we were still called Sony. This is actually part of the advertising and marketing problem now. We have dozens of products that are all “Alpha.” So if we try to use Alpha to mean something in advertising, it means nothing other than “Sony’s cameras, which for some reason they call Alpha.” Let’s be proud of the Sony name folks, and let’s go back to having Alpha mean DSLR/SLT, NEX mean mirrorless, Cyber-Shot mean non-interchangeable.
I have a feeling that the Canon kitchen is about to serve up some very hot n’ tasty treats really soon. Can’t you smell it simmering?
The Canon Chefs are positioned better than anyone to sit back and let things marinate for a while. Super juicy bites on the way. Surely it will be a full course meal. Not the cold disconnected samplers that Sony short order cooks offer as stale leftovers.
Too bad they are supposed to be selling cameras, not food.
Not suprised at all. Sony forgot about A-mount (new lenses & maybe cameras), so they had to pay for it. 1% lost of compact is not important, as the segment is going to die soon.
I’d be worried for Olympus concerning mirrorless sales. Most people will choose sensor size over absolute utility in regards to camera size, AF speed or anti-shake technology (5 axis). For those that already own a 4/3rd’s system, I don’t see them moving over to Sony though. Spending time on the 4/3’rs forum convinces me that Oly’s lens line up, touch screens and much smaller mid tele’s are enough- at least for loyal enthusiasts. It’s the future mirrorless consumers I’d be worried about capturing.
Here’s where I come in as a consumer. I shoot:
A100 (yes, I still have it), A77, A900
Rokinon 8mm 2.8, 16-50mm 2.8 DT, Sony 50mm 1.4, Minolta 35-70mm, Minolta macro 100mm 2.8, Zeiss 135mm 1.8, Tokina 300mm F4, Minolta 500mm F8
I say this because I think I’m your average shooter- I came into the line because of the value and quality of the Minolta line. I stayed because of Zeiss and Sony innovation. I’d consider leaving because:
1) Adaptors are fine for Minolta lenses. However, Zeiss and G series are a significant investment. I have no interest being regulated to adaptors in the future given the upfront cost.
2) Sony at some point may be able to dominate the mirrorless market. To keep up the race, they’ll need to divert their attention to the growing competition. This takes away focus from a-mount. It’s also less reason to think Sony will finally work toward a more complete a-mount system including a support network for alpha shooters.
3) Sigma’s art series is offering top quality alternatives to pricey Zeiss optics- I see Tamron close behind in the next few years. If the 50mm proves on par with Zeiss and continues with a 85mm and 135mm this could damage some of the allure of the alpha line. The Zeiss line IMO is the main attraction. I’ve resisted the others due to lack of SSM, weather sealing and upcoming third party offerings. This wasn’t even a thought six years ago.
I want to see the initial sales of the new alpha offerings before I make a long term decision moving forward. I think that’s what a lot of alpha shooters are looking to do. It’s a wait and see approach this time around, but with much more on the table for both Sony and its current a-mount install base.
I just bought my second ZA lens for my aging Sony A900 and I have no regrets. Still, if I wasn’t already vested was Sony gear I may well have gone with one of the other guys’. In my opinion the number one problem with Sony is the lack of customer service and timely firmware updates.
I dont think its better elsewhere. Nikon has oil on the sensors, Canon some backfocusing issues, etc…
True. Fuji is being haunted by old camera’s that desperately need firmware update. Sony camera’s don’t need update.
I was a “pro” for one day next to a bunch of them at a Sports event today. Canon all over except for one Nikon guy. Sony doesn’t exist!
Two of the Canon pros looked at my A7r with a Canon tele via Metabones and wanted to know what it was?? NO way Sony can win the DSLR world, No way!
I love my A7r but have to admit that for a 400 mm I should have brought my Canon house. The A7r is like Leica. Perfect for short focal lenses.
No question Nikon and Canon will dominate the PRO market for years to come (Reuters went with Canon a number of years back, and that’s why so many use Canon currently).
But the times… they are a changin’ 🙂 Areas that continue to grow are the ability to shoot video, and being able to wirelessly upload/send images quickly.
I can see see Sony gaining a small foothold in the pro market though I think they’re really chasing more after the enthusiast / semi-pro market right now.
I think Sony will only gain a BIG foothold on the pro market by having far superior video than Canon or Nikon. It could happen. I don’t know if it will. 🙂
Canon’s position surprises me simply because if you look at image quality vs. price for FF and APS, Nikon and Sony so far ahead of all the others.
If you look at the whole picture, lenses, flashes, equipments, support, aftermarket and all things involving photography Canon is light-years ahead of Sony.
Not in the video market, where Canon can’t even beat Red. In the overall imaging space, videography will become a more important part of the industry.
LOL.
Does Canon have a STF lens?
Does Canon have a FF mirrorless body?
Does Canon have ANY body with focus tracking in video mode?
Do they have a 4k camcorder that’s not, well, $10,000?
Sony has all of them. They also have a dominating share (~40%) of the videography market. I have used NEX cameras for over three years without ANY kind of frustration in terms of accessories or support. I can get very powerful and versatile flashes for Sony bodies, great mics, adapt any lens I want from any system, what accessories do Sony “lack”?
So what?
Good for you as videographic, bad for me as photographer.
I do not know if you noticed but the post is about market for photographic cameras, not about video cameras.
Imaging, be it still or motion, is still imaging. The confluence of tools, delivery systems, technology, etc. is changing the entire landscape of imaging. And with cloud storage and viewing, it is a changing imaging world. Sony is fairly well equipped for this change. Their Playstation Now initiative is cloud based and this technology can be leveraged to other parts of their business.
As Thom Hogan says, the bulk of the market is in sales of tools in the $USD 500-1000. Sony’s product line has become a little stale, but it is being refreshed. People who buy in this price range will not buy multi thousand dollar lenses. They just want good pictures and increasingly, good video. Hirai seems intent on leveraging the assets of the company across the entire line of products.
Does Canon have a STF lens?
Yes,
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Telephoto/EF_135mm_f2.8_Softfocus/
“Does Canon have a FF mirrorless body?”
Their sales suggest they do not need it.
“Does Canon have ANY body with focus tracking in video mode?”
Beyond news and sport is nearly all high end/quality video done with manual focus.
“Do they have a 4k camcorder that’s not, well, $10,000? ”
Not yet but they all will have this soon next big feature/gimmick.
Sorry to tell you that canon does not have a STF lens,only minolta and sony from what I know. The lens you put a link to is a soft focus lens. A STF lens is specifically made for better quality bokeh/ back ground blur not making focus soft.
None of your points is beneficial to my projects.
Actually,
– does Sony have outstanding after-sale service policy?
– does Sony have the profesional support program (For example: Nikon’s NPS) that allows me to make use of any Canon’s or Nikon’s gears no matter which country I’m in as well as no matter where I work in the world?
– does Sony offer the full range line of lens at a a variety of invesment?
I still don’t get it. Doesn’t anyone who cares about those things also care a lot about image quality? So why don’t they pick Nikon over Canon? My point was that Sony AND Nikon have got IQ for the price. And no one else does in the FF and APS ranges.
Sony needs to transition over to an entirely ff mirror-less camera line-up. I can’t see them gaining market share in the DSLR segment whatsoever. They had their chance and they blew it.
Transitioning the A-Mount to mirror-less would make Sony the largest mirror-less manufacturing in the world. They could use the marketing spin alone to gain new customers. It would allow current A-Mount users to keep their investment in lenses, and providing those potential customers the larger stabilized body they are asking for. It would be a win win for both Sony, and its A-Mount customers.
During the transition they could create an sub-$1000.00 full-frame mirror-less A-Mounts just to drive sales. Essentially a mirror-less A57 (much thinner body) with a Full Frame sensor crammed into it.
Sony should release a ff NEX or AXXXX along side it for E-Mount users.
They could sell these cameras at a loss, and make-it up with future lens sales. Within five years of using this tactic there would be no competition left in the mirror-less market.
Sony may never dominate the DSLR market, but they can easily deprive Nikon, and Canon of camera sales/revenue with ff NEX, and ff mirror-less A-Mount sales.
I’m hoping that’s what the long term plan is, but a certain Blackadder quote leaps to mind…
8 year is not enough???
Are over 8 years that Sony acquired the Minolta.
Exactly. I don’t see why they can’t take E-mount into the truly “pro” league. Make a E-mount body with IBIS, 12fps, a huge buffer and a large, deep grip. Maybe even make one with two grips (i.e. 1d-style body). Then include a LA-EA4 in every kit. A $300 adapter is a cheap accessory when the body that goes with it is upwards of $5k.
Then Sony can slowly shift towards the E mount. I still shoot football games with a 1d mk4, but all it takes to never look at Canon again is a E-mount 400mm f4
I’m not entirely against the idea of a pro e-mount body but I doubt it’ll happen in a close future. An EM-1 clone would be perfect, along with more lenses. However, the 40mm f/4 would probably not be very high on the priority list. They need to release basic lenses first (85mm 1.8 or 1.4), better zooms (f/2.8) and fix the flash issues.
Have you ever thought of MFT? The small sensor + IBIS from Olympus might be neat for long lenses. They are planning a 150mm f/2 (which becomes a 300mm f/2 regarding light gathering, but with a larger DoF compared to APS-C/FF), a 300mm f/2.8 and a a pro-level 40-150 f/2.8. The pro level one is interesting because the 12-40 f/2.8 they release was fantastic. They also plan a longer telephoto at the pro level but the details remain to be revealed.
Why not in fact why doesn’t Sony offer a A-Mount NEX camera.
Because A-Mount users and E-Mount users are two entirely target audiences, with two entirely different sets of needs. That sounds like a great idea however, it would be great in theory but utterly fail in practice.
Its not a lens mount that needs to be eliminated its a sensor.
Sony should eliminate all APS-C offerings for both A & E mounts.
Sony should slap a ff sensor in all of its interchangeable lens cameras. Imagine the press coverage the A5000 would have received if it had a 16 or 20mp ff sensor.
Imagine what kind of damage a ff A5000 or A59 would have done to Canon or Nikon’s offerings for 2014.
Oh and A-Mount users will never accept a forced conversion.
Backwards compatibility is a must. Look inside a real A-Mount users camera bag and you’ll find Minolta era glass. Some of the most popular glass used is Minolta (80-200 G-Series, 85mm + 35mm f/1.4 G, 28-70mm G-Series, 200mm f/2.8 G-Series, 100mm F/2 – do you get it).
A-Mount users cannot be forced into using another lens mount. A-Mount users want the larger body style. A-Mounts users want in-body stabilization to stabilize our lenses that date back as early as 1985.
We spend big dollars on big lenses, bodies, and Sony needs our money as too.
The big body, stabilization and compatibility can all be achieved by an E-mount body. There is no reason why Sony can’t make a slim but hefty E-mount body with an included a-mount adapter, or use sensor shift to create a true a/e mount camera. E mount just taps into the advantages of mirrorless better, and Sony should be focusing on one mount instead of developing lenses for two systems.
Sony’s not about to reinvent the wheel.
I’m thinking you bought the wrong camera.
If you needed bigger or faster lenses you should have bought an A-Mount.
That’s why Sony has been releasing big lenses for the A-Mount, and little ones for the E-Mount.
@Viktor the problem with that scenario is that the potential market for a true pro grade Sony is probably 1% that of Nikon or Canon so the price would be far more astronomical.
E-mount C-AF and tracking is dreadful compared to high end DSLRs . The ability to reduce lens size on a mirrorrless platform diminishes as the focal length increases. a 400mm lens for a FF E-mount would be just as large as the one for DSLR’s . With the disadvantage of poor C-AF/tracking and due to the even smaller potential market for high end 400mm lenses with E-mount compared to Nikon or Canon it would cost even more.As an example the Sony 500mm F4 with no IS/VR built in for A-mount costs £4000 more than the Nikon alternative.
I’m not so sure about that. I know a few guys in the sports photography profession (i.e. full-time photojournalists who cover NBA games) and they aren’t at all opposed to the idea of using Sony cameras. The common understanding is that the Sony EVF is good enough as-is for what they do, and the SLT focus system has some unique advantages in terms of tracking and accurate focus in good light, but the system (especially Sony pro service) cannot match up to Canon and Nikon’s offerings.
With one or two very good sports lens (200-400 f4 anybody?) and a decent support package I believe many pros will begin to look at Sony as an alternative, especially those starting new and can switch systems without too much loss.
Also IMO on-sensor dual AF is the trend of the future. In good light the A7 is both fast and accurate, but for some reason the PDAF stops working properly in low light. Both parts of the dual on-sensor system can be improved, but it is simply not possible to add contrast AF to a SLR body(when there is PDAF at work) since the mirror blocks the sensor.
Anyways I have pre-ordered the FE 70-200 and will find out whether it is a suitable substitute for the 70-200mm f4 IS. If it works I’ll have a lot more confidence investing in more E-mount long lenses.
I don’t want to bust your chops but if your looking for that kind of set-up its a hell of allot easier to use an A77, SAL70200G2 with a 1.4x tele-converter. It’ll give you f/4 and the 400mm focal length that you looking for.
Still curious: what will be the main selling point of the a-mount mirrorless? E-mount cameras are compact – but a-mount? An a-mount mirorless should behave kind of like the current SLT cameras, and look alike too. The only gain is low light performance. But Canikon already has that. Could you please explain why you believe mirrorless a-mount is the answer to our prayers?
Future Proofing, and Backwards compatibility. Some of us also want to use our investment in Sony G-Series, and Zeiss Lenses into the future. Some of recognize that the SLT platform was an overall failure and never really caught on. Its time for Sony to move on.
However Sony ls a leader in the mirror-less, and its the future of interchangeable lens cameras. Sony’s A-Mount with its better AF, and in-body stabilization system would create an better alternative to the traditional DSLR than the A7.
I don’t get it. mirrorless is a technology just like dslr and slt. the mirrorless a-mount would behave just like an slt. what does the consumers care about the technology inside, if it does not show in handling? how will mirrorless technology improve a-mount cameras? how will mirrorless technology make the a-mount more future proof? e-mount is designed to be compact. that’s why they made it mirrorless. that’s a benefit. a-mount couldn’t be more compact than it is, at least getting rid of the mirror wouldn’t help, so what are the benefits of going mirrorless? you have been going on about this for quite a while now without explaining details, please fill me in!
maybe you didn’t know: a-mount couldn’t be any more compact without the mirror. you can get rid of the mirror, but you cannot get rid of the mirror box because the lenses are made to be fit at a specific distance to the sensor. what makes dslr cameras bulky will make mirrorless a-mount cameras equally bulky. going mirrorless will make no difference. something like the a7 in a-mount could never happen. that’s why they invented the e-mount.
Actually your onto something.
It might be to the advantage of the A-Mount. The closer the lens is to the sensor the smaller the sensor can be.
You could have the qualities of a full frame image from a smaller less expensive sensor.
actually – no. can’t be done.
remember the A9000 is about the same size as the A7. a digital version might need to be slightly thicker due to the screen and packaging issues but just goes to show how modern SLR cameras grew to be bigger than they had to be (the reason being that people called for better ergonomics)
Per is 100% right. The Minolta A9000’s body would be the perfect fit for a mirror-less A-Mount. Its about 1.3 the size of A99.
The rear display can use a modern oled to keep it small.
“Its not to big, and not to small, its just right”
Im all for a smaller FF a-mount camera. This has nothing to do with mirrorless technology. The next a-mount FF camera could be made smaller than the a99, BUT GOING MIRRORLESS WOULD NOT HELP MAKING IT SMALLER. As I said, the mirrorbox stays the same, with or without a mirror in it. My questin is (and was all along) why get rid of the mirror when it doesn’t make the camera any smaller?
Mirrorless the range of lens and small size is a big win for Olympus and Pan. V popular for underwater use. Sony slipping as we dont have the lenses…
The peaple most likely to buy sony are sony A mount users.
But E mount is incompatable with A mount. So of course sony ssles droped.
the discussion of why people buy canikon dslr cameras here is out of place, but I’ll bite. Granted, I got my canon dslr when there was only canon and nikon available to most of us. Minolta hadn’t released the D7D yet.
Anyway, let’s say I’m a guy interested in photography buying his first camera. It will be a mirrorless or a dslr, I haven’t decided yet. First thing I do is to find out what’s available at the price I can afford, so I look through a catalog from a serious retailer. They have most systems in there, canon, nikon, sony, pentax and a few more. And accessories. So first thing is to look at bodies. Ok, all interesting in their own right, so I look at lenses knowing I want a normal zoom and a tele zoom to start out. They all have that. I know a flash would be very useful. So canon and nikon both have semi-cheap alternatives here, sony has something similar (HVL-F43M). This is impossible, I start reading reviews and following various forums and note that all cameras produce good image quality, certainly nothing to sway me from one system to the other. I look at future options and note that at the moment Canon and Nikon have more to offer, especially if I consider going to a used FF in a couple of years, but Sony might be on the right track, I just don’t know which mount to go with.
So far so good, eh? I note that the sony E-mount cameras can use adapters to mount lenses from the others. That’s good, because that means I can go with any of the others and still later use those lenses on the sony. I am not prepared to sacrifice quick AF for the ability to use really old lenses at this time. With this in mind, now is the time to go to stores and try the cameras in my own hands because that’s what everyone has told me to do. Some cameras will feel great, some will feel horrible.
The outcome? Well, there is simply no overwhelming reason for a photo enthusiast to go with either brand other than possibly the upgrade path which is equal between canon and nikon and a bit diffuse with sony. That and the accessories available might rule some cameras (in my case those for which there is no vertical grip) out.
We tend to overrate cameras versus the competition. It happened with the 1DmkII (the nikon D2H was about as quick but only half the resolution, a lot of canon owners laughed ad nikon then but they still made a great comeback later on), it’s happening with the A7/A7r.
Now to the topic at hand. Sales and market shares. It’s no big surprise sony aren’t doing well in the DSLR/SLT market and also no big surprise they’re doing well in mirrorless. But what about the market as a whole? Were more or less cameras sold in 2013 as compared to previous years? Did the mirrorless share increase?
WRONG the average consumer buying a first camera finds themselves in front of the camera display in the department store they happen to be shopping at.
They ask the sakesman what to buy and walk out with thier first camera.
And quess what…Sony cameras are not there or not prominently represented.
For thier next new camera consumers will check out everything available and buy something to go with the system they already own.
Innovation is overrated.
Getting outraged at Canon because it lacks ‘innovation’ is pointless. Obviously Canon has sufficient innovation to maintain market dominance.
Consumers don’t care about ‘innovation.’ They care about taking great pictures reliably at a great price. Canon gives this to them, Nikon gives this to them. Consumers can be very happy using Canon products, getting an APS DSLR with fast autofocus, great image quality, in an easy-to-use product with two kit lenses for half the price of the EM1 body alone, and until recently of the NEX-7 body.
Seriously, who needs anything more? Who wants to pay more just for some marketing feature bullet points labeled as innovation when their results are already great?
Yep. One needs to only look at the Olympus vs Sony fight in the mirrorless market to see that innovation for the sake of innovation isn’t helping Sony beat Olympus. Sony needs to stop trying to solve problems for consumers that don’t exist. Start pushing out more lens options at a reasonable price and they could beat Olympus, but continue vomit new bells and whistles that no one asked for and throwing up a new lens mount every 3 years and no one will ever have enough confidence in Sony to give them a chance.
Easy. Canon has a strong branding. And it is both at consumers and pros.
For consumers and enthusiasts the system is tried and true. Affordable entry-level bodies, lots of lens choices, and the optical viewfinder + pentaprism AF is reliable and easy to use. Finally, an enticing upgrade path to other products.
For pros, what other system can competes with all of canon’s offerings at once- especially thewhite zooms, tilt-shifts, f1.2’s, weather sealing, image stabilized lenses, and now Dual pixel focus?
All they need now are sensors with increased performance.
In particular in the consumer markets, people mix up branding with quality and reliability.
Actually CIPA in Japan breakout by region the split between mirroless and DSLRs they started this a couple of years ago. Full year figures for 2013 are not published until February 2014 as is the lens data.