Sony has become #2 in the 35mm Full Frame Market Within the USA

[iiiNelson]

This is really big considering (1) they launched the FE series of cameras less than 4 years ago and (2) the market has generally been in a downward spiral with cellphone becoming the camera of choice for many. For all the negatives that are said about Sony (and yes there's room for improvement) it's somewhat refreshing to see them gaining market share if you're invested into their system.

https://alphauniverse.com/stories/s...ull-frame-interchangeable-lens-camera-market/

 

[Vivek]

What does this mean? Would the cams become cheaper? Better?

Or ...

 

[iiiNelson]

What does this mean? Would the cams become cheaper? Better?

Or ...

No idea. I will say that Sony seems receptive to praise and criticism from adding IBIS to redesigning the menu system somewhat to designing lenses that many request or wish for.

Anything beyond that as it regards to what the sales numbers mean for the consumer is speculation. I find their pricing inline with the competition.

 

[GrahamWelland]

I just SO want Nikon to produce a kick *** mirrorless full frame camera. That's what would propel them forward to a more survivable platform. Whilst I'm not a Nikon shooter any more (other than my F6 & AIS glass), I do have a huge soft spot for them after a couple of decades of being mainly a Nikon shooter.

Nikon get it technically but need to get their head out of the sand with their DSLR slow evolution and lack of mirrorless/EVF based solutions.

 

[iiiNelson]

I just SO want Nikon to produce a kick *** mirrorless full frame camera. That's what would propel them forward to a more survivable platform. Whilst I'm not a Nikon shooter any more (other than my F6 & AIS glass), I do have a huge soft spot for them after a couple of decades of being mainly a Nikon shooter.

Nikon get it technically but need to get their head out of the sand with their DSLR slow evolution and lack of mirrorless/EVF based solutions.

I agree with you but if I was Nikon and listened to the vocal online majority then I'd say Nikon is doing EXACTLY what many want them to do in slow upgrades to most cameras, staying with OVF, and not abandoning F mount glass. From the outside looking in at least, Nikon shooters seem to want long battery life, smaller size, the ability to use their glass, OVF (or OVF/EVF hybrid), and 3+ year replacement cycles. The same is generally applied to Canon but there's a much higher install base there.

 

[Vivek]

I just SO want Nikon to produce a kick *** mirrorless full frame camera.

Those who want ONLY the best shoot (with) Nikon. That was their recent advertisement.

They are "perfection" and should stay as is!

 

[Vivek]

No idea. I will say that Sony seems receptive to praise and criticism from adding IBIS to redesigning the menu system somewhat to designing lenses that many request or wish for.

Anything beyond that as it regards to what the sales numbers mean for the consumer is speculation. I find their pricing inline with the competition.

If they listen, they should get rid of their "star eater" "feature" !

See: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/specific-a7sii-astrophotography-fix-request/

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

It's an interesting development, and while there are probably many reasons for this, it strikes me that it happens at a time when Sony has been a bit more restrictive than previously when it comes to launching new full frame models (soon two years since the A7R II). Most people want stability.

When it comes to Nikon, it must be remembered that the hugely successful D500 is probably eating into their full frame market, and that all of their 35mm cameras except the D5 are at least 30 months old (the D750). With improving sensor technology, Nikon shooters have some exceptional DX bodies to choose from, and if I was going to buy a Nikon body today, I doubt that it would be full frame. Had it, used it, was too heavy when carrying telephoto lenses.

 

[iiiNelson]

It's an interesting development, and while there are probably many reasons for this, it strikes me that it happens at a time when Sony has been a bit more restrictive than previously when it comes to launching new full frame models (soon two years since the A7R II). Most people want stability.

When it comes to Nikon, it must be remembered that the hugely successful D500 is probably eating into their full frame market, and that all of their 35mm cameras except the D5 are at least 30 months old (the D750). With improving sensor technology, Nikon shooters have some exceptional DX bodies to choose from, and if I was going to buy a Nikon body today, I doubt that it would be full frame. Had it, used it, was too heavy when carrying telephoto lenses.

I think the expedited launch schedule was a result in the rapid developments of the E-mount system between both Full frame and APS-C. He rapid revisions needed to be released so that development could be funded and if the A7 generation 2 and A6xxx cameras weren't so much more complete than what he had available 2-5 yrs ago then we aren't having this conversation. The rapid cycle was a means to an end and I believe if the rumors A9 is released it'll follow traditional 2-4 year EOL cycles while the consumer and enthusiast cameras continue at a 12-24 month cycle while rapid technology advancements occurs.

The truth is that what Sony is doing is great for the entire industry as we are now seeing more affordable and capable digital medium format cameras that can be used for reportage and improved compact imagery in cell phones.

Just my opinion though.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

The truth is that what Sony is doing is great for the entire industry as we are now seeing more affordable and capable digital medium format cameras that can be used for reportage and improved compact imagery in cell phones.

Just my opinion though.

Indeed. The Fuji GFX costs more or less the same as a Nikon D5 or Canon 1D X and is more compact and lighter. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Nikon (and Canon) skip the 35mm format for mirrorless altogether and go for the medium format sensor and then launch an APS-C mirrorless as well, the same way as Fuji has done. Longer term, it will push the price of the medium format sensor further down too.

 

[GrahamWelland]

I can't see Nikon being able to produce a larger format camera and abandon their lens system. That seems like suicide to me.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I can't see Nikon being able to produce a larger format camera and abandon their lens system. That seems like suicide to me.

Canon did that in 1987. They don't look very dead to me.

It all depends on how they do it. If they launch one medium format system and one DX system and the latter has a lens mount wide enough for FX if they decide to launch that later, it would make sense. That was what Sony and Leica did and the Canon EF-M mount is wider that Sony's E-mount, so a Canon full frame mirrorless is possible in the future.

The full frame market has become very competitive even though it represents a rather small part of the camera market. With medium format, Nikon could charge a much higher price for their products and not being compatible with legacy lenses has its advantages too: photographers will have to buy new lenses. The bulk market is, and will probably always be, APS-C. With increasingly better sensors and more advanced image stabilisation technologies, that will not change much. Very few need ISO one zillion and 50 or 100 megapixels. It makes more sense to me then to sell APS-C to the masses, medium format to professionals and let Sony compete with itself in the full frame market.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Here are some interesting statistics that are relevant to this:

For several years, mirrorless sales have been around one third of DSLR sales worldwide. The figures are the same for 2016 in total, but in December, mirrorless sales went up to 50% of DSLR sales. The two first months of 2017, mirrorless sales were 60% of DSLR sales. It's finally happening, and although I believe DSLR cameras will be around for years to come, my guess is that by the end of this year, mirrorless sales will be higher than DSLR.

Interesting also is that DSLR sales only went down 3% those two months, while mirrorless sales went up 47%, so an increase in total sales.

In Asia, with or without Japan, mirrorless sales are now 80% as high as DSLR sales. In America the number is 37% and in Europe 39%. There are 20% more interchangeable lens cameras sold in Asia than in America and Europe combined, 900,000 vs. 750,000 the two first months of this year.

All figures are approximate. America means all American countries.

 

[Vivek]

let Sony compete with itself in the full frame market

Nikon is done ? :shocked:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Nikon is done ? :shocked:

Nikon may be too late for the full frame mirrorless market. It's a small niche, and Sony survives there mostly because they are alone. Split that market in three or four, and there are only crumbs left for each. The full frame DSLR market is another story, but it will shrink. See also what Nikon is doing in the DSLR APS-C market. They're pouring out new models all the time, 6 models in 26 months against one full frame in 30 months. I wouldn't be surprise if full frame DSLR dies while APS-C survives. Why buy a D5 when a D500 does mostly the same for a third of the price except taking photos of black cats in coal mines? It even offers 50% more reach. The D810 and top 5D models are nice, but the big Fuji is much handier and with the budget of a pro, the $3,000 jump isn't more than a lens and an airline ticket.

The question is what Sony will do in the mirrorless APS-C market. They basically offer two models with the same body. While I'm sure they are good cameras, it's as if they're saying "Nah... we're not really into this". No upgrade path except full frame, little choice. Fuji probably has it right with their 6(?) models. They're extremely successful in Asia, particularly at attracting young buyers with their stylish, mostly price-worthy cameras. Easy to use too. My female colleagues all have beige and silver Fujis. I don't think they know that Sony makes cameras.

 

[iiiNelson]

Nikon may be too late for the full frame mirrorless market. It's a small niche, and Sony survives there mostly because they are alone. Split that market in three or four, and there are only crumbs left for each. The full frame DSLR market is another story, but it will shrink. See also what Nikon is doing in the DSLR APS-C market. They're pouring out new models all the time, 6 models in 26 months against one full frame in 30 months. I wouldn't be surprise if full frame DSLR dies while APS-C survives. Why buy a D5 when a D500 does mostly the same for a third of the price except taking photos of black cats in coal mines? It even offers 50% more reach. The D810 and top 5D models are nice, but the big Fuji is much handier and with the budget of a pro, the $3,000 jump isn't more than a lens and an airline ticket.

The question is what Sony will do in the mirrorless APS-C market. They basically offer two models with the same body. While I'm sure they are good cameras, it's as if they're saying "Nah... we're not really into this". No upgrade path except full frame, little choice. Fuji probably has it right with their 6(?) models. They're extremely successful in Asia, particularly at attracting young buyers with their stylish, mostly price-worthy cameras. Easy to use too. My female colleagues all have beige and silver Fujis. I don't think they know that Sony makes cameras.

I see the exact opposite happening with Nikon and Canonfor a few different reasonsbut it comes down to money, upgrade potential, and the falling costs of FF system entry.

I see both Canon and Nikon dropping APS-C completely as the FF lens lineup is more extensive than their native APS-C one. Essentially they can make the case for people to buy a cheaper 1.4x extender rather than a crop body for those that need the extra range like say a wildlife shooter. The difference with Fuji is that they built their entire X-series around APS-C with no plan of ever going FF. For Nikon and Canon, FF is the holy grail and the price of entry is continually becoming less expensive. We are at the days of $1000 FF cameras being sold new from the last generation (for instance Sony A7 generation 1) and the sensors are still capable. When compared to something like the Nikon D7500 (which IMO looks to be an inferior camera to the excellent D7200 on paper but I could be wrong) it provides similar resolution but just a bit more oomph in the IQ department all things considered. Update the AF sensor on one of these older sensors and you have yourself a very capable entry level camera that generally provides better IQ and access to a higher-end upgrade path due to APS-C cameras topping off in the ~$2k price range for the most specialized cameras like the D500 and FF cameras topping off in the $8000 range for a Leica.

Nothing against APS-C, but I find that Micro 4/3 is the best option for many that want a compact mirrorless camera with mature lens lineup or advanced video options. To be honest I see an extremely small difference between Micro 4/3 and APS-C than I do when comparing APS-C to FF35 and in some cases I fell Micro 4/3 surpasses APS-C cameras in IQ due to the available lenses (Fuji may be an exception though the costs are in line with entry level FF35 since the X has newer lens designs and is built from the ground up around APS-C.)

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Nothing against APS-C, but I find that Micro 4/3 is the best option for many that want a compact mirrorless camera with mature lens lineup or advanced video options. To be honest I see an extremely small difference between Micro 4/3 and APS-C than I do when comparing APS-C to FF35 and in some cases I fell Micro 4/3 surpasses APS-C cameras in IQ due to the available lenses (Fuji may be an exception though the costs are in line with entry level FF35 since the X has newer lens designs and is built from the ground up around APS-C.)

This we can agree on. One important reason why I use m4/3 rather than any of the APS-C alternatives is the quality of the lenses. I read a review of the full frame Sigma 135mm f/1.8 earlier today, which was ouuuhhh and aaaahhh all the way through. The same reviewers did the Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 many years ago with more or less identical results. One can discuss light gathering and DOF till faces get blue and fists are ready for a fight, but the Zuiko does achieve similar results at roughly a quarter of the size and weight. It's cheaper too, but not that much. Apart from Fuji and Pentax, hardly any of the camera manufacturers have made high quality primes dedicated to their APS-C cameras. It's a mystery to me.

 

[k-hawinkler]

Sony FF and Olympus m4/3 for me.
Nikon FX, DX and Leica M sitting on shelf. But I use the lenses via TAP with AF.

 

[iiiNelson]

This we can agree on. One important reason why I use m4/3 rather than any of the APS-C alternatives is the quality of the lenses. I read a review of the full frame Sigma 135mm f/1.8 earlier today, which was ouuuhhh and aaaahhh all the way through. The same reviewers did the Zuiko 75mm f/1.8 many years ago with more or less identical results. One can discuss light gathering and DOF till faces get blue and fists are ready for a fight, but the Zuiko does achieve similar results at roughly a quarter of the size and weight. It's cheaper too, but not that much. Apart from Fuji and Pentax, hardly any of the camera manufacturers have made high quality primes dedicated to their APS-C cameras. It's a mystery to me.

I tried the Sigma 135/1.8 locally last week on a Nikon D810 so any praise that a reviewer gives it optically is well justified IMO.

I think the reason none of the bigger bigger brands are designing much for the APS-C cameras has to deal with the desire for them to want customers to be on an upgrade path to FF35 and that's a big reason to skip APS-C (unless choosing Fuji) IMO. Pentax is in a weird position that until the K1 was released, they didn't offer a digital FF35 camera. I believe they've been modernizing their offerings for the last year or two and I fully expect that most new/revamped lens design from them to be centered around both the FF35 and 645 market.

This all goes back to my point that compact ILC design is better served/complimented by a Micro 4/3 and FF35 combo, APS-C and compact Medium Format (44x33) design, or APS-C/APS-H/FF35 and FF Medium Format (54x40).

 

[Vivek]

Nikon may be too late for the full frame mirrorless market. It's a small niche, and Sony survives there mostly because they are alone. Split that market in three or four, and there are only crumbs left for each. The full frame DSLR market is another story, but it will shrink. See also what Nikon is doing in the DSLR APS-C market. They're pouring out new models all the time, 6 models in 26 months against one full frame in 30 months. I wouldn't be surprise if full frame DSLR dies while APS-C survives. Why buy a D5 when a D500 does mostly the same for a third of the price except taking photos of black cats in coal mines? It even offers 50% more reach. The D810 and top 5D models are nice, but the big Fuji is much handier and with the budget of a pro, the $3,000 jump isn't more than a lens and an airline ticket.

The question is what Sony will do in the mirrorless APS-C market. They basically offer two models with the same body. While I'm sure they are good cameras, it's as if they're saying "Nah... we're not really into this". No upgrade path except full frame, little choice. Fuji probably has it right with their 6(?) models. They're extremely successful in Asia, particularly at attracting young buyers with their stylish, mostly price-worthy cameras. Easy to use too. My female colleagues all have beige and silver Fujis. I don't think they know that Sony makes cameras.

I know every NEX from NEX-5 to NEX-6 and 7 and how they were put together. Basically, the more expensive the better. The current A6300 and A6500 are highly evolved and they are very very good. Yea, surely the FF cams are even better. Fuji have no such choice and hae moved to MF. Samsung gave up and quit.