# Sony to capture all the non-Canon sensor sales



## SPKoko (Dec 1, 2014)

I have just read this interesting article:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/more-doom-and-gloom.html

where Thom Hogan analyzes the latest Sony’s financial presentation and he concludes that:



> I’m sure that Sony fanboys reading the chart might notice and jump up and down about one aspect: near 100% market share in Compact DSC sensor sales. Heck, if you do the math properly,* they’re also projecting near 100% capture of the non-Canon ILC market*, too.



That is, if it were not for Canon, all the sensors would be manufactured by Sony, that would get a monopoly in imaging sensors...

My interpretation of this is: Nikon users should be very grateful to Canon for not buying APS-C/FF sensors to Canon. If Canon bought Sony sensors too, Sony could charge whatever they wanted for their sensors!!!


----------



## Giovanni (Dec 1, 2014)

There are many more than Sony, there are Toshiba, Samsung, Panasonic , Renesas, Aptina, Omnivision to mention a few, so don't worry


----------



## distant.star (Dec 1, 2014)

.
Interesting forecast suggesting the maturity of the digital camera market.

The glaring error for me is the assumption that no one makes image sensors except Sony and Canon. There are other companies involved and to varying degrees.

Also, this post doesn't seem to belong in the EOS Bodies section.


----------



## SPKoko (Dec 1, 2014)

distant.star said:


> .
> The glaring error for me is the assumption that no one makes image sensors except Sony and Canon. There are other companies involved and to varying degrees.



Well, if you study carefully the slide, you will see that the orange ball (the ILC one) does not grow in size (total units) but it is expected to move from ~30% of market share (2013) to ~45% of market share (2017 forecast). Taking into account that the current Canon ILC market share could be between 40% and 50%, that is why, in my opinion, Thom says that Sony aims to capture almost all the non-Canon market share by 2017.



distant.star said:


> .
> Also, this post doesn't seem to belong in the EOS Bodies section.



Please excuse me if I posted in the wrong section. If any mod is reading this, please feel free to move the post to a more suitable section.


----------



## jrista (Dec 1, 2014)

Giovanni said:


> There are many more than Sony, there are Toshiba, Samsung, Panasonic , Renesas, Aptina, Omnivision to mention a few, so don't worry




There are these. Aside from Toshiba and Samsung, however, I am not sure that sensors from the others are currently used in photography cameras. I think most are used in video cameras and small form factor cameras...smartphones, machine vision, scientific, etc. 


Toshiba has a fairly small presence. I think Samsung currently only has their sensors in their own cameras, although I could be wrong about that. That gives Sony a MONSTER share of the market, which from a competitive and consumer standpoint, is kind of worrying.


----------



## Giovanni (Dec 1, 2014)

Nikon use Sony,Toshiba and Renesas made sensors .Toshiba in for example d7100 and Renesas in D3, D3S, D4.
Olympus and Panasonic, Fuji use lot of Panasonic sensors.


----------



## jrista (Dec 1, 2014)

Giovanni said:


> Nikon useSony, Toshiba and Renesas made sensors .Toshiba in for example d7100 and Renesas in D3, D3S, D4.
> Olympus and Panasonic use lot of Panasonic sensors so also does Fuji




Right. Were talking about a handful of cameras for three sensor manufacturers. That is still a pittance compared to the market share that Sony has. Long term, that is not really a great situation for consumers, especially given the predicament of Olympus and Panasonic. Fuji still has some good market share. I don't know how many of their sensors are Panasonic, though.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 1, 2014)

Sony seems to be getting it, they are dropping their smart phone failing business, and concentrating on growth where they can make some $$$.


http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/info/irday2014electronics/devices_E.pdf


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> Long term, that is not really a great situation for consumers



You always have the pure play foundries, those have the required skills, tools and experience with mixed signal and MEMS to create whatever you want at a structure size that makes even the most advanced DSC sensors feel ancient. Basically Samsung's current sensor is an example, even if the fab is owned by the same conglomerate. 

That also keeps Nikon in a good position for negotiations, they have their own designs - Sony has to offer something competitive at a price delineated by the costs for a production run at any of those foundries.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 1, 2014)

The most important quotes. *"Just to stay at the same revenue levels as this year the camera makers would probably have to increase their average selling prices 2x or so just to hold ground. Look out Leica, you’re going to have company."*

The doubling of camera prices in just four (4) short years  *"...try to wean yourself off the credit-card-as-therapy trip..."* 

And *"Automotive use alone eclipses the camera market we currently know, and by a substantive amount (3x the sensor unit sales)."*

Camera sensor sales become unimportant to Sony's bottom-line. So R&D money goes to profitable products  

BTW I'm glad I still have FILM cameras and a light meter (and know how to us it)  There is no effing way I'll spend $2,400.00 on an 80D or $6,500.00 on a 5D4. YMMV.


----------



## Lawliet (Dec 1, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> There is no effing way I'll spend $2,400.00 on an 80D or $6,500.00 on a 5D4. YMMV.



Spend 1200 on the big cam instead of 1000 on a DSLR and 200 on a compact and it works out.
Bonus points: some lenses other then the kit one keep the revenue also up w/o increasing the camera prices.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 1, 2014)

Sensors are and will be a commodity. Solid state mirrorless cameras will halve current dslr prices and deliver superior imaging capability. No need to panic. We are the buyers. Them ... Are just suppliers. If We dont buy, we will take pictures with our current cams. They go bust.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Sensors are and will be a commodity. Solid state mirrorless cameras will halve current dslr prices and deliver superior imaging capability. No need to panic. We are the buyers. Them ... Are just suppliers. If We dont buy, we will take pictures with our current cams. They go bust.



So you think that Canon, Nikon, etc, etc going *"bust"* is a GOOD THING ??? If that happens *"buyers"* will have no-one to buy from


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 1, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > There is no effing way I'll spend $2,400.00 on an 80D or $6,500.00 on a 5D4. YMMV.
> ...



Could you please explain. I haven't a clue to the meaning of *"big cam"* ???


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 1, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Sensors are and will be a commodity. Solid state mirrorless cameras will halve current dslr prices and deliver superior imaging capability. No need to panic. We are the buyers. Them ... Are just suppliers. If We dont buy, we will take pictures with our current cams. They go bust.
> ...



No problem, then we will capture images using sony or samsung cameras. Suppöiers dont matter all that much. We, the customers matter. Suppliers dont make what we want ... They'll go bust!


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Please reread. "Canon, Nikon, etc, etc" *Should be read as ALL CAMERA MANUFACTUERS.*

BTW with the way camera sales are dropping there may be no camera buyers left in four (4) years. By then 99% of photography may be done with camera-phones  and surveillance cameras


----------



## jrista (Dec 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...




Canon and Nikon going bust would be a disaster for everyone who has untold thousands invested in their lenses and other accessories. Adapters only take you so far. Maybe in some cases adapters may work well enough for most things, but there are special use cases where going with a camera system is better. Canon and Nikon going bust wouldn't be a good thing for anyone. Having used the A7r, I would still rather get a Nikon D810 for the sensor, rather than the A7r. It is just FAR more expensive to get the D810, since you need lenses as well (Canon lenses cannot be adapted)...so I have not. You cannot underestimate the value of an existing kit of lenses (which, if Canon were to go bust, would effectively render my entire kit "worthless"...and thus unsellable.)


----------



## jrista (Dec 1, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > c.d.embrey said:
> ...




This is highly doubtful. The market is not going to disappear. It may contract, but it will not disappear. The P&S market is definitely suffering from the explosion of high quality cameras in smartphones, but those are still and never will be a replacement for the kind of giant sensors you get in a proper ILC. One way or another, the ILC market will persist. This is just Sony's interpretation of market trends...that doesn't make it the bible's truth. It is also based on PAST data...which, as everyone should know, is no indication of future trends. 


Most markets have cycles. Some markets have very long cycles. The introduction of quality phone cameras is disruptive, and is thus impacting the cycle for ILC cameras. I don't think it is going to topple the ILC market entirely...I don't think smartphones have the power to. Different tools for different jobs. One is for your average snapshots, the other is for serious photography. Sure, some people go crazy, get additional lenses for their iPhones, and produce some great works of art...but 99% of smartphones are used to create instagram fodder.


I hand out a lot of my photography business cards these days, and people always ask me how I get my photos. When I explain the kind of camera I use, most are quite intrigued, and some (including one just a couple days ago) end up buying their own DSLR. I think there is still appeal...I think in many ways, potential customers simply don't know the options are out there, or if they do, they don't know why they would get anything other than their phone. WHEN they know of the options and why the options exist...many people do want more, want better, want more flexible, faster, etc.


The ILC market will not be toppled by smartphones.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 1, 2014)

jrista said:


> This is highly doubtful. The market is not going to disappear. It may contract, but it will not disappear. The P&S market is definitely suffering from the explosion of high quality cameras in smartphones, but those are still and never will be a replacement for the kind of giant sensors you get in a proper ILC. One way or another, the ILC market will persist. This is just Sony's interpretation of market trends...that doesn't make it the bible's truth. It is also based on PAST data...which, as everyone should know, is no indication of future trends.
> 
> 
> Most markets have cycles. Some markets have very long cycles. The introduction of quality phone cameras is disruptive, and is thus impacting the cycle for ILC cameras. I don't think it is going to topple the ILC market entirely...I don't think smartphones have the power to. Different tools for different jobs. One is for your average snapshots, the other is for serious photography. Sure, some people go crazy, get additional lenses for their iPhones, and produce some great works of art...but 99% of smartphones are used to create instagram fodder.
> ...



If Thom Hogan is right *"Just to stay at the same revenue levels as this year the camera makers would probably have to increase their average selling prices 2x or so just to hold ground. Look out Leica, you’re going to have company."* How many people will buy *Double Priced* Rebels, xxD and Pro cameras ??? Will photography go-away as a main-stream hobby ???

Remember the old saying *"Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better"* This really does apply to camera-phones. I can't wait to see how good the camera will be in an *Apple iPhone10*


----------



## dgatwood (Dec 2, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> If Thom Hogan is right *"Just to stay at the same revenue levels as this year the camera makers would probably have to increase their average selling prices 2x or so just to hold ground. Look out Leica, you’re going to have company."* How many people will buy *Double Priced* Rebels, xxD and Pro cameras ??? Will photography go-away as a main-stream hobby ???



Photography was a mainstream hobby even when people were paying three bucks for a 24-shot roll of film and several more bucks for processing and prints. Photography has never been cheaper than it is right now. It can go higher without destroying the market.

Besides, they can also keep prices flat by reducing the number of models so their R&D expenses are spread across more copies per design.




c.d.embrey said:


> Remember the old saying *"Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better"* This really does apply to camera-phones. I can't wait to see how good the camera will be in an *Apple iPhone10*



They're getting better, but they're still tiny sensors with tiny lenses and typically no zoom capabilities. And for that to change would turn them into point-and-shoot cameras, which would be clumsy to carry around and use as phones.


----------



## jrista (Dec 2, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > This is highly doubtful. The market is not going to disappear. It may contract, but it will not disappear. The P&S market is definitely suffering from the explosion of high quality cameras in smartphones, but those are still and never will be a replacement for the kind of giant sensors you get in a proper ILC. One way or another, the ILC market will persist. This is just Sony's interpretation of market trends...that doesn't make it the bible's truth. It is also based on PAST data...which, as everyone should know, is no indication of future trends.
> ...




People simply won't buy them at double the price, which is why they won't double in price.  That is fairly simple supply and demand. Doubling the price would have a domino effect, and would kill off the market. The interesting thing about camera prices, they are very stable. Go back over a decade, and the early high end DSLRs still cost roughly what they cost today (and a couple were even more, significantly more on an inflation-adjusted basis...that's the OPPOSITE of what you or Sony or Tom are proposing). Surprisingly, the 1D X actually clocked in a bit less in inflation-adjusted terms. The 7D II came in at exactly the same price point as it's predecessor, which means it came in a fair bit lower in inflation-adjusted terms. Even gradually, people have their limits. Big numbers mean fewer sales, which means less revenue and less R&D, which means slower innovation, which means fewer new camera models, which means fewer sales....snowball. The price can only be set to what the market can bear...and the market will not bear a $6500 5D IV. 



c.d.embrey said:


> Remember the old saying *"Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better"* This really does apply to camera-phones. I can't wait to see how good the camera will be in an *Apple iPhone10*




I never said camera phones wouldn't get better. I said they would never compare to the quality you can get from giant sensors and giant lenses. Of course they will get better. Over the last few years they have improved dramatically. And yet, how often do you see anything other than blurry, grainy, scratchy photos from smartphones? Sometimes, but generally speaking, RARELY (particularly on a percentage basis, when you consider that Instagram alone gets over 40 million photo uploads a day; throw in Facebook, blogs, and every other means of sharing photos...VERY RARELY!!  ) How often do you see truly phenomenal works of photographic art from ILCs? (And I really do mean phenomena....like, incredibly amazing, mind blowingly awesome photos.) Tens of thousands of times a day every single day at a minimum, if sites like 500px, 1x, and Flickr are any indication.


Everything gets better. Smartphones aren't getting better while everything else is standing still. There are some simple laws of physics at play as well...smaller sensors cannot gather the same amount of light as larger sensors, and it's the total quantity of light that ultimately determines IQ (assuming all the human-bound factors are accounted for...focus, stability, etc...which again, are better handled with bigger cameras.)


Finally, you have to take that Sony chart in proper context. 


First, the automotive market. The automotive market has exploded recently. There have been cars with rear-view cameras for a while now. A lot of places, states and countries, are manadating rear-view cameras now. Not only that, the mandates call for some significant improvements in how they operate. It is not unusual for a single car to use three or more sensors, just for the rear-view functionality.


The smartphone market has matured into this beast where phones are almost like disposable cameras. Not so much in the united states, but in some countries, people often have multiple phones. Governments often use "disposable" (effectively one-use or short-term use) phones for many purposes, most of which include cameras. Smartphones are THE phones for most Americans and Europeans, and are becoming the phone of preference for most of the Asian markets. Cameras have never been more than a niche commodity, however phones are utility. They are expected, assumed to always be. It used to be everyone had a phone in their homes. Then everyone had several phones. Then everyone had cordless phones. Phones are a common utility, they are a simple and basic need and expectation, rather than a niche. It is not surprising that a market of several BILLION is garnering a larger piece of the sensor pie than a market of millions (Canon and Nikon combined don't even amount to 50 million ILC sales, IIRC...and those sales have been minimally affected by the large scale shift from P&S to smartphone cameras.) 


The IP Camera market, or really the security camera market in general, is also exploding. The advent of personal security systems that cost $500, come with half a dozen cameras or more and a centralized digital recording system is changing the security market. You can now check your home security status on your smartphone, and even observe any of the cameras remotely (or even all at once.) More advanced systems are being used to do the same thing for small businesses, only with more cameras, specialized cameras for observing and analyzing cash transactions at registers, etc. Again, security cameras are reaching a "utility" status, rather than simply a niche commodity status. It is not surprising that the security camera sensor market is larger than the ILC market.


Finally, unless I am gravely mistaken, the market share bubbles here are SONY's share. They are NOT indicative of the overall market in total across all manufacturers. Sony's share of the compact and ILC markets is still small. Sony's growth forecast is for THEIR products, not the entire market. There have been rumors that Sony would exit many electronics markets, and this may simply be a projection of their eventual exit from the camera market as well, or at the very least, a significant contraction in the number of products they sell in that market. 


Sony is the third largest, but it is still dwarfed by both Nikon and Canon, when it comes to ILC market size. The market share dynamic shifts considerably if you add in Canon sensors, and the market share they hold for compact and ILC cameras. Toshiba, Panasonic, and Fuji would balloon the share for those markets further. Adding those other manufacturers is not going to really change the relationship with the smartphone market, however the compact and ILC market grows to more closely match the IP Camera and Car markets. 


I find nothing surprising about the market share reports. They are from and about a single manufacturer, and therefor not indicative of the true total market share dynamics. They cover both niche commodity as well as utility markets, and the market share differentials, given the difference in potential customer base between niche and utility, are to be expected. The ILC camera market has never been monstrous, it's in the range of tens to a couple hundred million units a year, depending on how you classify that market and what manufacturers you include. Even at a couple hundred million units a year, there is no way that market could have EVER been capable of capturing the kind of sheer volume that the smartphone market has.


Nope. Nothing surprising at all.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > c.d.embrey said:
> ...



Why? If Canon went bust tomorrow it wouldn't directly impact me, a professional Canon user, for years. Service might become an issue but I doubt it as all the hardware and techs will still need work. All my gear would continue to work indefinitely and I could continue taking the images I can now.

Digital cameras, despite all the hyperbole, are relatively mature tech products, we are already seeing size increases in the mirror less cameras because more people want bigger cameras, sure we will keep getting incremental changes and people to differing degrees and markets will change purchasing habits, but the days of having to upgrade cameras every two years to maintain competitive image quality output are long gone, now choices, more than ever, should be based on use, personal preference and personally relevant system capabilities.


----------



## jrista (Dec 2, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...




If only Canon went bust tomorrow, there would still be Nikon as a backup option (and if you really wanted to, there are glassed adapters that could be used to get more life out of a Canon lens kit.) If *BOTH *Canon and Nikon went bust tomorrow, I think that would be a pretty serious problem for a lot of photographers. There are some good alternative options out there, but nothing that could completely replace Canon equipment for those who DO plan to upgrade every few years (chasing that so unimportant image quality boost or feature improvement, say better AF tracking), but expect to be able to continue using their existing lenses. 


The bust of _both _makers would effectively destroy any real value in existing lenses for those brands. Collectors might create a market for certain lenses for a while, but in the grand scheme of things, the equipment would lose significant value. I don't think that is a good thing for vested users. Maybe it doesn't necessarily matter if future cameras come out with improved IQ and capabilities, I agree the vast majority of cameras today can produce excellent IQ...but I would be willing to bet that there are more users to whom that expectation (and eventual realization) does matter, than users like yourself. 


I also think that loss of continued support for equipment that cost thousands of dollars if not tens of thousands of dollars would result in a lot of very unhappy customers. There is an inherent expectation that a company like Canon or Nikon won't simply go bust when you spend huge amounts of money on their products. There is the inherent expectation that they will be well managed companies long into the future. I certainly expected that when I put well over ten grand into a lens, and several more grand into bodies and accessories.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 2, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


I agree!

Look at the product cycle times..... 4 to 5 years for a camera body.... even the yearly rebel update is a thing of the past. 

The 7D2 was a big update. It offered up a "huge" increase in performance... going from a max ISO of 12,800 to a max ISO of 51,200 in just five years..... a 4 times increase...

The four years before that took us from ISO1600 to 12,800.... an 8 times increase.

Things are slowing down... cycles are getting longer.... improvements are getting smaller...


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Hat is only a valid point if you need more features than currently available to take the images you need to, and the truth is that is just not true for practically anybody. Sure we will use better capabilities when they come along, but very few need them, that is why we are where we are, people do not need to get the latest camera generation to take the images they want to.

Oh, and the 1DX was the replacement for the 1D MkIV as far as all users are concerned, the 1DX was $6,999 on release, the 1DMkIV was $4,999. Whilst it is true that all 1DS models I through III were $7,999 there is no doubt the 1DX set a new, and higher, price benchmark.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 2, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Hat is only a valid point if you need more features than currently available to take the images you need to, and the truth is that is just not true for practically anybody. Sure we will use better capabilities when they come along, but very few need them, that is why we are where we are, people do not need to get the latest camera generation to take the images they want to.


Most of the time, my brand new 7D2 is VERY slightly better than the 60D which preceded it in my kit. The only times where the difference becomes significant is at high ISO (1 to 1.5 stops better) and when pushing the AF system, which is an order of magnitude (or more) better. If the 7D2 had not come out I would have still been happily shooting away with the 60D.


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 2, 2014)

Kodak vs Fuji
Canon vs Sony

Interesting that the technology has changed so much in recent years, but photographers are still left with with only two dominant companies for image capture.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 2, 2014)

So the industry matures, Sony and Canon are making all the FF and crop sensors, and someone (Nikon? Olympus? Panasonic? Sigma?) decides they are tired of getting gouged by Sony, and they start up their own fabrication line or even contract out to Canon.

Everybody buys components from third party suppliers... if the market is there, one will emerge to fill a sensor void when the time is right.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Dec 2, 2014)

SPKoko said:


> My interpretation of this is: Nikon users should be very grateful to Canon for not buying APS-C/FF sensors to Canon. If Canon bought Sony sensors too, Sony could charge whatever they wanted for their sensors!!!



This dirty trick is not new at all, especially in Asia, but works all the time if not paying attention... But, for now, Sony would not do this until they ensure that all camera companies completely shut-downed/closed their sensor manufactures...



Giovanni said:


> There are many more than Sony, there are Toshiba, Samsung, Panasonic , Renesas, Aptina, Omnivision to mention a few, so don't worry



Number of these listed manufactures has been acquired by Sony. Thus, if companies keep switching their sensor selection from manufacture to manufactures, what happen to Sony, spend more money and buy them all? LOL... (Just a thought to deal with dirty business)


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 2, 2014)

Declining market demand for big fat mirrorslappers and pressure on profits will accelerate the industry's move to solid state, fully-electronic cameras, without any mechanics or moving mirrors on them.simply because it is so much cheaper to manufacture, quality control and service mechanics-free products. Any dumb robot can put together an advanced mirrorless cam at very low cost. To produce DSLRs, to adjust and align their components, a lot of diligent, skilled, high dectetiority (=female) human labor is needed. Even at Thai labor costs, this is more costly than automated robot factory mass production of solid state cameras.

So guess, whete the market is headed. 

Luckily, manufacturers have to make these mirrorless cams good enough for us potential buyers to really buy them. That's the good thing about it.

Just love to see CaNikon suffering. They really really deserve it. I doubt, they'll both go bust. But i would not be willing to place any bets on nikon.


----------



## jrista (Dec 2, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Declining market demand for big fat mirrorslappers and pressure on profits will accelerate the industry's move to solid state, fully-electronic cameras, without any mechanics or moving mirrors on them.simply because it is so much cheaper to manufacture, quality control and service mechanics-free products. Any dumb robot can put together an advanced mirrorless cam at very low cost. To produce DSLRs, to adjust and align their components, a lot of diligent, skilled, high dectetiority (=female) human labor is needed. Even at Thai labor costs, this is more costly than automated robot gactory mass production of solid state cameras.
> 
> So guess, whete the market is headed.
> 
> ...




Why in the world do they _deserve_ it? I don't like Canon dragging their feet, but I certainly do not believe either company DESERVES to suffer. Both are still good companies. Nikon doesn't seem to have their shit together when it comes to managing their product lines, and I think that hurts them a bit. Canon is just sluggish on some key fronts, and they seem to lack the ability to overcome their inertia. But I don't think they DESERVE to suffer because of those issues. I think they may suffer because of them, and I think that is an undesired outcome, and I certainly hope they figure out how to overcome their shortcomings in the future.


Also, keep in mind the context here...Sony said ILC sales are declining. They did not say DSLR sales are declining, they said ILC sales. That INCLUDES mirrorless (which isn't surprising, since so many of their offerings are mirrorless now.) To interpret the results here as saying anything other than that Sony's, and Sony's specifically, ILC sales are declining, is to assume more than the article, diagrams, and facts are actually saying.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 2, 2014)

Maybe Canon and Nikon would merge?


----------



## lintoni (Dec 2, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Maybe Canon and Nikon would merge?


Canon's sensors with Nikon's oil on top?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 2, 2014)

lintoni said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe Canon and Nikon would merge?
> ...



Maybe Nikon has a better quality electrical tape for light leaks? ;D


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 9, 2014)

What about ........ 

Panasonic / Fuji are jointly developing organnic BSI CMOS sensors yet to be released. CMOSIS designed the sensor in the Leica M240 and the foundry is TowerJazz of Israel who bought the controlling stake in Panasonic foundries. By comparision to Canon / Sony and all the high volume cell phone sensors makers Leica M240 numbers are low so Canon will not be exiting the camera market anytime soon. CMOSIS also designed and JowerJazz make an off the shelf sensor that Blackmagic and AJA use and the crowd-funding Axiom camera will use the same sensor. 
Then we have ST in Grenoble, France who manufacture custom sensors and reportedly (Oct 2014) Apple are setting up facilities for research in Grenoble as well as LA and Cupertino. Samsung design & fabricate sensors of all sizes and just annouced the setting up of a new foundry. 

Sony do make sensors for Nikon & Olympus, plus the large format 50MP sensor Hasselblad, Phase One, Mamiya, Pentax are using in there medium format cameras. Reportedly Sony have 60% of the global CMOS market mainly in cell phones, tablets, cars & industrial but they dont own the whole market.


----------



## FEBS (Dec 15, 2014)

Morgoth said:


> sony has the best reputation among customers in europe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sony, the best reputation in Europe?? I don't know where you get that info but don't let me laugh.

The 7DII is a very impressive camera, but it is never mentioned to be top on video. So it's no shame. 

It's a shame that people don't see the concept behind that camera. It's really mentioned for sports/wildlife/action, and there it is one of the best of the total marker right now.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Dec 16, 2014)

Morgoth said:


> sony has the best reputation among customers in europe.



Don't be silly.


----------



## martti (Dec 22, 2014)

Maybe I am missing something but I do not understand why I should be worried about the way Canon is making its business strategy or what its market share will be a couple of years from now. They are focused on the bottom line and judging by the way they are positioned in the market they have made decisions that make business sense.

Nikon has created a line of DSLRs that have superior image quality compared to the same segment Canon bodies.
This is great but they are facing the shrinking market as is everyother player and they have great organisational changes to make. The importance of photographic equipment is about 60% of their business figures while Canon is at 30%. 

Sony makes its money from entertainment and insurances. They innovate, they bring products to the market that might change the way pictures will be made in the future. They produce the best FF sensor for the time being but it is naive to think that players like Canon, Samsung or Toshiba would let Sony rest on its laurels. Sony has no magical solutions, stuff that could not be reverse engineered. they are the cutting edge now but then again they have showed how to get beaten out from the market with technically superior products numerous times during the years.

I take pictures, I let the big boys run their businesses as they know how to.
My 5D III is 'good enough' for my purposes and most of the time when pictures do not turn out the way I expected it has something to do with lights and action while the camera was OK all the time.


----------



## erjlphoto (Dec 29, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > AcutancePhotography said:
> ...



Tape seems to be the recommended fix for the flare cut off problem getting so much bad press on the D750..


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 29, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Declining market demand for big fat mirrorslappers and pressure on profits will accelerate the industry's move to solid state, fully-electronic cameras, without any mechanics or moving mirrors on them.simply because it is so much cheaper to manufacture, quality control and service mechanics-free products.



I suppose you think those tiny high resolution micro-displays are dirt cheap? Try $50 and up just for the microdisplay - many times the cost of a mirror box.

We, as a civilization, are incredibly good at constructing mechanical moving devices. The engine in your car cost less than $3,000 to manufacture. My son's micro quadcopter, with 3-axis IMU, receiver, battery, battery charger, transmitter, carbon-fiber structure, and four miniature motors cost less than $40 at retail, meaning it probably cost less than $10 to manufacture, including the four motors. I buy servos with a motor and a 5-stage gear train for less than $20 retail.

Mirror boxes are very inexpensive devices to manufacture, as are pentamirrors and pentaprisms. That's why you can have $400 SLRs that include far more than a viewfinder, like the whole rest of the camera. Microdisplays require very expensive fabrication technologies much like chip fabs, and you still have to make all the viewfinder optics anyway.

And, by the way, the mirror boxes and AF optics aren't carefully tuned, they're calibrated electronically during manufacturing to account for varying optical path length.


----------

