# The Sony Juggernaut?



## sdz (Jul 28, 2019)

The author, a new Sony shooter, discuses the obvious cynicism of the 'sensors are us' company here. He surmises



> Sometimes, it feels that Sony is a giant corporation that makes sensors and that its cameras are almost a byproduct. If it can undermine other camera manufacturers by releasing a product {like the A7R IV} that blows theirs out of the water (while overlooking so many other aspects), then why not? Four years on, it’s still not clear whether Canon will be able to match the performance of the sensor in the a9. Imagine what the a9 II might be about to offer.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 28, 2019)

Why would Canon try to "match" performance of a non-DPAF sensor?


----------



## BillB (Jul 28, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Why would Canon try to "match" performance of a non-DPAF sensor?


Good Question. Canon needs to design and build cameras that meet the needs and preferences of potential customers (including price) better than other manufacturers and persuade potential buyers that it has done so. Sensor specs are only a piece of the puzzle. Canon could likely improve AF tracking and video performance with faster processors, but even on processing capacity the question is more more how much is good enough rather than whether Canon is matching Sony. Matching Sony on sensor and processing specs than it is more about fanboy arm waving about magic numbers than it is about market competition. From recent rumors, Canon may be about to introduce aps-c cameras with significant increases in processing capabilities, which would presumably be incorporated in future FF cameras. The important question is how potential buyers react, not whether Canon has matched Sony.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 28, 2019)

There are so many factors that come into the performance of a sensor, so we don't really know what he means. It could be that a unique feature of the A9 sensor is that it can transfer data fast enough to calculate full AF and AE 60 times a second, which appeals to that subset of users who do fast erratic birds in flight, motor racing etc.The other Sonys are 3 times or more slower, and are beaten out by Canon.


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 28, 2019)

Canon is apparently not interested in buying full frame sensors from Sony as has Nikon. Is this simply NIH hubris or belief that Canon sensors are Superor for Canon’s needs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> Canon is apparently not interested in buying full frame sensors from Sony as has Nikon. Is this simply NIH hubris or belief that Canon sensors are Superor for Canon’s needs.


...or simply cheaper to produce them internally than buy them (maybe you’re unaware that Canon manufacturers and sells lithography equipment).


----------



## sdz (Jul 28, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...or simply cheaper to produce them internally than buy them (maybe you’re unaware that Canon manufacturers and sells lithography equipment).



Canon certainly has expertise in designing and producing sensors. Abandoning that competency and capacity only makes sense when a company cannot otherwise compete with the market leader. Canon does compete with Sony -- it successfully competes for market share and owns a patent portfolio that suggests that it will successfully compete in technology henceforth. Nevertheless, it is currently a market-follower in sensor technological development, and will likely remain so for some time. This need not be fatal for the company. But, it cannot lag too far behind or for too long.

What helps Canon is that sensor technologies are sufficiently well-developed that Canon cameras still provide excellent images to those who use them.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 28, 2019)

sdz said:


> Nevertheless, it is currently a market-follower in sensor technological development,


Why do you think so?

Do you realize that DPAF sensors require twice the pixel count and twice the throughput compared to non-DPAF sensors of the same resolution?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Why do you think so?
> 
> Do you realize that DPAF sensors require twice the pixel count and twice the throughput compared to non-DPAF sensors of the same resolution?


Why can’t you just let an oft-stated perception determine your opinion? If you keep on like this, thinking critically and allowing facts and logic influence your opinion, it could lead to Armageddon.


----------



## sdz (Jul 28, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Why do you think so?
> 
> Do you realize that DPAF sensors require twice the pixel count and twice the throughput compared to non-DPAF sensors of the same resolution?



I have that belief because Canon executives mentioned it a while back and because Canon frame rate speeds lag behind Sony's save for the 1D X II which requires dual processors, a massive body. High frame rates are important qualities to some market segments. I believe the dynamic range criticism is less compelling. DPAF is a worthy trade for less than a stop of light.

Finally, Canon sensor patents tell us that it is attempting to acquire the technology Sony already has. Why would it register patents for technology it does not need?


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 28, 2019)

*yawn* 

That topic (sensors; and getting the last 2 - 5 % of possible performance out of it) 
is so boring compared to the discussion of what the 80% *behind *the (e or o) vf could make out of the scene. 

everybody, who thinks that sensors are the deciding/limiting factor to their style of photography should feel free to change or whatever might help them.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 28, 2019)

sdz said:


> .
> . Why would it register patents for technology it does not need?



To stop other people using it.


----------



## sdz (Jul 28, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Do you have an exact quote? Was it something Canon executives claiming by themselves, or was it a polite answer to such an assumption contained in the question?
> 
> 
> So, it's not the sensor development, but the processor development? I hope you are aware that these two are completely different chips. As far as I remember, Canon co-develops Digic together with TI, and likely produces them on TI fabs.
> ...



Boy, you are a snide one. Your point?


----------



## sdz (Jul 28, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> To stop other people using it.



But, it does need the technology. The question was rhetorical. And Canon invested in the research needed to develop the technology. Was it just being generous to its engineers?

Canon executive: "We need to pay good money to engineers to develop technology we do not need to compete with Sony who already has already acquired that technology."

Canon serf: "Boss-san, why would we do this?"

Canon executive: "We like to pay engineers! To keep them around. They make good decorations in the office."


----------



## Kit. (Jul 28, 2019)

sdz said:


> Boy, you are a snide one. Your point?


Sure, I can repeat my point for you.

You have claimed that Canon "is currently a market-follower in sensor technological development". Do you have anything but an Internet "influencers" echo chamber to base such a claim on?


----------



## Kit. (Jul 28, 2019)

sdz said:


> But, it does need the technology. The question was rhetorical. And Canon invested in the research needed to develop the technology. Was it just being generous to its engineers?


I haven't worked for Canon, but I have worked for Motorola. We were paid (small sums, but nonetheless) for any patentable idea we could produce, no matter whether it was used in (or even applicable to) Motorola products or not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2019)

sdz said:


> Canon executive: "We need to pay good money to engineers to develop technology we do not need to compete with Sony who already has already acquired that technology."
> 
> Canon serf: "Boss-san, why would we do this?"


Canon executive: “Because we can. We don’t really need to, of course, since our excellent Market Research Division confirms that we have dominated the ILC market for 16 years, and over the past few years when Sony has sold Exmor sensors we have gained even more ILC market share.”

Canon serf: “Domo arigato, Boss-san. I understand well, even if many internet-surfing baka do not.”


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 28, 2019)

Its never a good idea to lock your company into buying key components from a competitor. Its hurt Nikon, but they may have not had a lot of choice. Companies do buy run of the mill components from each other, but tying your company to depend on another for a critical part is not very smart. They would have you by the throat. Apple and Qualcomm are a example, Apple was forced to settle because their only other source, Intel is out of the 5G business and made inferior products anyway. If Apple had made their own way back when they started, they would have the needed patents to make their own. Now, they are locked in. At least, Qualcomm doesn't make phones ... Yet.


----------



## dcm (Jul 28, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its never a good idea to lock your company into buying key components from a competitor. Its hurt Nikon, but they may have not had a lot of choice. Companies do buy run of the mill components from each other, but tying your company to depend on another for a critical part is not very smart. They would have you by the throat. Apple and Qualcomm are a example, Apple was forced to settle because their only other source, Intel is out of the 5G business and made inferior products anyway. If Apple had made their own way back when they started, they would have the needed patents to make their own. Now, they are locked in. At least, Qualcomm doesn't make phones ... Yet.



Not so locked in now. Apple recently acquired Intel's modem business so they can build their own 5G modems and no longer use Qualcomm. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019...majority-of-intels-smartphone-modem-business/


----------



## unfocused (Jul 29, 2019)

The obsession with Sony generally and Sony sensors in particular is bizarre to me. Who cares? The tiny differences in brands is not going to make the least bit of difference in the overall quality of your pictures. If you think it does, then you have a lot to learn about photography. And, if you really care that much, just go buy another brand and be happy. 

What is particularly ridiculous is the idea that these insignificant differences are going to drive the market. There is ample evidence that is not the case and if Canon were to see any evidence that it is driving the market, they would adjust accordingly. It's their business and they did not become the market leader by being stupid.

Finally, people act like this is all some sort of race to a finish line of technological dominance. First, it's a journey, not a race and each company continues to improve their products and will continue to do so as long as they are in business. Second, there is a mountain of evidence to show that technological superiority does not translate into market superiority. Just as the world belongs to the "C" students, the market belongs to the products that are "good enough."


----------



## Bennymiata (Jul 29, 2019)

Most large Japanese manufacturers like to make their own major components.
That was one thing that the son of the original Mr Toyoda demanded as he thought that Toyota should not be in the control of other manufacturers and the possible problems relating to short supply or the supplier going broke. So every major component had to be made by either Toyota themselves or by partnership companies - except for tyres.
Toyota made its own engines, gearboxes, even shock absorbers. 
This was a big part of their success and Canon seems to have a similar mindset and it's been very successful for them, so why change.
For real photographers, cameras need certain talents and Canon cameras still have gorgeous colour and are very comfortable to hold and use (which Sony R cameras are not) and produce beautiful images even if their specs don't seem to be as good on paper, but in reality, their images are at least as good as any others.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 29, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> Canon is apparently not interested in buying full frame sensors from Sony as has Nikon. Is this simply NIH hubris or belief that Canon sensors are Superor for Canon’s needs.


How has buying Sony sensors for flagship cameras worked out for Nikon in terms of sales? Folk like to come here and claim Canon is losing market share, but, wow, once-mighty Nikon seems to be fading into complete irrelevance.


----------



## sdz (Jul 29, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon executive: “Because we can. We don’t really need to, of course, since our excellent Market Research Division confirms that we have dominated the ILC market for 16 years, and over the past few years when Sony has sold Exmor sensors we have gained even more ILC market share.”
> 
> Canon serf: “Domo arigato, Boss-san. I understand well, even if many internet-surfing baka do not.”



A mindless effort to mimic my sarcasm. I suppose Canon has gotten to the top of their market by fusing money down the toilet.....


----------



## sdz (Jul 29, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Sure, I can repeat my point for you.
> 
> You have claimed that Canon "is currently a market-follower in sensor technological development". Do you have anything but an Internet "influencers" echo chamber to base such a claim on?





https://petapixel.com/2018/01/09/canon-lagging-innovation/


----------



## Kit. (Jul 29, 2019)

sdz said:


> https://petapixel.com/2018/01/09/canon-lagging-innovation/


Could you please read the actual interview (the link is provided in that article) and try to find even a single word about "sensor technological development"?


----------



## AlanF (Jul 29, 2019)

Canon does and has used Sony sensors for some time now - the 1" as in the latest G7 III and G5 III. I am not suggesting by this that Canon should use them for FF but just pointing out that Canon does buy in important components when they deem appropriate.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 29, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Could you please read the actual interview (the link is provided in that article) and try to find even a single word about "sensor technological development"?


If he had read the review he would have seen that the link came via CR! (https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-inc-boss-wants-to-see-more-innovation/)


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jul 29, 2019)

Don't forget that consumer cameras are an ancillary business with Sony. Anybody want a good deal on a Sony PC?


----------



## sdz (Jul 29, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Could you please read the actual interview (the link is provided in that article) and try to find even a single word about "sensor technological development"?


Nice try -- not.

Go home.


----------



## sdz (Jul 29, 2019)

AlanF said:


> If he had read the review he would have seen that the link came via CR! (https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-inc-boss-wants-to-see-more-innovation/)


You are doubting I read the interview?

The man made a statement that referred to all of Canon's technology. That includes, logically, the key technological component of its primary business unit, camera senors.

You can tell responders have nothing when they split hairs to conceal the obvious. All of this in response to a post meant to ridicule Sony and Sony trolls. I suppose nuanced thinking passes well over the heads of Canon kool-aid drinkers.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 29, 2019)

sdz said:


> You are doubting I read the interview?
> 
> The man made a statement that referred to all of Canon's technology. That includes, logically, the key technological component of its primary business unit, camera senors.
> 
> You can tell responders have nothing when they split hairs to conceal the obvious. All of this in response to a post meant to ridicule Sony and Sony trolls. I suppose nuanced thinking passes well over the heads of Canon kool-aid drinkers.


I didn't mention interview. It was rather amusing that you were challenged by Kit. to produce your evidence and you gave a link to a review by petapixel, which at the end quoted CR as its source, which you had clearly missed! We had already discussed it at length here a while ago.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 2, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Why would Canon try to "match" performance of a non-DPAF sensor?





Kit. said:


> Do you realize that DPAF sensors require twice the pixel count and twice the throughput compared to non-DPAF sensors of the same resolution?



Isn’t that why they would want to match (or exceed) the sensor in a9’s throughout? Because for an even image size they’re reading twice as many sensels.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 2, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Isn’t that why they would want to match (or exceed) the sensor in a9’s throughout? Because for an even image size they’re reading twice as many sensels.


Achieving twice as high throughput as your best competitor is not called "to match" and is a bit unrealistic. If Canon wants "to match" the performance of the fastest Sony sensors, they need to drop DPAF.

Now, the question is: do Canon's customers really want that?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 2, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Achieving twice as high throughput as your best competitor is not called "to match" and is a bit unrealistic. If Canon wants "to match" the performance of the fastest Sony sensors, *they need to drop DPAF*.
> Now, the question is: do Canon's customers really want that?



All else being equal within its line, Sony was able to achieve triple the readout speed with the sensor they use in a9.

I expect Canon could similarly increase readout by using a memory-integrated stacked dual pixel sensor. That would benefit the AF engine by providing data more frequently. Also EVF responsiveness would improve.

I’m a canon customer, and yes, i’d want that. It might even motivate me to try mirrorless again. Why wouldn’t others? Cost maybe?

You seem to be thinking ‘or.’ Why not ‘and’? Do you believe DPAF and stacked architecture are mutually exclusive?


----------



## Kit. (Aug 2, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> All else being equal within its line, Sony was able to achieve triple the readout speed with the sensor they use in a9.


And compared to the competition? To the older 1DX II, in 4k60p DPAF mode?

Sony still had the room to catch up, right?



3kramd5 said:


> I expect Canon could similarly increase readout by using a memory-integrated stacked dual pixel sensor. That would benefit the AF engine by providing data more frequently. Also EVF responsiveness would improve.


Unless Canon can implement DPAF cross-correlation calculation logic on the sensor itself, without overheating it, I don't see how integrating memory on the sensor will help with mitigating the doubling of the sensor bandwidth required by DPAF.



3kramd5 said:


> I’m a canon customer, and yes, i’d want that. It might even motivate me to try mirrorless again. Why wouldn’t others? Cost maybe?


Or the convenience and precision of DPAF that you are going to miss?



3kramd5 said:


> You seem to be thinking ‘or.’ Why not ‘and’? Do you believe DPAF and stacked architecture are mutually exclusive?


No, I just don't believe in silver bullets.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 2, 2019)

Kit. said:


> And compared to the competition? To the older 1DX II, in 4k60p DPAF mode?
> Sony still had the room to catch up, right?



I don’t know, that type of data isn’t really disclosed. I’ve seen indications that most cameras read out at about 1/40-1/50, and that an a9 reads out at about 1/160. Seems like they were all relatively even. There is only one apples to apples comparison I can make; I can’t cross brands.



Kit. said:


> Unless Canon can implement DPAF cross-correlation calculation logic on the sensor itself, without overheating it, I don't see how integrating memory on the sensor will help with mitigating the doubling of the sensor bandwidth required by DPAF.



I expect they could capable of just that. They aren’t particular aggressive, however, so they probably won’t. I’m happy using SLR and don’t record video so it doesn’t particularly matter to me.



Kit. said:


> No, I just don't believe in silver bullets.



Nor do it. Silicon chips on the other hand I do.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 3, 2019)

Incidentally, it seems canon has IP for something like what I describe.

http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?docid=...m=1&IDKey=&HomeUrl=http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov:80


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Aug 14, 2019)

I really don't care what Sony does. I still have several Sony PC's from before they abandoned them. I'm not going to get stuck with a bag of Sony equipment when they decide consumer cameras are a declining business.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 14, 2019)

PC?


dickgrafixstop said:


> Don't forget that consumer cameras are an ancillary business with Sony. Anybody want a good deal on a Sony PC?


 Does that mean piece of crap?


----------

