A different perspective on NEX lens roadmap

Started Jul 21, 2012 | Discussions thread
caterpillar
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,580
Like?
Sony vs Samsuing et al p2of2
In reply to Rehabdoc, Aug 3, 2012

Pentax's mirrorless ILC body is comically thick using their original K-mount. A pancake doesn't help much there.

See why the body is important? You prove my point that it's not the lenses (though important) as the main driver for success.

I think SONY's great alraedy. I threw down almost $1.3k for a NEX 7. I recommended looking at RX100 to my brother before it even launched because I immediately knew it was a homerun in terms of performance vs size.

Further proof of how the sensor-body is more important to compel more to buy than a pancake lens.

Problem is that you're preaching to the choir. SONY's NEX bodies are way ahead of the other APS-C mirrorless ILC bodies right now. And the lenses they put out are excellent. Samsung's got severe problems with write speeds, Fuji has that hinky autofocus and quirky design which is nice but appealing to a narrow set. K01 is a joke and might as well be a DSLR, etc.

I keep preaching to the choir because some choir members think a pancake is the deal breaker. Sony knows this demand and they will address it - in time. Build a great sensor-body and the lenses will follow. It's not the other way around.

But that doesn't mean SONY should sit on their butts. Canon's (for me, disappointing) EOS-M, their toe in the water for mirrorless, is still going to sell like CRAZY, just for being Canon. Canon is holding back for fear of disruption of the DSLR market, but they are going to have their hand forced soon enough.

Let's give 3-6 months on that before we conclude anything. My guess it's going to be modest, not CRAZY (again the penchant for exaggeration).

Though lenses are very important, they are not the drivers of success in this digital world of imaging. Even less are pancakes lenses in this stage of the game. People have to realize that.

When you make a body whose primary selling point is massive decrease in size from DSLR, lenses are ONE of the drivers of success.

ONE. But not the only one. Again, I cite Samsung and Pentax. Pentax Q is even smaller but no takers. And the Nikon V1/J1, superlative as they are, didn't take the imagination of many as the NEX did. Why is that?

Olympus' OMD is making great traction simply because it now has a very good sensor. Remember what I wrote before --> sensor-body as a CSF. Not size. Size is by default done by going mirrorless but by itself will not spell instant success.

SONY currently have the best mirrorless ILC system out there, largely based on having the BEST BODIES (5N and 7)... but that doesn't mean they're doing EVERYTHING better than everybody else. They are NOT doing lenses better than MFT. They are really not doing lenses better than Fuji or Samsung.

Now you are getting it. The CSF is by making really GREAT (no exaggeration here) bodies now. Bodies that capture the imagination, that creates desire and need. So, would you like to revise that EOS-M prediction?

they made a great move in the RX100 in terms of high end compacts.

Great Sensor-Body then size. Remember that. It's not the other way around. Because if it is, there are as small or even smaller P&S, cheaper too, but they, again, they were just so-so aren't they?

But SONY is not the electronics juggernaut they once were. They are at less than a 1/3 of the market cap of Samsung, and in cameras they are way smaller than Canon. The US market in ILC is largely untapped at this point, and SONY's market share could be dwarfed in a very short period of time if ICL takes off in the US.

I disagree. They still are. Your NEX is such a product of what they are not. IF any they are keeping the tradition alive. Also, do not confuse market cap with capability or imagination. Again, with all that might you claim with Samsung, why no takers with their MILC or DSLRs?

I also disagree with the use of "tap." You tap when there is already an existing market, say DSLRs or P&S. If Canon holds 35% you want to tap into that pie. But you create or build a market when that market still doesn't exist. Such is the case of MILCs. You also underestimate the manfuacturing capability of Sony. You forget that has supplied sensors to it's sensors short of Fuji and Canon (in the past they even supplied Canon).

Samsung can throw money at their problem way more than SONY can (SONY is not profitable in most of their divisions, but do have profit in cameras), and Canon can bully SONY in terms of established brand. SONY's hold is tenuous, and they're only as good as the last model to come out.

Even if Samsung is bigger with deeper pockets, if you don't have a product that compels the consumer, then your pockets are just deep. But it does not necessarily translate to market share, much less leadership. Then as you wrote, Samsung can just THROW MONEY away because it will not solve the problem. This is an old aphorism that doesn't hold true then and even more so now. People should stop using it.

You also underestimate Sony as a brand. They are on par with Canon as a brand.

-- hide signature --

  • Caterpillar

'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow