The camera to beat:

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
nevercat
Senior MemberPosts: 1,907
Like?
Re: The camera to beat:
In reply to captura, 4 months ago

captura wrote:

blue_skies wrote:

1prime wrote:

For Sony products: yes.

Henry:

Yes, a metal body NEX-7 replacement camera next year. But they've lost the way, now.

To compete with Fuji: no.

Fuji X and OMD are huge competitors...and may be way ahead in sales of better mirrorless cameras.

Can you show sales figures that show this? The only (and I know not very reliable) figures I see is in Amazone.com, where there are 6 Sony Cameras in the top 10 (3 A6000, 1 Nex6, 1 Nex3n and a A7). The A6000 is on the first place, the third place and the 7th place) The Fuji XT-1 is 2 times (place 2 and 4) and there are two Olympus cameras (E-PM2 on 5 and E-M10 on 9) no E-M1 camera in the top 10)...

Fuji is really a very niche-oriented camera manufacturer. They consider themselves as the digital replacement for Leica users. In their portfolio, camera and lens positions, they are keen to target the 'pro' user (more UI buttons) and their lenses are 'one-up' to Sony's lenses. I believe that they consciously aim to 'better' the Sony lenses by allowing R&D higher budgets (cost) which satisfies their target market (the product is now better).

Perhaps the A7/A7R are more like Niche cameras than the Fuji X line. Many potential buyers of the FF Sony's are afraid of the lack of lenses available to them. And there's no denying the quality of Fuji lenses.

No there is no denying the quality of the Fuji lenses, but whrn you look at the quality of the Sony FE lenses, they score vey hight too, even higher then the Fuji lenses...

The X-trans sensor has been very confusing. It seems unnecessary - I think that Fuji would have gotten to where they are now by simply following the above strategy to the tee. I think that the X-trans sensor has hurt them more then helped them in the end. But, purist believe that X-trans is ahead of equivalent Mp bayer sensors (I think it is lack of AA filter with sharp lens).

Olympus has also swung over to a Bayer-less sensor with the E-M1. No doubt about the photo quality adavantages of Bayer-less.

The E-M1 has a normal bayer sensor, only no anti aliasing filter.

Sony can target Fuji, but it is the small (but expensive) volume. They seem to do better by following the A7/r targets: same $$$s, different users.

There is a whole range of Fuji 'X' cameras to choose from, starting with the X20, at $500. The X100 and now the X100s have been judged to be the most popular personal cameras for use by professionals.

Yes, but not all X cameras are ILC cameras. So there is no need to compare them with the ILC cameras from Sony. When you want to go cheap, look at the A3000 from Sony, $300 for a mirrorless camera...

Sony is much more consumer oriented - for every Fuji camera that ships, Sony sells ten more. Sony deals in quantity, and products have to fit certain budget constraints.a

Unquestionably the quality aspect is on the Fuji side. Have you recently owned or at least handled one?

Is it? The quality of the A7/r and their lenses is very high, many are better then the Fuji cameras, and these cameras and lenses are full frame!

I think that Sony got pushed 'higher end' by its own customers. Many left Sony to go to Fuji (even many forum users here) out of frustration with roadmaps, product maturity, lack of choices - only to learn Fuji frustrations afterwards. But the ones that stayed, and the ones that came in, have certainly justified the current mix of (expensive) cameras and lenses for E and FE mounts.

Again, they went mainly to get a higher quality, albeit more expensive product.

Fuji is in every aspect more expensive then Sony. Fuji have no FF camera, but their X-T1 is in the same price group as the A7! The A7 is FF, has more MP on sensor, has the better lenses...

Many still believe that APS-C is not for consumers - only for prosumers and hobbyists, even some professionals. Stick to P&S or m43 if a consumer. Canon and Nikon (and Sony SLT) proved them wrong with their 'easy-to-use', but bulky, APS-C mirror based cameras - on which many use with the kit-lens only

And many others believe that APS-C is ideal.

I do agree with you, APS is a great sensorsize....

Fuji went on a limp - believing that a high-end APS-C mirror less market can be realized, and so far they seem to be correct.

Sony did the unthinkable: they made the APS-C market a consumer market. I would argue that, up until the A6000 and X-T1, the APS-C mirror less cameras has had a very steep learning curve and its products are rather hard to use, making the experience not that much better than dabbling in FF camera/lenses.

Sony, at least temporarily, abandoned the high-quality metal body APS-C camera when they failed to issue a replacement for the NEX-7. It is Sony's own fault that the Fuji X and OMD lines are doing extremely well in sales.

Well did they fail? What camera was better selling, the Nex6 or the Nex7? Isn't it wise to come with the better selling camera first? The high end Nex 7, is only high end for the metal in the body, not for IQ, focus speed etc.

Sony has been plowing forward - with incredibly cheap cameras (their 3 and 5 series top in volume way above the 6 and 7 series), and customers have been dealing with their low keeper rates just because when you do have a keeper, it is an impressive one!

Enthusiasts and pros. are not impressed by incredible cheapo cameras.

Well in fact they are! Many of the real enthousiasts are using cheaper cameras, both as back up and as first camera. They understand that you don't need the most expensive camera anymore, you need the camera with the features they need. Pro's is a very small group, they buy the cameras with the real pro service, so no Sony, Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus for them... Only Canon and Nikon, they need the service that those offer, and pay the price for it.

It is funny, Sony is covering everything from cell phone cameras to all size still cameras, as well as video. They have a better perspective on how (photographic) products compare than any of us. But they are a consumer (electronics) oriented company, and they think in (annual) products, not systems... Fuji is far more traditional in comparison.

They have made their share of mistakes.

Fuji makes very nioce cameras, but their price is rather high. Sony makes very nice cameras too, at a lower price and a different approch, Sony goes for a modern camera look and feel (just like Leica with their new Mirrorless) Fuji goes for the more traditional way. Both types of cameras have their supporters...

Steve

My guess

Oh, and a good thing: I don't see many Sony users purchasing Sony products for bragging rights

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Henry

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow