Kiril Karaatanasov

Lives in Bulgaria Bulgaria
Has a website at http://www.karaatanasov.info
Joined on Mar 31, 2006

Comments

Total: 473, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Marty4650: Those ratings are based on unit sales. If they were based on revenue, then the MILC group might be:

1. Sony
2. Olympus
3. Canon

There really aren't very many Sony MILC cameras or lenses selling for less than $1,000.

you may as well see Fuji in one of the first two places profit and possibly revenue wise....

The article is only unit sales in Japan. So both - units differ from revenew and profit; Japan is a peculiar place

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2018 at 12:33 UTC
In reply to:

Kiril Karaatanasov: By the way here are the financial figures for the imaging divisions of Canon, Sony, Nikon and Olympus for the last finished quarter. First figure is revenue, second is Operating income. Figures are in billion yenn. I guess they account different things as imaging products, so Canon, Nikon difference is not quite clear what is included in one vs. the other. Still the profitability and relative volumes are somewhat visible....Olympus is just 10 times less than sony....even if Sony and Canon, Nikon account all other things in imaging Olympus is very very far behind 4th player....

Nikon 383 ---- 17
Canon 271 ---- 39
Sony 157 ---- 18.9
Olympus 15 ---- 0.7

For me two things

1. The first three are much ahead of the 4th and others
2. Canon and Sony make decent money out of imaging, where as Nikon and Olympus are not doing so well. Nikon in particular shrunk more than 20% YoY

CaPi you can lookup financial reports for pretty much any public company. Here is Ricoh

https://www.ricoh.com/IR/financial_data/financial_result/data/30/q2_report.pdf

They don't report imaging products separately. It is very small piece of their business and they have included it in "others" category. They say their camera revnue is falling but that may not be indicative of what you seek to find e.g. K1 may be selling like hotcakes and they just shut down most of the compact cameras.....

@citrate thank you for the correction. I don't seem to be able to update the original post though :-( I guess one should compare yearly data instead

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 22:26 UTC
In reply to:

Kiril Karaatanasov: By the way here are the financial figures for the imaging divisions of Canon, Sony, Nikon and Olympus for the last finished quarter. First figure is revenue, second is Operating income. Figures are in billion yenn. I guess they account different things as imaging products, so Canon, Nikon difference is not quite clear what is included in one vs. the other. Still the profitability and relative volumes are somewhat visible....Olympus is just 10 times less than sony....even if Sony and Canon, Nikon account all other things in imaging Olympus is very very far behind 4th player....

Nikon 383 ---- 17
Canon 271 ---- 39
Sony 157 ---- 18.9
Olympus 15 ---- 0.7

For me two things

1. The first three are much ahead of the 4th and others
2. Canon and Sony make decent money out of imaging, where as Nikon and Olympus are not doing so well. Nikon in particular shrunk more than 20% YoY

Just for reference here are the links if anyone wants to double check figures. I am not finance expert

http://global.canon/en/ir/conference/pdf/conf2017q3e.pdf

http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/finance/financial_statements/data_downloads/financial_book.xls

https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/library/fr/17q2_sonypre.pdf

https://www.olympus-global.com/ir/data/brief/pdf/financial150PA_2.pdf

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 21:34 UTC
In reply to:

Kiril Karaatanasov: By the way here are the financial figures for the imaging divisions of Canon, Sony, Nikon and Olympus for the last finished quarter. First figure is revenue, second is Operating income. Figures are in billion yenn. I guess they account different things as imaging products, so Canon, Nikon difference is not quite clear what is included in one vs. the other. Still the profitability and relative volumes are somewhat visible....Olympus is just 10 times less than sony....even if Sony and Canon, Nikon account all other things in imaging Olympus is very very far behind 4th player....

Nikon 383 ---- 17
Canon 271 ---- 39
Sony 157 ---- 18.9
Olympus 15 ---- 0.7

For me two things

1. The first three are much ahead of the 4th and others
2. Canon and Sony make decent money out of imaging, where as Nikon and Olympus are not doing so well. Nikon in particular shrunk more than 20% YoY

I do not think Apple or Samsung have imaging divisions.

Overall a silly question. yes phones sell couple of orders of magnitude more units at high prices and extreme profits. However phones are not yet at the level of 5d k4, A7r3, or D850 with wide angle or telephoto lens.....

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 21:30 UTC
In reply to:

Sdaniella: .
sorely missed is a new 36mp FF Sony
amidst new 42mp update, A7RIII, and new A9 hi-speed 24mp pro model
old A7R was the one and only 36mp

opportunity knocks
maybe upcoming A7III could have a newer tech update version of 36mp instead of 24mp
max 8fps (14-bit ARW uncompressed RAW) would be fine
no star eater algorithm on long exposures (like on old 36mp A7R)

Why 36MP? That was the only mistake Sony did in long while. 36MP is not good for video. 42MP is almost exact resolution of 8K TV (very tiny crop needed). 36 to 42MP the difference in resolution or file size is minuscule.

The logic is 12MP doubles as 4K, 24MP is 6K, 42MP is 8K. So the cameras can do video as well as photo without crop or expensive and degrading scaling.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 21:27 UTC

By the way here are the financial figures for the imaging divisions of Canon, Sony, Nikon and Olympus for the last finished quarter. First figure is revenue, second is Operating income. Figures are in billion yenn. I guess they account different things as imaging products, so Canon, Nikon difference is not quite clear what is included in one vs. the other. Still the profitability and relative volumes are somewhat visible....Olympus is just 10 times less than sony....even if Sony and Canon, Nikon account all other things in imaging Olympus is very very far behind 4th player....

Nikon 383 ---- 17
Canon 271 ---- 39
Sony 157 ---- 18.9
Olympus 15 ---- 0.7

For me two things

1. The first three are much ahead of the 4th and others
2. Canon and Sony make decent money out of imaging, where as Nikon and Olympus are not doing so well. Nikon in particular shrunk more than 20% YoY

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 21:16 UTC as 72nd comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

Kiril Karaatanasov: This is showing units sold not revenue or profit. Canon is probably doing fine but the for the rest the picture may be different if you look at financials vs. units shipped.

For example Sony lacks entry models so 20% of mirror-less is probably way more profitable than the Canon share. On the other end Nikon may be squeezed on the DSLR side having to compete with both Canon and Sony in the premium segment.

Branko Sony are selling at steeper prices than Canon. I buy Canon lenses for Sony camera sometimes :-)

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 20:21 UTC
In reply to:

evilmagicnut: I expect those percentages are percentage of units sold. I'd be interested to know what the Canon / Sony / Olympus mirrorless breakdown is when you start talking revenue.

All of these companies are public and you can compare the revenues and profit figures too for the camera businesses.

I suppose Canon will do fine in the revenue and profit aspects as well.

Sony, Nikon, Olympus may or may not do well. I can speculate but we need to see hard figures...

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 20:20 UTC
In reply to:

janbanan: Canon is no1 in this award but in Dpreview and many others Nikon d850 and Sony a7riii are no1. Canon lost the sensor race for a long time ago. They releasing old hardware 6dmkii. Mcdonlands are no1 Iā€™m selling burgers but are they best?

The IQ is not only thing important. Canon make very sensible mirrorless low price cameras now. Also in mirrorless the revenue or profit from one unit of A9 is probably way ore than the M5. Here we see unit sold. Sony sold similar amount of cameras but much more expensive models....Sony lack compelling entry level models.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 20:18 UTC

This is showing units sold not revenue or profit. Canon is probably doing fine but the for the rest the picture may be different if you look at financials vs. units shipped.

For example Sony lacks entry models so 20% of mirror-less is probably way more profitable than the Canon share. On the other end Nikon may be squeezed on the DSLR side having to compete with both Canon and Sony in the premium segment.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 20:11 UTC as 94th comment | 4 replies
On article Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS sample gallery (151 comments in total)
In reply to:

Trubbtele: Surprisingly bad!

Amazingly good for a travel zoom......

You can of course use primes or high end zooms if you desire more....

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 20:01 UTC
On article Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS sample gallery (151 comments in total)
In reply to:

otto k: Since this is the first APSC lens after the first IBIS APSC body (a6500) it will be very interesting to see how OSS and IBIS work together (or are there no changes to previous lenses).

You can try this today on many of the Sony lenses. 70-400 is may be the best lens for A6500.....

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 20:00 UTC
On article Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS sample gallery (151 comments in total)
In reply to:

UllerellU: It is expensive, slow, and terribly fuzzy. I love my A6000, it's small, fast, comfortable to use, with good image quality. But what
horrible lens, I still do not know why I bought the 55-210, I guess to complete the range, three months ago I looked to replace the 16-50 (which is not as bad as many declare, at least my unit) and the 55- 210 for an "all in one", changing the lens was uncomfortable for the image quality I was getting, especially in the long end, after despairing with the quality of the 18-200 (and its price), I ended up opting for a Lumix FZ1000, I have not touched the Alpha's zoom again, and it's very sad, since the lumix is ā€‹ā€‹a 1 "sensor, my prime lenses are not much, 30mm macro and 50mm 1.8 oss, but at least They have some potential, what a wasted system on the part of Sony, if I went back, I would not buy an A6000, in spite of how much I like the camera itself.

The lens is quite good for a travel zoom. Surprised? It is a travel zoom.

You can use primes and get better results. There are plenty of those at decent prices. You can also use high end zooms like Sigma 18-35/1.8 that is 3 times bigger, 2 times more expensive and 4 times heavier. Even Sony zooms like 70-200/4, 70-400 etc. are decent lenses for A6300 or A6500

your post is demonstrating lack of experience

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 19:58 UTC
On article Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS sample gallery (151 comments in total)
In reply to:

Woodyz: It's my pet theory that this was one of the earlier planned lenses when APS-C E-mount was hot. When Sony decided to spend resources on FF E-mount lenses, it put this lens in the backburner.

But now Sony had to release *something* to show continuing support for the APS-C glass lineup, so it dug this thing up and off it went to production.

Don't expect to see more new APS-C E-mount lenses any time soon.

Actually this just shows they focus on APS-C more now that the full frame system has taken shape. A6500 and A6300 are really fantastic cameras. Also in video land they have APS-C focus with FS5 and FS7. Actually Sony only delayed APS-C photo oriented lenses. They did release video APS-C lenses as soon as autumn 2016....

Still you need to keep in mind they will replicate the Canon/Nikon systems i.e. at most 20 APS-C lenses total. Currently Sony feature about 15-16 APS-C models, so at most couple more, before they start making m2 of some of those. I don't expect Sony to replicate Fuji or Sigma crop lenses.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 19:54 UTC
On article Sony E 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 OSS sample gallery (151 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Looks like a competent 28-200mm-ish (FF equiv.) one-lens-to-do-it-all design. Not exciting, but these are the lenses that get to go traveling with you on vacation trips. I bet this will do well bundled with an A6000. Then again, there's the Sony 18-105mm F4.0 G OSS at literally the same price point....

18-105 is bigger and heavier probably aimed at video shooters. There is electric zoom, size does not change there with zoom or focus. Actually no movable parts on the outside.

There is also 16-70 that is a bit higher quality it seems from these samples.

There is also 18-55 that is smaller, lighter and seems on par in quality.

Finally there is the 16-50 pancake that is notably worse in the corners but has a lot going for it given the price (esp. in kit), size and weight.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 19:48 UTC

Interestingly this brings us back to the now banished 3d TV and 3d photography.

Note the 180VR instead if the plain silly 360VR

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2018 at 09:30 UTC as 2nd comment

I wonder when a phone will have their two cameras placed in the opposite ends to provide stereoscopic 3d. That will also make the bokeh simulation much more realistic. I imagine subject tracking will be much simpler etc.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2018 at 07:30 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Kiril Karaatanasov: So 180-560/4-5.6? Is not this shy of 150-600 that Sigma and Tamron ship? Is not this way to expensive for the added complexity of built in TC? Is this built-in TC advantage in some respect to making proper 150-600?

PS I suppose the low zoom range makes better 180-400 lens than a 80-400 would be. The 250-560 part is probably lower IQ ....

Thank you guys! Much appreciated insights.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 12:33 UTC

So 180-560/4-5.6? Is not this shy of 150-600 that Sigma and Tamron ship? Is not this way to expensive for the added complexity of built in TC? Is this built-in TC advantage in some respect to making proper 150-600?

PS I suppose the low zoom range makes better 180-400 lens than a 80-400 would be. The 250-560 part is probably lower IQ ....

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2018 at 06:30 UTC as 80th comment | 4 replies

There is a lot of manual work involved in other manufacturing sites too. Here is recent video from Sony factory in Thailand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsIOqOna4FM

and Fuji Japan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RC9wmRwsoo

Link | Posted on Jan 8, 2018 at 11:27 UTC as 3rd comment
Total: 473, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »