Get 5% off Loupedeck Live with code: Ephotozine5

Interesting Comment from President of Sony Electronics


This topic is locked.

Reason : oh FFS enough already

Steppenwolf 9 1.2k
17 Oct 2012 8:50AM
When asked why someone should choose a Sony camera rather than Canikon:

"Sony has the core technology inside of the company, in terms of image sensors, processors and optics. I think we're the only company that has a mass production and R&D capability in all three areas. We're able to use that capability along with our design skills to bring disruptive products to market. Customers are starting to embrace Sony for innovation and disruptive technologies. We've done that with the E-mount line and we're taking it to a whole new plane with the RX-1, the first full frame camera at that size in the world.

There are companies like Canon and Nikon that have been in this marketplace 60+ years. And the market has traditionally been very slow to change, diversify or innovate. We're relatively new to it, but boy have we been disruptive. Sony is changing the market through innovation and giving consumers more choice."
mikehit 11 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
17 Oct 2012 9:06AM
Yep, they certainly seem to have the edge with regards sensor technology but for camera design....I am not so sure.

If I were him, I would be careful about trumpeting pride in being 'disruptive' - what happens if their innovation results in them becoming mainstream?
strawman 16 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
17 Oct 2012 9:55AM
He has a point, and its a fair point, but I would ask is it important to be designing processors and sensors when making cameras or is it more important to be specifying them with a focus on making a camera? For example processors. There are attributes of architecture you would like to be correct for a digital signal processing intensive task like a camera, but do you need to do more than specify the device? What advantage do you get from fabricating? For image sensors I can see an advantage, and you can see Nikon and Canon do elements of the design, with Nikon not going to fab level, but canon then going on to Fab level. In the emerging digital market it was an advantage for Canon as they could push CMOS, while the rest clung onto CCD.

In fact thinking on that, Sony were very late to the CMOS party, so in that case was the existing Sony capacity and production investment a disadvantage for the Sony Camera group?

And as a follow on question, why is it that Nikon keep on producing better cameras than Sony when using Sony sensor technology? What is giving Nikon the edge? Does that not indicate that what is important is the focus on the core product and its design rather than mastering all the processes. For me it would look that Nikon has a better understanding of the product the customer wants, while Sony may have a better understanding of the technologies available.

So are there key lessons for Sony to learn as they attempt to become a key supplier in the higher end of the market. Is the A99 2 years to late to the market is another question I would like to ask? And in full frame has not offering an optical viewfinder been a hindrance or contributor to sales? Has their reluctance to leave CCD behind a few years back and their slow development and release program on higher end cameras cost them significant market share?

As an analogy. There are many skills that an author needs, but does the ability to create the paper the book is printed on help in the construction of a novel?

What I want to see is Sony innovating and taking some of their blinkers off. They have smart phones and tablets etc, so why is it Canon and not Sony that is offering remote control of the camera from a phone. Do the Sony guys not get together and think how can we build world beating products using their in-house skills. And there is a point. If Sony have the advantage of this in-house skill is their problem that they struggle to harness it and are too compartmentalised.

Sony should be ripping the market from Canon and Nikon, their own plans a few years back showed that, but instead they are struggling with even small players like Olympus pushing them in some markets. Sony have invested heavily, what is their return for investment compared to the top 5 in the market? Those are key to turning Sony around. At the moment its like Man City paying for the top players but only hovering around mid table.
JohnParminter 13 1.3k 14 England
17 Oct 2012 10:12AM

Quote:We're able to use that capability along with our design skills to bring disruptive products to market.

I wouldn't buy a Sony camera based on his attitude.

I don't want to buy a 'disruptive' product, I want to buy a competitive product if I was in the market for a new camera. He won't win me over from Nikon with talk like that I'm afraid.
lobsterboy Plus
16 14.9k 13 United Kingdom
17 Oct 2012 10:18AM

Quote:I don't want to buy a 'disruptive' product

A lot of people do. the iPhone, iPod and iPad were all really disruptive products and they seem to have sold a few of them.
mikehit 11 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
17 Oct 2012 10:22AM

Quote:why is it that Nikon keep on producing better cameras than Sony when using Sony sensor technology

Another interesting one is the Olympus OM-D - they have taken the core of a Sony sensor and produced a camera that seems to be way in advance of the Sony offerings. Comments I have read suggest it is a Sony sensor made to Olympus specifications (though what part the processor plays in this I do not know) so it will be interesting to see if Sony cameras can challenge the dynamic range and noise performance of the OM-D. If not, then they need to seriously consider what they are doing.
JohnParminter 13 1.3k 14 England
17 Oct 2012 10:22AM

Quote:I don't want to buy a 'disruptive' product

A lot of people do. the iPhone, iPod and iPad were all really disruptive products and they seem to have sold a few of them.

Arh well that probably explains my reasoning, I've never been tempted to buy any of these products either....

Perhaps I'm not responsive to disruptive products.

RogBrown 13 3.1k 10 England
17 Oct 2012 10:22AM
I agree with Strawman. I own a Sony & love it, but I'm really annoyed by their steadfast refusal over the years to offer decent Exposure Bracketing (+/- 2 stops). If you do a lot of HDR as I do, +/- .7 or .3 is useless. Only a small point I know but it would stop me buying another. (If they've altered it on the latest models I apologise to Sony).
puertouk 9 1.1k 17 United Kingdom
17 Oct 2012 10:59AM
Sony used to make the best TV's and other household goods, but not any longer. They seem to get there products to the top of the tree, but then other manufacturers have come along produced better goods. Maybe, they are trying to manufacture too many types of products and farming out the work to other countries where the standards are not as good as in Japan, but manufacturing costs are far cheaper?
keith selmes 17 7.4k 1 United Kingdom
17 Oct 2012 11:35AM
I see the quote as a bullshit response. The reason that anyone should buy a Sony camera is because it fits their requirements. The company background in R&D etc. is a good plug for investors but not for camera buyers. It is however dead on with the comment about Canon and Nikon having been in the market for years. I have Canon bodies for film and digital, and lenses and adapters for them, so Sony, being incompatible, wouldn't be an obvious choice to fit my requirement for a new body. But Panasonic and Olympus are established as well, and the same thing applies with micro 4/3 mount. A Sony camera would be incompatible with exisiting kit. Unless a Sony filled a special requirement the existing systems don't, it wouldn't be a sensible choice.

On the other hand, if I was looking specifically for a video camera, I expect the two big names would be Sony and Canon (sonycan ? canony ?), I doubt Nikon would get a look in, and probably not the others.
Carabosse 17 41.5k 270 England
17 Oct 2012 11:38AM

Quote:On the other hand, if I was looking specifically for a video camera, I expect the two big names would be Sony and Canon

Panasonic is right up there with Sony and Canon. I would rank Canon as third, in fact.
keith selmes 17 7.4k 1 United Kingdom
17 Oct 2012 1:08PM
Pity, it spoils the "sonycan" idea. panasony ?
JackAllTog Plus
11 6.1k 58 United Kingdom
17 Oct 2012 2:07PM
Disruptive is always worth a look for business at it can give an edge over the competition, its cool for the consumer too if noticeably smaller/faster/better etc.
Whilst I agree with John that switching to someone appealing to be disruptive does not work for me. It does make me look at their products and wonder how others manufactures may respond.
Personally I think Nikon's reliance on Sony sensors could become its undoing if as Sony start to catch up and squeeze that supply stream.
CDSINUK 8 223 England
17 Oct 2012 2:30PM
most images are processed in some way these days, why would you not want the best, fastest, most sensative, etc, and also value for money? thats how technology moves forward, i never understand the canon/pentax etc fanatics , wouldnt a skilled craftsman want the best tools he could get to do the job, or keep relying on an old favourite thats not quite up to the standard anymore? i mean weve all loved our old cars, but would any of you want to still be driving one every day, (recollections of an hillman imp i once owned) Smile thats just what they are old fond memeories, looking at the market, sony offer some of the best technology at a fair price, right across the board from beginners like me to full frame proffesional equipment, but of course its a Sony what could they possibly know about Camera's, well, take a look better still go and have a try, just my opinion Smile my onlt complaint to sony is, why wouldnt you have an attachment for timed shutter release on your more basic models, GGGrrr lol
mdpontin 16 6.0k Scotland
17 Oct 2012 2:51PM
You don't buy a product because it's "disruptive". You buy it because it fits your requirements. That may be because it's innovative, which may give it the edge over rival products. The "disruptive" quality is more relevant to the businesses concerned and the market as a whole, i.e. by finding a new way to appeal to customers, a product can have a disruptive effect on the marketplace, putting the entrenched concerns on the wrong foot, at least temporarily.

Yes, the iPhone, iPad, etc., have been disruptive products, because they either shook up an established market through innovation, or established a new market niche.