When will Sony enter medium format market?

[JV]

Also with regard to HB, I think they got another years worth of run from their financiers …. but will their new Lusso (rebadged sony A7R at $12k) save them?

I didn't think the rebadged Sony's were very successful or popular but after reading the customer reviews on B&H I am starting to think I might be completely wrong...:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1059917-REG/hasselblad_1105028_hasselblad_stellar.html

[uaiomex]

Actually I think the wood grip looks kind of handsome on the A7. Of course, the price is totally ridiculous. I wonder whyHB always announces when the model from Sony goes obsolete.
Do they have a death wish?
Eduardo

I didn't think the rebadged Sony's were very successful or popular but after reading the customer reviews on B&H I am starting to think I might be completely wrong...:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1059917-REG/hasselblad_1105028_hasselblad_stellar.html

[EricWHiss]

I didn't think the rebadged Sony's were very successful or popular but after reading the customer reviews on B&H I am starting to think I might be completely wrong...:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1059917-REG/hasselblad_1105028_hasselblad_stellar.html

Well with a $2300 instant savings (70% reduction) they are starting to look more attractive.  But I saw them at Photokina and was not ….lets say... overwhelmed by them in person.

[JoeKitchen]

But I'm not sure if still photography on a commercial level is dead.  Yes video is the rage and we've dove deep into it, but I've seen our video briefs in the last two years go from a series of 3 minute videos that can be cut down to segments, to 2 minutes, this year 1 minute and less.  Soon I'll bet they're 10 seconds and if your media buy is based on small electronic advertising a still or two will probably work better than a 10 second video.

IMO

BC

I often hear from people, usually photographers looking for a silver bullet, and businesses, usually camera companies trying to sell you something, that video is the wave of the future.  And every time, I always think back to an article I read in the NY Times a few years ago, which I wish I would have saved but did not.  

It turns out, for the most part, people do not remember videos, no matter how good they are.  Yes, I know, good movies can really inspire someone, but for advertising, how many video clips really stay with you.  

However, great images, people remember.  

The researchers found that the problem with videos is the story is already created.  It has nothing to do with you.  The actions, dialogue, theme, music, etc have been created by someone else and none of it is yours.  You have no involvement other then watching the video.  

With a great image, so many things are open to interpretation.  What just happened, what is going to happen, what are they talking about, what are they thinking about, why does this space look like it does, etc.  With a great image, people get sucked in and start filling in the gaps with their own ideas of what the image is about.  Essentially, the viewer makes up a story, specific to that viewer, to go along with that picture.  

That makes it personal, and that is why people are more likely to remember great images over great videos.  

I had this experience last night.  I went to see Greg Heisler talk, and well, you can't help getting sucked into his work and trying to figure out what is going on.  Someone even asked him about it and how he manages to pull it off so well.  

So, IMHO, I think images are still very important. 

I mean look at music videos, who really watches them anymore?  Who really produces them anymore? 

[eronald]

J,

 I think the guy who pulled that analogy was a Sony CEO, undoubtedly well aware of all the necessary data. I cannot remember whether I read it in the press when I lived in Japan, or whether it was quoted to me in person by the then head of research of Sony Japan, when explaining their strategy to me in Tokyo. My impression is the latter.

 The relationship between Sony Japan headquarters and its US branches has historically been complex, and as a professional journalist (just as you are a professional photographer) I am well aware that what is said on one side does not necessarily reflect what is practised on the other, although I suspect that when it comes to major personnel or financial decisions headquarters may well have the last word.

 Sony Japan has a history of launching and publicizing very innovative form factors and product lines in the hope that something will catch the fancy of the public and start a trend. Sometimes this works, as with Walkman, often it yields a product which undersells and gets canned - remember the AIBO robot dog? Sony is the ONLY major japanese company which does this AFAIK, it is their company culture.

Edmund

Edmund, You need to learn to google a little more in your research.

Since as usual this type of not announced yet product goes way off topic, I think there should be some clarity.

Sony DOES expect predicable profits from their investment.   All of their investments.  Without that, there is no Sony.

[synn]

Now that's some quality backpedaling.

[eronald]

Synn,

 we should have a beer together sometime, I seem to find myself agreeing with you so often these days ... although not this time

Edmund

Now that's some quality backpedaling.

[yashima]

That is beautifully put Joe. Thank you. When you find that article please do share with us.

I often hear from people, usually photographers looking for a silver bullet, and businesses, usually camera companies trying to sell you something, that video is the wave of the future.  And every time, I always think back to an article I read in the NY Times a few years ago, which I wish I would have saved but did not.  

It turns out, for the most part, people do not remember videos, no matter how good they are.  Yes, I know, good movies can really inspire someone, but for advertising, how many video clips really stay with you.  

However, great images, people remember.  

The researchers found that the problem with videos is the story is already created.  It has nothing to do with you.  The actions, dialogue, theme, music, etc have been created by someone else and none of it is yours.  You have no involvement other then watching the video.  

With a great image, so many things are open to interpretation.  What just happened, what is going to happen, what are they talking about, what are they thinking about, why does this space look like it does, etc.  With a great image, people get sucked in and start filling in the gaps with their own ideas of what the image is about.  Essentially, the viewer makes up a story, specific to that viewer, to go along with that picture.  

That makes it personal, and that is why people are more likely to remember great images over great videos.  

I had this experience last night.  I went to see Greg Heisler talk, and well, you can't help getting sucked into his work and trying to figure out what is going on.  Someone even asked him about it and how he manages to pull it off so well.  

So, IMHO, I think images are still very important. 

I mean look at music videos, who really watches them anymore?  Who really produces them anymore? 

[Ken R]

I am surrounded by people in the motion images industry. My best friend owns a post-production house and I am friends with DP's AC's and other crew that work mostly in Motion Picture Projects and Commercials. My passion for the still image is so strong that I have not ventured into motion image creation. The still image to me, the moment, the timing, the craft is just so different. Like most good things it takes a lifetime to perfect and one is always learning, changing and "evolving". The way it is captured, processed/worked and presented might change but the still image still has something that strikes a fire in me. And in a lot of people. I don't think that will ever change.

[synn]

Commercial photography covers only one aspect of photography. There are several other subgenres within the artform that are perfectly content with staying within the realm of still photography.

Sure, advertising budgets might be shrinking and clients might be looking for mode videos than stills. But that's not something that can be extrapolated to all of photography.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would think we will see more motion and perhaps less stills. Why? Because media moves from print to screen and motion is a good match screen.

In my view, we also are going to see more 4K. The reason 4K starts slowly is that screen are small and viewing distances far.

Getting back to the original question of Sony entering the MF market, they have done that. Pentax 645Z, IQ-250, Hasselblad 50c backs are all Sony sesnors. Sony could build a RX-1 type of camera with a 50 MP 44x33 sensor at ease, but I am not sure it makes any sense to me.

One thing that may make a lot of sense would be a 36x36 sensor, encompassing 24x36, 36x24 and 30x30 (or even 36x36 with some compromise), Such a system would work with most 35 mm lenses. Assuming 8K resolution this would deliver 39.3 MP on full frame 24x36 and 41 MP on 30x30. Using the full sensor we would have 59 MP square format. Many DSLR lenses would cover that area, albeit with reduced corner performance.

Best regards
Erik

[MarkL]

I doubt Sony will enter this market segment. They are far, far too big to care about MF given the market size in money terms, motion picture and high end audio are much bigger. They are probably more interested in the 4k video market.

If anything they are more about knocking off CaNikon’s high end more ‘consumer’ cameras and have their hands full struggling to produce a lens line for their FE mount. Sony also don’t have much of a clue about what to offer in high end cameras either, we have ‘play memories’ and all sorts of garbage along with lossy compressed RAW in their top end cameras.

[JV]

Hasselblad coming to their senses:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/hasselblad-changes-strategy-no-more-luxury-sony-cam-versions-focus-on-unique-medium-format-cameras-made-with-sony/
and perhaps partnering with Sony?