Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: The flagship generation gap of Canon, Nikon, and Sony: A7III March 2016?  (Read 9185 times)

EinstStein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422

Sony's FF has the shortest generation gap, it's about only 1 year from A7x to A7xII.
Nikon is much longer, it is about 2.5 ~ 3 years from D800x to D810x.
Canon is the longest among the three. It is about 3 years between each genrations from 5D to 5DII to 5DIII to 5DS.

So, Sony would have the best chance to offer the newest technology to compete with the other two.

We should see the A7III around 1st quarter of 2016, but the next Nikon flagship would be till 2017 and canon would be 2018.

How does this reflect the earning of the company and of each camera model?


Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3071

Not sure how you arrived at the timing but as an example:

A7R announced Oct 2103
A7R2 announced Jun 2015
Logged
Regards,
Ron

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11252
    • Echophoto

Hi,

Yes, it was a painful wait for the A7rII. But Sony released mark II versions of all cameras in short intervals and that may seem like a short generation gap.

I don't think we will see new A7III in 2016. On the other hand an A9 may be feasible under 2016. Not saying that it would be coming.

I could also think it would be possible to have a new A7r model having Sony's variable OLP filter, but I would hold it less probable.

Best regards
Erik

Not sure how you arrived at the timing but as an example:

A7R announced Oct 2103
A7R2 announced Jun 2015
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5569
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com

I have no idea how this is reflected in each company earnings vs. camera models but... Canikon keeps beating records of how don't know how many millions of cameras and lenses every year, so they still must be ok:)

Ref. Sony, I would argue that the gap between the A7-A7S-A7R and the 2nd generation cameras was small, due to the fact that the 1st generation cameras were less than polished and mature products (as expected, perhaps). My A7II feels and handles a lot better compared to the A7.

Canikon have much more mature systems; actually the cameras you mentioned are not their flagships. For Canon, the 1D series is the flagship, for Nikon it is the D4 (and now D5). These are the cameras aimed at photojournalists. Plus, Canikon have they tiered system very well established and bracketed: 6D, 5DMKIII, 5DSr, 1DX, this for Canon.

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11252
    • Echophoto

Hi,

In general, camera industry is not doing well. Shipments go down all the time. It is as simple as a market going into saturation. The camera industry had a boom due to the digital revolution, but that is over. We are in an evolution phase now.

Best regards
Erik

I have no idea how this is reflected in each company earnings vs. camera models but... Canikon keeps beating records of how don't know how many millions of cameras and lenses every year, so they still must be ok:)

Ref. Sony, I would argue that the gap between the A7-A7S-A7R and the 2nd generation cameras was small, due to the fact that the 1st generation cameras were less than polished and mature products (as expected, perhaps). My A7II feels and handles a lot better compared to the A7.

Canikon have much more mature systems; actually the cameras you mentioned are not their flagships. For Canon, the 1D series is the flagship, for Nikon it is the D4 (and now D5). These are the cameras aimed at photojournalists. Plus, Canikon have they tiered system very well established and bracketed: 6D, 5DMKIII, 5DSr, 1DX, this for Canon.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au

"Canon is the longest among the three. It is about 3 years between each genrations from 5D to 5DII to 5DIII to 5DS".

Canon's flagship cameras have a 1D nomenclature.

Cheers,

Comes to mind, isn't the Nikon D4S Nikon's latest flagship camera?
« Last Edit: January 07, 2016, 04:53:45 pm by tom b »
Logged
Tom Brown

EinstStein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422

While Sony is the fast paced in releasing new Faf camera, it is also the slowest in releasing lenses. I guess this is a strategy as Sony does not need lenses to boost the camera sales. There far far more discussion how to adapt Canon or Nikon lenses to A7xx Sony native lens.
Logged

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 909


Comes to mind, isn't the Nikon D4S Nikon's latest flagship camera?

Latest available, yes, but it is just v4.1. Soon there is v5 a.k.a. D5.
Logged

EinstStein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 422

Latest available, yes, but it is just v4.1. Soon there is v5 a.k.a. D5.

I don't see the most expensive or the most professional is mecessery the flag ship. I did not even bother with Canon 1D nor Sony Axx. A flagship in my mind is the ship carries the leading flag. For Canon it has to be 5Dxx, and Nikon D8xx.

But the choice or definition of flagship model is irrelevant to my point. Whatever you choose, you should see the trend of generation gap when you choose the competitive models across the brand.
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3071

Is your assumption that fast iteration of models equals better? 

It certainly generates buzz and hype and there is no doubt that Sony's models improve each time.  That said in each iteration we see things that can be show stoppers for some photographers.  Would it be worth an extra 6-12 months of development to squash those between iterations?

I also have a hard time equating fast iteration with the bottom line for a company.  Just look at the Android cell phone market.  Lots of iteration and not a lot of profit.
Logged
Regards,
Ron

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11252
    • Echophoto

Hi,

Expect a 1.5 to 2 year cycle. You can wait, but you ain't shoot this years moose with next years camera.

Best regards
Erik

Is your assumption that fast iteration of models equals better? 

It certainly generates buzz and hype and there is no doubt that Sony's models improve each time.  That said in each iteration we see things that can be show stoppers for some photographers.  Would it be worth an extra 6-12 months of development to squash those between iterations?

I also have a hard time equating fast iteration with the bottom line for a company.  Just look at the Android cell phone market.  Lots of iteration and not a lot of profit.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

MarkL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 475

Sony's FF has the shortest generation gap, it's about only 1 year from A7x to A7xII.
Nikon is much longer, it is about 2.5 ~ 3 years from D800x to D810x.
Canon is the longest among the three. It is about 3 years between each genrations from 5D to 5DII to 5DIII to 5DS.

It is a reflection of maturity, dslrs are pretty mature (nikon just now makes a new af module since the D3) while mirrorless is not.

I'm not sure I'd call the D800 to D810 (or 's' variants) a generation, they are fixed/tweaked (depending on your level of cynicism) versions of the originals.
Logged

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375

Sony's FF has the shortest generation gap, it's about only 1 year from A7x to A7xII.
Nikon is much longer, it is about 2.5 ~ 3 years from D800x to D810x.
Canon is the longest among the three. It is about 3 years between each genrations from 5D to 5DII to 5DIII to 5DS.

So, Sony would have the best chance to offer the newest technology to compete with the other two.

We should see the A7III around 1st quarter of 2016, but the next Nikon flagship would be till 2017 and canon would be 2018.

How does this reflect the earning of the company and of each camera model?

Nikon Flagship is D4, soon to be D5.  Canon Flagship is EOS-1D X. 

The timings of products have short term impact on financial results (good or bad), but generally long term impacts are related to costs and product lines.  As Nikon is the only one of the 3 where cameras is basically there only business, they have the most to gain or lose from any issues.  Sony could give up the camera business and not see a blip in their financials. 
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12893
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/

Sony could give up the camera business and not see a blip in their financials.

That's in fact not quite true. The camera division is very strategic at Sony and it one of the very few generating profit, together with semi-conductor (with sensor being a major part), PS4, pro video and finance.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: January 19, 2016, 01:13:20 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2201
    • The Last Word

I have no idea how this is reflected in each company earnings vs. camera models but... Canikon keeps beating records of how don't know how many millions of cameras and lenses every year, so they still must be ok:)

Ref. Sony, I would argue that the gap between the A7-A7S-A7R and the 2nd generation cameras was small, due to the fact that the 1st generation cameras were less than polished and mature products (as expected, perhaps). My A7II feels and handles a lot better compared to the A7.

Canikon have much more mature systems; actually the cameras you mentioned are not their flagships. For Canon, the 1D series is the flagship, for Nikon it is the D4 (and now D5). These are the cameras aimed at photojournalists. Plus, Canikon have they tiered system very well established and bracketed: 6D, 5DMKIII, 5DSr, 1DX, this for Canon.

Since the Nikon decided not to do a D4x, the D810 is their flagship high-res camera. Will there be a D5x? Who knows.

Jim

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995


D810 can't be the flagship - it can only boast mp, while D5 can boast many other things + the price.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11252
    • Echophoto

Hi,

If you shoot sports in available light the D5 may be the ultimate camera in the Nikon programme.

Same with Sony, I would never consider the A7s, but I am a tripod, slow work, landscape kind of guy. Would I shoot in the darks the A7s may be an interesting alternative.

Flagship or not? It is horses for the courses.

Talking about flagships, it reminds me a bit about Pearl Harbor. Before the Pearl Harbor the sea belonged to the battleships after Pearl it belonged to "flat tops".

Best regards
Erik

Since the Nikon decided not to do a D4x, the D810 is their flagship high-res camera. Will there be a D5x? Who knows.

Jim
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 981

Is Sony's camera (as opposed to sensor, now that the two are separated) business still highly strategic? Sony sold something like 231 million Exmor RS image sensors to a single customer for a single product line in (the customer's ) Fiscal 2015. The same product also uses a second, lower-end camera, which may also be a Sony sensor, although I can't find confirmation one way or the other. The same customer also makes several other products that probably use Sony sensors. The customer that may be buying as many as half a BILLION Sony sensors annually is, of course, Apple, and the product that sells in huge volume is the iPhone.

By comparison, Fuji kindly told us that they can make 160,000 X-Pro 2s annually - that is probably a ballpark figure for a lot of relatively expensive cameras, including several Sonys (if I had to guess, the A7II is somewhat higher - 250,000-300,000 annually, and the A7rII and A7sII are so expensive that they are each somewhat lower (maybe 100,000 each)). Total mirrorless sales, including everything from the Pentax Q and Nikon 1 up to the A7rII (but excluding two minor makers, Leica and Samsung, because they aren't Japanese and the data are compiled by a Japanese agency) are between three and four million cameras per year, and Sony may have as much as a 40% share of that volume. If both numbers are on the high end of estimates, Sony sells 1.5 million E-mount cameras annually, which makes me think my FE-mount numbers are high - 1/3 FE makes no sense, when they are as much more expensive as they are - everything non-FE is in the $500 range WITH A LENS, and is sold at Best Buy).
     Maybe all of FE combined is something like twice that X-Pro 2 number? 300,000 FE-mount cameras (guesswork) out of a total of 1.5 million annual E-mount sales (high end of some relatively solid ranges) might work (please provide better numbers if you have them). Sony, of course, has a slow-selling A-mount line plus some high end compact cameras. Again, only Fuji is willing to provide any actual numbers, but X-100 series sales have been as high as 100,000 in their best year. The RX1 series, being three times as expensive, have to have been significantly lower (50,000 at most). Add in a small number of A99 bodies, and Sony's total full-frame sales are WELL below half a million per year. For total "real cameras", add in the 1.2 million APS-C E-mount bodies, and I'd be surprised if A-mount cameras plus RX 10 and 100 series compacts added another million.  Sony might sell 3 million serious cameras annually, and they might sell another 10 million 1" and larger sensors to other people making serious cameras (all interchangeable lens cameras combined sell under 15 million annually, and some of those are Canons that don't use Sony sensors). Subtract the Canons and add in a bunch of !" and larger compacts, and Sony is selling somewhere between 5 and 10 million large sensors to other makers on top of between 2 and 3 million of their own serious cameras.

Is this a strategic business for Sony? The sensor business (mostly for phones and other embedded uses) certainly is - and they will keep making large sensors because the fabrication techniques are similar. Why not make a few million highly profitable large sensors if you can make them on the same equipment you use to make something that sells a billion units per year (between Apple and other makers)? Are the couple of million camera bodies worth it, when they are no longer overseen by the same people who do the sensors? Previously, they were a showcase for Sony's sensor wizards...
« Last Edit: January 18, 2016, 08:54:01 pm by Dan Wells »
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11252
    • Echophoto

Hi,

Cameras are selling at much higher prices than sensors and large sensors are selling at much higher prices than small sensors.

The large sensor business contributes a lot to Sony's profits.

Best regards
Erik

Is Sony's camera (as opposed to sensor, now that the two are separated) business still highly strategic? Sony sold something like 231 million Exmor RS image sensors to a single customer for a single product line in (the customer's ) Fiscal 2015. The same product also uses a second, lower-end camera, which may also be a Sony sensor, although I can't find confirmation one way or the other. The same customer also makes several other products that probably use Sony sensors. The customer that may be buying as many as half a BILLION Sony sensors annually is, of course, Apple, and the product that sells in huge volume is the iPhone.

By comparison, Fuji kindly told us that they can make 160,000 X-Pro 2s annually - that is probably a ballpark figure for a lot of relatively expensive cameras, including several Sonys (if I had to guess, the A7II is somewhat higher - 250,000-300,000 annually, and the A7rII and A7sII are so expensive that they are each somewhat lower (maybe 100,000 each)). Total mirrorless sales, including everything from the Pentax Q and Nikon 1 up to the A7rII (but excluding two minor makers, Leica and Samsung, because they aren't Japanese and the data are compiled by a Japanese agency) are between three and four million cameras per year, and Sony may have as much as a 40% share of that volume. If both numbers are on the high end of estimates, Sony sells 1.5 million E-mount cameras annually, which makes me think my FE-mount numbers are high - 1/3 FE makes no sense, when they are as much more expensive as they are - everything non-FE is in the $500 range WITH A LENS, and is sold at Best Buy).
     Maybe all of FE combined is something like twice that X-Pro 2 number? 300,000 FE-mount cameras (guesswork) out of a total of 1.5 million annual E-mount sales (high end of some relatively solid ranges) might work (please provide better numbers if you have them). Sony, of course, has a slow-selling A-mount line plus some high end compact cameras. Again, only Fuji is willing to provide any actual numbers, but X-100 series sales have been as high as 100,000 in their best year. The RX1 series, being three times as expensive, have to have been significantly lower (50,000 at most). Add in a small number of A99 bodies, and Sony's total full-frame sales are WELL below half a million per year. For total "real cameras", add in the 1.2 million APS-C E-mount bodies, and I'd be surprised if A-mount cameras plus RX 10 and 100 series compacts added another million.  Sony might sell 3 million serious cameras annually, and they might sell another 10 million 1" and larger sensors to other people making serious cameras (all interchangeable lens cameras combined sell under 15 million annually, and some of those are Canons that don't use Sony sensors). Subtract the Canons and add in a bunch of !" and larger compacts, and Sony is selling somewhere between 5 and 10 million large sensors to other makers on top of between 2 and 3 million of their own serious cameras.

Is this a strategic business for Sony? The sensor business (mostly for phones and other embedded uses) certainly is - and they will keep making large sensors because the fabrication techniques are similar. Why not make a few million highly profitable large sensors if you can make them on the same equipment you use to make something that sells a billion units per year (between Apple and other makers)? Are the couple of million camera bodies worth it, when they are no longer overseen by the same people who do the sensors? Previously, they were a showcase for Sony's sensor wizards...
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 
Pages: [1]   Go Up