Sony Dominates FF Sales in USA

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, Robert Collins said:

I sort of feel that pro photography will dramatically change over the next 10 years rather more than the equipment.

Those rugby scrum photos look kind of 2000s to me. How many of those photogs will have a job in 10 years? I just dont really see the need to pay 300 people to take exactly the same photo at 10 frames a second in a modern world.

 Most likely people will be taking stills from video at sporting events like the Olympics and World Cup.

A lot of the change at least in the sports world will be related to controlling the image of the event as much as capturing the image of the event.

Organisations like UEFA,FIFA,IOC and the Premier League etc don't want the risks associated with that number of uncontrolled lenses pointed at their events as its the unique pictures of the controversies that will make far more money for an individual photographer than the generic goal celebration ones.

Of course, the controversies will be the cheating, diving, stamping, fighting, abuse of the officials, crowd disturbances etc that the organisers don't want damaging their brand.

For that reason, I think exerting editorial control by selling the rights to one agency will be the next step and there are already some half way house situations happening where this is to all intents and purposes in place by managing the most favourable pitch positions and access to specific agencies.

The connection that used to exist between the written press and photographic press working for the same publication has by and large fallen by the wayside as newspapers increasingly lay off their own photographic departments and use agencies so its not like the events need to fear a boycott if they only let in one agency's photographers.

There is also the issue of money in terms of the photographic rights should be a saleable commodity for the organisers in the same way as the TV rights are and it does seem strange that in an era of tons of different rights packages for TV (live, delayed, internet,xyz territory) that they are paying big money for that whereas for a photographer it costs no more than their own time to go and cover the same event and distribute it worldwide.

I don't think we are there yet in terms of stills extraction from live video for practical purposes (I've attempted this a few years ago shooting on the Tour de France with a RED Epic and it was abandoned after a few stages) but it will also be tricky from a rights issue.  The broadcasters pay eye watering sums for the coverage so if a photographers dares take video then he will literally be escorted from the stadium and struck off the organisers accreditation system for all subsequent events. This means that it will have to be derived or sold on from the broadcaster to the agency and I'm not sure how much money would really be in it for everyone at that point.

Creatively, all you would get is literally stills from the TV coverage (which in certain instances would be great because TV cameras get the best positions) but I would still maintain that the best sport photography images still stand apart as they're derived in a different way looking for individual isolated moments whereas TV images are having to convey a coherent continuous set of images.

The broader point of it changing beyond the scrum situation (which, to be fair, is only really the case for trophy lifts and team shots) at some point is right though and it just remains to be seen when and how.

I've already been advancing at least part of the demise of the old guard by winding down the number of shifts I've taken over the past few months and I suspect I'll be all but out completely by the end of next year.

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, kye said:

I definitely agree with you around the reluctance of the pro market to adopt new technology.

One thing that I have seen that MILCs offer that the pros would really value is a faster burst rate.  IIRC Tony Northrup was saying that they did a head-to-head at some kind of sports event with the A9 vs the top end Canon and Nikon and the A9 got 20fps vs the others that were both in the 10-12fps region.  My memory was that it was with full continuous autofocus.  I think if you don't have C-AF enabled then CaNikon are much closer to the A9.

I'm not sure what that kind of burst rate improvement is worth professionally, but it's definitely worth something.

Its not about reluctance in fairness, its about it being performing as well or better than what we currently have and doing it within part of an overall eco system.

Even leaving aside that fps speed only being with the e-shutter, Sony just aren't there yet to be able to be a swap out system for Canon or Nikon.

Unless you can swap it out in its entirety (and you need to consider the whole end to end process here) and carry on working seamlessly (let alone improving) then there is no motivation there.

And this not just an anti-Sony thing by the way as the new Nikon system won't be adopted for the same reasons either if it doesn't have the same seamless transition.

 

[Kisaha]

41 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Its not about reluctance in fairness, its about it being performing as well or better than what we currently have and doing it within part of an overall eco system.

Even leaving aside that fps speed only being with the e-shutter, Sony just aren't there yet to be able to be a swap out system for Canon or Nikon.

Unless you can swap it out in its entirety (and you need to consider the whole end to end process here) and carry on working seamlessly (let alone improving) then there is no motivation there.

And this not just an anti-Sony thing as the new Nikon system won't be adopted for the same reasons either if it doesn't have the same seamless transition.

 

It's difficult to follow @kye' s reasoning, especially when he sees it 100% from a "naive"-spec orientated - whatever his job is - approach.

Real pro life is vastly different than looking specs on tables and press releases of, not yet proven companies.

What I see in this forum is the vast difference in approach between professionals and semi-pros to amateurs.

You can say whatever you want - and you can be right too, but when your family's life and yours is at stake everyday in the field, you have a more conservative approach and you need proven and working solutions.

I have worked with most of the Sony cameras through 2 decades of professio al life, and I never owned one. 

One difference I could see happening is the direct uploading of photos, or something like this, and an editor manipulate/deliver instantly to the client/agency.

[Robert Collins]

1 hour ago, Kisaha said:

What I see in this forum is the vast difference in approach between professionals and semi-pros to amateurs.

Yes, I dont see why mirrorless manufacturers like 'Sony' have such a focus on 'pro' needs. Afterall the 'needs' of 'pros' are very different from what you would imagine are their target market.

Pro photographers are relatively impoverished (with a median income well below the US national median income) and arent even a particularly large demographic.

You would think the natural mirrorless target market would be women, the young, and affluent travel enthusiasts.

[jonpais]

28 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

Yes, I dont see why mirrorless manufacturers like 'Sony' have such a focus on 'pro' needs. Afterall the 'needs' of 'pros' are very different from what you would imagine are their target market.

Pro photographers are relatively impoverished (with a median income well below the US national median income) and arent even a particularly large demographic.

You would think the natural mirrorless target market would be women, the young, and affluent travel enthusiasts.

One reason is that the money is in high end gear, not point-and-shoots.

Even if, as some claim, ‘Sony’ isn’t putting a ‘dent’ in the ‘pro’ market, few question their ‘expertise’ in ‘video’, which is why most of us are here in the first place. ? 

But frankly, I’m baffled that you think mirrorless is just for women and young people!

[Cinegain]

Yeah, poor Fujifilm GFX 50S and Hasselblad X1D-50c. ?

[Robert Collins]

7 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I can’t recall who it was, but I think someone in this thread already answered that question: photographers want the cameras they see professionals shooting at these events. 

At least, that’s one explanation.

Even if, as some claim, ‘Sony’ isn’t putting a ‘dent’ in the ‘pro’ market, few question their ‘expertise’ in ‘video’, which is why most of us are here in the first place. ? 

Yes. Of course I have heard this 'explanation' but it makes no sense - there is no logic to it. If the 'needs' of pros and enthusiasts are very different it doesnt make sense their 'wants' are the same.

And conceptually,  advances in 'camera tech' and mirrorless in particular offers is a 'democratization' of video and photography... the ability to get 'professional' results with 'ease'.

Small size is a boon for a traveller but is probably unergonomic for a pro.

Eye-af at the push of button is great for an amateur but probably pretty useless for a pro who can focus on the nearest eye without thinking about.

Af in video is pretty much a prerequisite for many but many pros are happy or prefer to shoot manual.

The same can be said for ibis

...Or WYSIWYG EVFs....

Ultimately, a key advantage of mirrorless is that it circumvents many of the 'skillsets' that are required to operate a 'pro' camera.

[Kisaha]

Even "poor" professionals (like me I guess, if you compare salaries in "poor" European south, with Scandinavia and San Francisco) spend thousands of euros for their equipment per year, casual shooters are ok with a cheap kit, and/or their phones. 

The industry is moving to higher tiers.

We are talking mostly about A cameras here, but axxx Sony cameras has sold extremely well, they just do not offer a great margin for profit (especially their ecosystem). Most people I know with an a6xxx camera are buying a kit with the 16-50 and they are done, while most people starting with an A7x version I, have moved to II and now III, while buying expensive full frame lenses too.

Sony were spot on when they offered the cheap A7 (i,ii and iii) version along the more specialized S and R ones. Brilliant tactic, that will keep them ahead of the curve even after the Canonikon releases, but the most distant future will bring more drama for sure.

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, Kisaha said:

One difference I could see happening is the direct uploading of photos, or something like this, and an editor manipulate/deliver instantly to the client/agency.

We do this for some specific games and its standard practice for virtually all games for some agencies depending on the network infrastructure.  A finished wired version of a picture would be circa 2mb versus sending maybe 3 or 4 camera files of 10mb each to an editor and 2mb versus 40mb can be a big difference at many events so you can end up losing the speed benefit of a remote editor.

I don't particularly like it myself as I like to be responsible for my own editing but there is no question its an area where camera manufacturers could look at adding some tools to do more in camera without having to transfer the file. 

Basic cropping is already there in most cameras but its the addition of the caption that you can't do so a voice to text feature or even a bluetooth keyboard input would make it viable to keep the laptop out of the equation and save a lot of time.

Not to mention the attrition cost of using laptops in the rain !

24 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

Yes. Of course I have heard this 'explanation' but it makes no sense - there is no logic to it. If the 'needs' of pros and enthusiasts are very different it doesnt make sense their 'wants' are the same.

Its a follow on from the old motorsports "Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday" philosophy but, yeah, I wouldn't want to base my company's financial future on that holding true for photography any more.

It worked in the old days with people like Bailey endorsing Olympus etc but its far more likely to be "See what Fro thinks, Click the affiliate links" these days.

 

[Kisaha]

26 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

We do this for some specific games and its standard practice for virtually all games for some agencies depending on the network infrastructure.  A finished wired version of a picture would be circa 2mb versus sending maybe 3 or 4 camera files of 10mb each to an editor and 2mb versus 40mb can be a big difference at many events so you can end up losing the speed benefit of a remote editor.

I don't particularly like it myself as I like to be responsible for my own editing but there is no question its an area where camera manufacturers could look at adding some tools to do more in camera without having to transfer the file. 

Basic cropping is already there in most cameras but its the addition of the caption that you can't do so a voice to text feature or even a bluetooth keyboard input would make it viable to keep the laptop out of the equation and save a lot of time.

Not to mention the attrition cost of using laptops in the rain !

As you mentioned before, speed is the most important factor these days. We already have editors on location for some video jobs, and I am following apps like the Bleacher Report and others, that post photos and video almost instantly these days. Anything posted a few moments AFTER the fact, is already old news! 

That will play a significant role in the future evolution of our work. I believe we most agree that the quality is already here, we will solve the AF war soon-ish, the next one will be the transmission of the information.

I will bring my beloved NX again, even the old and primitive NX3000 I have, can upload instantly to my S9+ through wifi, I have set the transfer to change (instantly also) the 20mgpxl files to 2MP ones, which is good for social media and inside the phone storage, and I keep the original file on camera, and transfer them to a hard drive occasionally. Plus all the other stuff you can do (remote view finder/shutter/e.t.c).

Let's take Nikon as an example. They failed to do that simple thing in most of their iterations, at least until recently (I haven't used one for a few years now), and that is a thing that can make or brake a relationship with a camera manufacturer.

I hate have other people manipulate my images- especially in photography - but in video essentially is the only way to do it (except ultra low budget or one man band jobs), I guess that will happen in sports photography too and other fields. I know it is already a thing, but it will become the norm, sooner than later.

People want info INSTANTLY, and they want photos, at least, and moving images. For the very first time in human history we have created an interconnecting network. You needed a dozen telegraphs and mostly a weekly edition to read anything in the era of our grand fathers (at least for the most matured of us!), now I am expecting to see everything online, moments after they happened, or even live.

[jonpais]

53 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

Yes. Of course I have heard this 'explanation' but it makes no sense - there is no logic to it. If the 'needs' of pros and enthusiasts are very different it doesnt make sense their 'wants' are the same.

And conceptually,  advances in 'camera tech' and mirrorless in particular offers is a 'democratization' of video and photography... the ability to get 'professional' results with 'ease'.

Small size is a boon for a traveller but is probably unergonomic for a pro.

Eye-af at the push of button is great for an amateur but probably pretty useless for a pro who can focus on the nearest eye without thinking about.

Af in video is pretty much a prerequisite for many but many pros are happy or prefer to shoot manual.

The same can be said for ibis

...Or WYSIWYG EVFs....

Ultimately, a key advantage of mirrorless is that it circumvents many of the 'skillsets' that are required to operate a 'pro' camera.

I see what you did there.

[kye]

4 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Its not about reluctance in fairness, its about it being performing as well or better than what we currently have and doing it within part of an overall eco system.

Even leaving aside that fps speed only being with the e-shutter, Sony just aren't there yet to be able to be a swap out system for Canon or Nikon.

Setting aside my word choice (maybe 'reluctant' isn't the best word) this is agreeing with what I've been saying (in a number of threads recently actually) - that business decisions are very different to technology decisions.  I even included a video on the last page of this thread showing that the pros at the olympics need reliability and speed through the entire chain from capture to publishing.  The video I showed was linked to the moment in the video where the photographer said that it took less than a minute for the photo of the winner to be taken, uploaded, processed, and published.

3 hours ago, Kisaha said:

It's difficult to follow @kye' s reasoning, especially when he sees it 100% from a "naive"-spec orientated - whatever his job is - approach.

Real pro life is vastly different than looking specs on tables and press releases of, not yet proven companies.

What I see in this forum is the vast difference in approach between professionals and semi-pros to amateurs.

You can say whatever you want - and you can be right too, but when your family's life and yours is at stake everyday in the field, you have a more conservative approach and you need proven and working solutions.

If you review my previous posts you will see that I am far from taking a 'spec only' perspective.  In fact, I often take a "photography is a business" perspective on here and get chewed out because I didn't say that everyone in the world should buy the latest shiny thing!

If you're having trouble finding where I have said such things, just ask.  I'll happily link to a few

[Robert Collins]

2 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Its a follow on from the old motorsports "Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday" philosophy but, yeah, I wouldn't want to base my company's financial future on that holding true for photography any more.

It worked in the old days with people like Bailey endorsing Olympus etc but its far more likely to be "See what Fro thinks, Click the affiliate links" these days.

I am totally onboard as to why pro photogs are very conservative in their camera choices - I just dont get why camera companies are so conservative with their tech.

I am sure that pretty much everyone has taken a photo of someone with their camera and then shown it to them on their lcd. They squint at the LCD (which hardly matches a first generation iphone) and has even bigger bezels - it aint much of a viewing experience. Is it so much to ask on a US$3000 camera for an LCD as good as a US$200 cellphone. Oled? pinch to zoom? scroll photos with a swipe? it isnt 2005. And sending a raw file to my phone shouldnt be asking too much?

[webrunner5]

8 hours ago, Django said:

Let's face it some things are here to stay. By following some of the logic i'm hearing, smartphones will have wiped out photo & video cameras by 2020.

It Ain't 2020 yet!!

 

[kye]

I don't for a minute think that ARRI feels threatened by Sony, but if they did, and if they wanted to talk about how their cameras might be better, this would certainly do the trick!!

 

[webrunner5]

Impressive video. Arri Lust LoL.

[Exporter]

On 8/15/2018 at 9:19 PM, Cinegain said:

Yeah, that's something I'm afraid they ain't gonna turn around by going mirrorless (but hoping they will). Just look at the mess that EOS-M is (to me). The meaning of mirrorless is more than pulling out the mirror and replacing the optical viewfinder with an electronic one. More so it's everything else that's cutting edge and innovation. EOS-M isn't even doing sensor stabilization... Olympus has been doing it for many many years now. Catch up already! They were reluctant to get 4K into consumer cameras. When they did... they put a huge crop on it. Stuff like that is just inexcusable. Will FF high-end mirrorless be any different? I mean... was the 5DmkIV any different? But time will have to tell. If they do embrace the mirrorless philosophy and don't play games but actually are serious about trying to disrupt the mirrorless scene... it could get interesting. I hated using the D5300 although I loved the results out of it. Their whole approach was too traditional and dated. Can they up it? Now there's even rumors Olympus might be going fullframe... one thing's for sure. This market is going to be on fire. Will be interesting to see things play out. Better fill up my pantry with popcorn...

I just made the jump to Sony after years of making excuses for Canon and all of the disabled features on their cameras. I was excited when the M50 came out but was soon dismayed to see how many features they intentionally left out. That camera could have been a bridge between M43 and FF for many and introduced a new generation of users to what Canon could offer. Imagine decent codecs, dpaf 4k, and inexpensive crop lenses!

I could have kept waiting but forget it. They have nice entry level dslrs but seem to not understand or care how many people want better video features.

[Kisaha]

3 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

I am totally onboard as to why pro photogs are very conservative in their camera choices - I just dont get why camera companies are so conservative with their tech.

I am sure that pretty much everyone has taken a photo of someone with their camera and then shown it to them on their lcd. They squint at the LCD (which hardly matches a first generation iphone) and has even bigger bezels - it aint much of a viewing experience. Is it so much to ask on a US$3000 camera for an LCD as good as a US$200 cellphone. Oled? pinch to zoom? scroll photos with a swipe? it isnt 2005. And sending a raw file to my phone shouldnt be asking too much?

Funny to mention that. I had NX since 2013 and all these were doable since at least back then, and earlier, and they always had the best screens in business (the latest had super amoled).

And after Samsung delivered NX1/NX500 and the innovative S lenses? Nothing. Everyone were buying Canon 70D !!

Maybe photo and video clients are more conservative than we believe.

Canon is number 1 in mirrorless sales in some countries, everyone is excited and waiting for the Nikon mirrorless. 

[BTM_Pix]

4 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

I am totally onboard as to why pro photogs are very conservative in their camera choices - I just dont get why camera companies are so conservative with their tech.

I am sure that pretty much everyone has taken a photo of someone with their camera and then shown it to them on their lcd. They squint at the LCD (which hardly matches a first generation iphone) and has even bigger bezels - it aint much of a viewing experience. Is it so much to ask on a US$3000 camera for an LCD as good as a US$200 cellphone. Oled? pinch to zoom? scroll photos with a swipe? it isnt 2005. And sending a raw file to my phone shouldnt be asking too much?

My D5 and D500 both do pinch to zoom and swipe but yeah the screens aren't landmark quality or size.

The camera that the younger members of my family most respond to is my Leica T as it is the closest to matching their use expectations in that regard.

Eyefi and FlashAir cards are a good workaround for sending RAWs to phones as its am always on solution so you dont have to fire up the app and far easier to action off the back of the camera as they're auto sent when you lock the image.

 

[Mokara]

19 hours ago, kye said:

Not FF mirrorless!

I think it comes down to timeframes and lenses.  In terms of timeframes, it took what, 10-15 years for digital to "take over" from film?  It's hard to estimate because people still shoot film today, and the first digital cameras were completely rubbish, but I think 10-15 years is a reasonable estimation.  I'm not sure what the complications of lenses and compatibility was between DSLRs and SLRs during that time, but I'm assuming they had some overlap of compatibility.

In the sense then that MILCs might take 10-15 years to "take over" from DSLRs doesn't seem to be too far fetched.  I think we tend to get a bit carried away in these conversations - it's not like Nikon will release two FF MILCs and then never release a DSLR again!

In a sense, the lens mount change is a separate issue, as it just happens to be occurring at the same time as a change to mirrorless, and I think all the logic applies.  Even if they started a second line of DSLRs with a different lens mount, all the conversations about adapters and compatibility and flange distance would still be relevant.  Needless to say, the quality of adapter for this camera will play a huge part in how well it does commercially.

It will be faster than that. Even for stills MILCs have some pretty significant advantages over DSLRs. DMF comes to mind for example. Precise tracking is another. Or any sort of critical manual focusing if you want to use the viewfinder. The main argument for DSLRs has basically been that you get a more responsive viewfinder, which in some cases you need but mostly you don't. Refresh rates on the latest MILC viewfinders is very fast, so the only real advantage of the DSLR is not really there any more. When you reach the point where DSLRs have no advantages, why would anyone in their right mind buy one?

I think that 5 years from now, no new DSLRs will be coming to the market at all. Everything will be MILCs.