Aglet said:
considering Sony has only been producing (higher end) cameras for a few years vs decades of history, competition and promotion by the likes of Nikon and Canon that's a very weak argument from a marketing side. The incumbents are hard to dethrone even when they're potentially inferior.
In any other forms of technology, and the main ones that come to mind are cars and computers, a superior technology very quickly takes the top spot in new purchases, and by superior I mean one that offers real world advantages and not personal preference. And yet not a single Sony mirrorless product outsells its DSLR counterpart. Not a single one since Sony overtook sensor technology 7+ years ago. I know what you mean by dethroning incumbents, but this period is an age in technology.
What are the possible reasons -
People have already bought into the Canon environment and it is too expensive to change. I am not convinced. Canon have been behind on sensor technology for years and people complain repeatedly about how Canon do not innovate and never will, how they will always be behind yet still they don't switch. Surely if owning Canon is causing so much grief then it is worthwhile to take the short term financial hit on selling up and buying a system you will enjoy than year after year use a system you feel is inadequate from a manufacturer who is taking you for a ride. Maybe the differences are not so great as to make it worthwhile.
Another possible is the Canon environment. They have lenses that other manufacturers do not have. They have a range of products that few others have. Taking a picture involves than just the sensor
Then there is the intangibles: they have a quality and reputation of service others do not have. The have a reliability, a kudos (which is just as valid as any other reason) or a line of progression that others do not have.
Owning a product about such as a camera is more than just about the sensor. Spending your money on a system is about cost/value and given the number of potential points in a photographers evolution where it is cost effective to switch, many do not seem to be doing so. Nor do people seem to be buying into Sony at the lower end, the one where people really start their life with a brand.
So the only conclusion I can draw (and it is the only one I have ever really made) is that is that sensor performance is not
as important as some people think it is. The fact that some people like it, the fact that some people need it, is irrelevant to a marketing man - what they are bothered about is whether adding or leaving out a functionality will have a measurable effect on sales, and it seems sensor performance does not.
Will it come? Yes. Is it urgent? No.
And I think you touched on one point when you said "considering Sony has only been producing (higher end) cameras for a few years " maybe they need to make some lower models to get people into the environment rather than rely on experienced photographers switching. Stupid Sony.
