Not just their sensors but also their lenses. Their Zeiss collaborations are some of the best lenses around and their new G-Master lenses are fantastic.
Agree that their ergonomics and UI are pretty bad though.
I'm sure their lenses are just great (I was plenty happy when I was an Alpha DSLR user). I have no illusions about being a pro or serious amateur, so having the best optics isn't even remotely enough to sway me over to Sony, especially if I don't like the handling or UI of the body itself.
The DxOMark rankings are distinctly unflattering for Canon and Nikon. The Canon and Nikon zooms measure up fairly well, but Zeiss primes are utterly dominant. Sigma are highly competitive at much lower cost.
That's not good news for prestige brands that have long been "industry standard".
>> That's not good news for prestige brands that have long been "industry standard".
Well, that's possibly exaggerating the situation. The only people it truly matters to are people are specs people and pixel peepers. There may be a significant number of them, but most people will stick with the established brands, including pros. Canon and Nikon have well established support infrastructures for their working pros. Sony... not so much.
I loved the Alpha DSLR line, the mirrorless line, not so much. The cameras are technically fantastic and excel statistically, but they seemed to be designed by people who don't spend a lot of time taking photos.
>Canon and Nikon have well established support infrastructures for their working pros. Sony... not so much.
That infrastructure is, to a great extent, a marketing expense. It's not very profitable to sell cameras to professionals, but you make your money back from the trickle-down to amateurs. The R&D expense of designing flagship cameras and lenses for a tiny group of professionals is amortized over a vastly greater number of amateurs. If a rift opens up between those user groups, Canon and Nikon's camera businesses are in real trouble.
>> Canon and Nikon's camera businesses are in real trouble.
So are everyone else's including Sony's.
Their biggest threat is Apple. Who needs a fast, large aperture lens when you've got Portrait mode? The dual lens on the iPhone obviates the need for many people to step up to a camera with a zoom. If Apple can find a way to fake it through low light photography with software tricks, everyone's in deep trouble.
Let's not forget that the best camera is the one you have with you, not the one with the best technology or optics.
Sony have a sensor business; their own branded cameras are a useful spin-off. They're essentially agnostic as to the future of photography, because they hold such a dominant position in the sensor market.
iPhones use Sony sensors, as do the majority of high-end Android handsets. Nikon use Sony sensors across most of their camera range, as do Pentax and Fujifilm. GoPro have used Sony sensors from the outset, as do most of their competitors. Sony sensors dominate the scientific, industrial and security markets.
If you need a CMOS imaging sensor, you have two choices - Sony Exmor, or something worse.
We were talking about cameras, not sensors. Those are two separate but related businesses. Talking about Sony's sensor business dominance is not a counterpoint to the decline of the still camera industry in general.
Everyone uses Sony sensors for their still cameras to some degree, including Canon (sensors smaller than APS). If all still camera companies decline it hurts Sony big time. Sensors one of their few genuinely successful and profitable businesses that pump up their quarterly corprate numbers.
I'm pretty sure that Sony doesn't want to be left making only smartphone camera sensors in large volumes.
Agree that their ergonomics and UI are pretty bad though.