Sony lags behind Canon and Fuji in APS-C

I'm not ready to replace my A6100 and I have one at work too, but Sony should do better with new APS-C models, including entry level, not just flagship camera.
fstoppers.com/reviews/who-makes-best-aps-c-camera-canon-or-fujifilm-629595

I get your point but tbf the canon and the fuji were both released late last year, whereas it's almost 4 years since Sony's latest release.
Time will tell what we'll get on future Sony bodies but unless canon or Fuji offers a feature one can't live without here and now, I wouldn't be too worried.

Agreed, I just hope for more good stuff from Sony for APS-C. To by honest, I perceived and Sony is an electronics making company, so if you saw the other post that a digital camera should be more than just a camera, to ballance a little bit the difference from the computing power of the phones it would be great, to make it easier for beginners and to be able to post online, even if through the phone, with better connectivity.

Sony makes more profit on their FF. They are perfectly fine selling sensors to Fuji for their APS-C cameras. In a way they win both ways.

Don't think a new APS-C is high on their list of priorities. Making a killer APS-C would eat into their higher profit margin FF. Might sour Fuji enough to kill their thunder. They want to keep them as a customer.

No doubt that the OS on the Sony cams need a total upgrade. I've often wondered why they don't just do an Android based OS, surely it's possible to make something more simple than what we currently get.
I've used Sony mirrorless for over 12 years and know where to find the most common options but when I need something more unusual, I still get lost in their menu.

I don't buy it about eating into their higher profit FF. Who wants a crop sensor will not buy FF, and if Sony's crop offering is weak, people will buy from the other manufacturers.
Sony should watch out for brand loyalty. If Sony doesn't attract enough buyers on APS-C, more affordable for young people, with lower income, less savings, starting a family and want better pictures than from a phone, Sony won't have enough buyers on FF later.
And it's not just about profit, also it's how well is the brand known in general for making good cameras, not only for FF. As Canon and Fuji can ballance the features and prices between FF and APS-C, Sony should be able too.

I started with Nex-5 in 2010, pleasantly surprised by the larger sensor in a small body. I still want that, including smaller lenses. I got 5N, couple 5Ts and for now an A6100 and A5100. I keep the 6100 for autofocus, my menu, 4k, but A5100 for size, easy pocketable in an outdoor coat, or hanging on my neck under the ski coat with 16-50. 70-350 lens is as large as I would go. I have it and used it when needed.
About OS, just make the camera to take better pictures with minimum user input, then be able to share it right away. I have another post that digital camera should be more than just a camera, as it should have some AI. I inserted a link and who wrote that came up with some ideas of what the cameras could do to help newbies, or just for easier experience.

We've pretty much taken the same journey for the same reasons. I jumped from Canon when Sony launched the 5r with the improved focus system. Big sensor in a tiny body. Then went to A6000 and now a6500 with A6000 and a5100 as backup.
My biggest lens is the 55-210 and it only comes out for specific situations. 90% of the time, I just leave the 1670 on the camera.
I agree that there's room for better AI and user experience. Specifically in auto mode, the output should be much better than today. By laws of physics, the output from a FF or apsc cam should be much better than the same of a smartphone. Where phone producers have been good at exploding the software options, camera producers have relied on their hardware and have not simultaneously taken full advantage of the software progress. Hopefully this will improve going forward.

Why am I having trouble getting excited about this? He zooms into her nose and looks for noise. I'm not so sure this is much better than what I have, if any. I can already count nose hairs. ;-) What do you want already?

Sure, I'll take more megapixels if I can get them, but past a point, the lenses seem more of a factor to me. I'm hitting diminishing returns.

Meanwhile, those cameras look a bit large to me. But sure, if you want top of the line APS-C, I'm sure those are great choices.

But here's my real problem with "high-end APS-C": The Fuji camera costs $1700.

A Sony A7C is $1,800.

The rumored A7C II is likely to be real competition for Fuji. It's going to be hard to deny the FF advantage, and if you want "high-end", aren't you going to want to migrate to FF anyway?

This is a real balancing act. Personally, I don't think an APS-C camera makes sense over, say, around $1,500. An A7C with more pixels is going to eat further into "high-end" APS-C, and if Sony could make it cheaper (not sure if that's possible, but let's say), who'd want an A7000 if you can get an A7C II for the same price? Doesn't it make sense to kick in an extra $100 or $200 and just get FF? Of course, not for me, as I'd have to buy a new set of lenses, but then I haven't exactly been on the fast-track to "high end". Although, I have thought of the A6500 as being Sony's high-end APS-C for a while (now the A6600). OK, it doesn't have 40mp and is losing in the MP wars, but it's not so far behind overall. We're hitting some diminishing returns here.

I've heard that before, many times, specifically in regards to Nikon and the D500 (since they skipped the D400, and the debate had been going on since the D300s was "replaced" by the D7000). Long story short, there is no profit to be made from a camera that is never made. Nikon had leakage specifically to Fuji, and the APS-C/DX format sector is still contestable. BTW, my D500 is my favorite camera, much more of a pleasure for me to use than my D800.

I'm sure Canon and Nikon thought that making high-performance mirrorless cameras would eat into their DSLR sales, so they made half-hearted efforts while Sony moved into their territory with APS-C and FF mirrorless as their main focus. I'm not sure their protectionism worked out too well for them. They may have temporarily protected their DSLR sales, but they also allowed a distant competitor to nearly overtake them.

There's no denying that Sony latest APS-C sensors seem to always end up in competitors cameras. Traditionally Sony APS-C cameras have lagged behind some of the competition. Fuji right now other than auto focus blows all the Sony choices out of the water and even if and when Sony introduces a new APS-C camera for photographers it will always lag behind the competition. Kind of makes me think they're more interested in selling sensor to their competitors and don't want to steal market share from them. I suspect when the new photographers APS-C camera hits it will again just be good enough

Four years isn't that bad. I used to go 10 years or more before I thought about upgrading.

Why choose Sony APS-C?

I chose the a6000 in the first year of its release (when the jury was still out on mirrorless cameras) because I wanted reliable autofocus/focus tracking. At the time, small and light was also a priority and Sony APS-C continued to deliver small and light enough. As years passed, it became clear that Sony APS-C would not be getting Sony's best efforts (incentive for FF?).

My ideal camera would have reliable autofocus/focus tracking, great IBIS, wonderful external exposure controls and excellent image quality for stills and video. When I decided on Sony APS-C, my unspoken expectation was that it would be my single ILC system. It wasn't long before I realized that while these ideal features were attainable, they were not all found within Sony APS-C system. During my film days, I never would have considered multiple camera systems. Why would I duplicate lens purchases? However, I ended up expanding to other ILC systems in pursuit of key attributes that I valued and in the process dividing photo and video functions.

Sony continued to provide great autofocus and focus tracking for my video use (currently the ZV-E10). I moved to Olympus for great in body image stabilization and a wider array of lens choices including smaller and lighter lenses. The retro look of the Olympus camera bodies and switchable dual control wheels provided superior external exposure control. Olympus became my choice for photography.

Further advances and improvements moved multiple camera models closer to my ideal (e.g., my Olympus E-M1 Mk2 is very close to my ideal). Eventually, I added a FujiFilm X-T3 with its ideal assortment of external control dials reminiscent of my SLR film days.

Obviously, I didn't wait for a single system camera to fulfill my ideal. Collectively, I do get to enjoy my ideal assortment of camera attributes.

Jim

I had Canon M200, then moved to Nikon Z fc, switched it to Fuji XT30-2, returned it in 2 days and got myself a Sony A6400 camera. And I'm totally happy now with image quality (I shoot RAW, but SOOC jpeg's in Portrait looks good enough too for me) and have the great AF system, that let's me get the shoot without any problems.

It have some downsides, but I have a lot of experience with bunch of cameras at my work (I've shoot mostly with Canon RF-system FF gear, some Sony FF and some other cameras, not too much), and considering the value of a6400 and it's features it's a totally win-win situations for me as a photographer. I got myself Sigma 18-50 f2.8 lens, and now I have a light kit with some dust/moisture resistance, great looks, pocketable (It fits in any of my everyday bags, I don't worry too much about scratches), with great AF and great IQ for my daily use (shooting family, friends, some street and some destroyed armored vehicles, sadly, since I'm in Ukraine).

So for me personally Sony don't "lag behind". It's a great option for the money, it have all the features I need for everyday casual use, and a incredible amount of lenses for any price point.

It may not fit your needs, but everyone looking something for themselves.!

I'm OK with the cameras I have now, but if there is a significant improvement on a new release I would consider to get a new one. I just feel a little disappointed that Sony doesn't keep up with Cannon and Nikon on APS-C offering. I just got this message on Play Memories on the computer, as this is the program I use for transferring pictures to the computer. I use it mostly for video trimming, or resizing.

I think every company has a decent lineup in APSC. Maybe Sony is getting a bit old with the lineup, but quite frankly, excellent results can be had with any modern camera.

For digital cameras, I used to go 3 years before upgrading. Things advanced so quickly! And then I stuck with my Nex-6 for at least 6 years before getting an A6500, which I guess I've been using for maybe 3 years and still going. These days, more than ever, I think we can keep using our old cameras. Fast focus, 24mp, what do you want?

More, kidding. Image quality is good enough, picture file size is already big at around 15 MB and I think that I don't need more pixels, autofocus very good on A6100, plus I use my menu, for easier access to settings. But, I would like to see updates for what bothers me, shutter lag in video, unreliable connection to the phone to upload pictures to social media right away. On an event, people look at pictures as the event happens, in real time, later the interest is lost, by the time I get home, download pictures.

Well, Sony really lags behind in some aspects. I also hate the antiquated menu, the rudimentary touch screen function and the useless smartphone connection. But I still argue that Sony has the best aps-c-system out there. IQ is still great with the 24MP sensor, AF is superior to Fuji and best of all- the lens selection. If you only look at fast standard zooms, we have the 16-55G, which is probably the best aps-c-zoom ever made, the Tamron 17-70, the Sigma 18-50. We have an almost complete selection of fast primes and an affordable high-quality telezoom (70-350G). I would never exchange my A6400 for a competitor. Canon's RF and Nikon's Z dedicated aps-c selection is a joke. Fuji has a wide range of lenses but they cannot beat my 16-55 and 70-350.

Still, I would love to see an upgrade, especially to address the issues I mentioned at the beginning. If they choose not to introduce a new aps-c- camera, I will just keep my A6400.

When there are Youtube videos, online reviews, or forum posts on "the best", they are typically clickbait. There is no best.

On measurable features. Today's electronics are very competitive. They might have small some pros and cons. So it depends on which feature is important to end user. User A might like one model because it has better lens selection; user B might like another model for its video capabilities; etc.

Then there are other aspects that are not measureable and just depends on personal preference. Example is white balance and skin tone. Some prefer warmer skin tone, while others prefer cooler.

Yeah, there are some things where Sony lags -- as Piticoto mentioned, the jello-effect/shutter in video is a problem. But most of the things people complain about are preferences, not really the core of it. Front wheel? Exaggerated color by default? I agree with Doom -- it's hard to argue with the performance of the system, from lenses to AF, and especially, the sensors, which have a lot of dynamic range and give plenty of detail. I had some larger prints made, and it's just nuts. It's more quality than I need, really. And with software AI noise reduction these days, I don't care too much about using high ISO. Now we're left to argue about bokeh, I suppose, or corner sharpness.

I like the aesthetics of Fuji, but given the higher cost, I am not interested. (It starts to get into the price range of the FF Sony cameras, and then we can compare and see who lags...) But I can see where someone would have a preference just on the interface and look-and-feel.

I never understood Sony's total lack of logic regarding this .. the NEX5R & T have full touchscreen functionality, yes you can even use it in the menus like a Panasonic or Canon and these things are ancient . never got why the NEX7 didn`t have a touchscreen let alone whole generations of A6000s, A7s and RX and when they add it, they cripple it ..

Full touch screen function kept me with 5T for long time as A6X00 didn't have it. Eventually I got an A6100 for work less than a month after its release. I bet on autofocus for consistency from two users. The autofocus accuracy, 24 MP vs 16 MP, plus 4k without 30 mins time limit, all convinced me to get an A6100 for me, then I got an A5100 for 24 MP and small size. I miss the touch screen. I understand that the 3 inch LCD screen may be too small for some finger tips, but the option should be available, more so with almost every digital camera photographer has a smart phone, with touch screen.