Sony admits A-Mount was a failure, almost joined M-4/3 alliance

[Brownie]

Interesting take on what they thought about mirrorless and size back then.

VERY interesting Sony manager interview: A-mount was a failure, they were close to join MFT, E-mount original idea was to make super compact cameras​

Some highlights:

Nikkei Business has published an interview with Mr. Shigeki Ishizuka, Vice Chairman of the Sony Group, looking back on the company’s digital camera trajectory. And we finally got some real insider news about Sony’s past digital camera business decisions!

Here are a couple of highlights from Digicameinfo (Google translated):

1. The first model that came out after business integration with Konica Minolta was the “α100“. After that, “α700“, “α200” and “α350” were released. Only the first model, the α100, sold a little, but the rest were not very good in terms of sales.
2. Around 2007, the Micro Four Thirds camp asked me if I wanted to join the family.
3. One option was: “Let’s go Micro Four Thirds”. Option two was: “Let’s shift to mirrorless while maintaining the assets and brand of α, and do a miniaturized version.”
4. And no, I didn’t think at that moment that mirrorless would go Full Frame.

The rest is here:

VERY interesting Sony manager interview: A-mount was a failure, they were close to join MFT, E-mount original idea was to make super compact cameras – sonyalpharumors

www.sonyalpharumors.com

 

[Brownie]

So, let's play a game. If Sony had gone M-4/3 instead of E-Mount, what would you be shooting today?

Assuming I would've still divested myself of M-4/3, I'm going to say either Canon (eww!) or Panasonic L Mount.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

It might not have changed my path at all. I'm a cheap b*stard for the most part, so I'd have avoided full-frame prices anyway
In this alternate reality, I would probably have been cross shopping a MFT alpha with the Olympus system (that is, before Olympus fell from grace). It would probably have meant choosing between an alpha the size of the a5100, or an a6000-sized camera with mft sensor and IBIS.

 

[Brownie]

It might not have changed my path at all. I'm a cheap b*stard for the most part, so I'd have avoided full-frame prices anyway
In this alternate reality, I would probably have been cross shopping a MFT alpha with the Olympus system (that is, before Olympus fell from grace). It would probably have meant choosing between an alpha the size of the a5100, or an a6000-sized camera with mft sensor and IBIS.

The thing is, if they'd have gone M-4/3 you'd have the entire Olympus/Panasonic/Sony lens lineup to choose from, not to mention the huge number of third party. The biggest issue for me would be that Sony would've probably never developed the LA series and my A-Mounts would likely be usable only on a manual adapter. Given that, I'd have been more inclined to pick another brand.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

The thing is, if they'd have gone M-4/3 you'd have the entire Olympus/Panasonic/Sony lens lineup to choose from, not to mention the huge number of third party. The biggest issue for me would be that Sony would've probably never developed the LA series and my A-Mounts would likely be usable only on a manual adapter. Given that, I'd have been more inclined to pick another brand.

I'm pretty sure they would have gone with a proprietary lens mount back then, even if sharing the MFT sensor. Sony has come a long way from their days of forcing customers to rely on proprietary tech, remember the Sony memory stick that looked like a piece of chewing gum?

 

[BryLogan]

I was in the middle of a fairly important shoot in 2006 when my Minolta 7D failed. I hied off to the retailer for some kind of a compatible replacement body and came back with the A100 to finish the shoot. All through the completion of that job I thought “Man, what a terrible camera”. I only used it one time after that. (I learned a lesson from that: When shooting all-manual, all-mechanical film cameras, I always had back-up bodies. Somehow, I let the entirely goofy idea creep into my head that I wouldn’t have to rely on that caution with digital cameras. )

So, in the time frame of the decision Mr. Ishizuka speaks of, I was dabbling with MFT (Olympus) and probably would have added some Sony gear to the mix.

But, for what I considered “serious” work, more than likely I would have gone with digital medium format. Thank god I didn’t have to make that huge mistake.

 

[Brownie]

I'm pretty sure they would have gone with a proprietary lens mount back then, even if sharing the MFT sensor. Sony has come a long way from their days of forcing customers to rely on proprietary tech, remember the Sony memory stick that looked like a piece of chewing gum?

Nope, they couldn't have. The entire point of the M-4/3 alliance was to share the mount, even if not all the features. If you buy in to the system then you use the same mount.

Sigma was also an early adopter, as was Kodak. There was talk about Sigma developing a M-4/3 camera with the Foveon sensor, not sure if they ever did. Black Magic is another, along with DJI. All use the same mount.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Nope, they couldn't have. The entire point of the M-4/3 alliance was to share the mount, even if not all the features. If you buy in to the system then you use the same mount.

Then perhaps that was part of the equation for them to decline, so they could go with proprietary E-mount. Well, proprietary at the time, but thank god they allowed 3rd party lenses on the E-mount.

 

[Gaz]

I’d have upgraded my Pentax K7 to the latest Pentax body and keep my old glass.

 

[Landshark99]

Since I had already dumped my M $?3 gear, I would have probably stayed with my Fuji system until either Canon or Nikon had gotten their mirrorless systems fleshed out

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I'd have gone Nikon D850 and the 500PF and would be upgrading to the first decent mirrorless they made at a sensible price, which means I'd still be shooting the D850...