Sony A7R V: Taking Bets

The newest high-resolution Sony is here. It's the A7R Mark V, and is STBI™ ("said to be improved"). I'm sure it's a very good camera for $3,898. The last one was, and that one got a price increase too. The cynical might wonder—do they jack up the price to cover the improvements, or do they contrive the improvements to justify jacking up the price? Maybe a little of each.

V is the roman numeral for five, of course, and I find myself wondering how high the iteration number will eventually go. Things like this usually settle into patterns, sooner or later. The average automotive model cycle, for instance, lasts four to six years, with a "mid-cycle refresh"—meaning, they change a few things that are obvious to the eye, to expose earlier ones as out of style; fix any glaring problems from the original if they haven't already; and add a little dosh to the pricetag.

With cameras, repetitive iteration seems to be the norm. It happened before the "mark [x]" trend, too. I remember reading long ago that when a camera company hits on a model that's particularly successful, that model tends to sprout variants and updates. The camera being talked about at that time was the Canon EOS 620 (1987), so that goes back a ways. I owned one of its variants, the EOS RT.

I'm simply not enough of a gearhead to know this off the top of my head, but my intuitive impression is that most successful camera "lineages" tend to last for five to seven iterations. At least, a few of the ones I remember do. For example, the Nikon F lasted for six...there was never an F7. How about the Sony F-505? I can't track them one by one, but DPReview called the F-717 the "fourth generation" and later noted that the F-828, the last of the line, was "clearly" descended from the F-717. Then it went kaput. So, five. How about the Olympus OM-1 film cameras? I count the OM-1, OM-1N, OM-2, OM-2N, OM-3 (the mechanical model that worked without a battery, once highly prized and very highly priced on the used market, but now affordable again), and finally the OM-4 and OM-2S. That's seven, although it includes the "N" updates—questionable—and leaves out a few variants that had top and bottom plates made of titanium.

How many iterations were there of the original Canon 10D? I'm not sure. How about the Olympus XA pocket point-and-shoot, which evolved into the Stylus? Can anyone help us out here and count out the lineage of any particular model lineages that they're personally familiar with? I tended to pay attention only to the makes-'n'-models I was personally interested in or owned.

Leica headache
Count on the Germans to throw a wrench into the generalization. Try counting the lineage of, say, the Porsche 911. It's like the old Philosophy 101 problem of the Ship of Theseus—the newest one has almost nothing in common with the first one except the name and, very vaguely, the shape. The Leica M lineage might have a few more than seven, but it depends on how you count. I wouldn't count the one-off models, and I wouldn't count the M5, because it wasn't really the same camera as the rest of them. And how would you count the new M6 and old M6? One model or two? Here's how I'd count them, in order: M3, M2, M4, M6 early and late, M7, MP/M-A. So, six. But that might be too convenient, counted in such a way that it fits into my predetermined scheme. If you count all the variants and include the M5 and M1, then the M is an outlier. Either way I certainly would not group the digital M models with the film lineup—those are stylistically replicants, but fundamentally different. That lineage started with the M8 and extends, so far, to the M11.

How about the Olympus C-2000Z lineage? How many cameras were included in that before it fizzled? Or the Nikon Coolpix 900/950 lineage with the famous swivel body? My brother had one of those, and that was really a fun camera to use.

Is there any digital camera that has reached Mark VIII—eight? The indefatigable Sony RX100 has reached Mark VII status, despite the blitz of the iPhone/Android locust swarm. The celebrated Fuji X100 is up to Mark V and still going strong. How would you count the Ricoh GR models, film and then digital?

So then, how many iterations do you guess will the venerable A7R eventually rack up, before Sony finally overhauls its position in the lineup and makes an all-new model? It can't go on forever.

I have no crystal ball. But then, I've never been a betting man.

Mike

Featured Comments:

Kenneth Tanaka: "The apparent invisible boundary on model sequences is based solely on marketing psychology rather than technological incrementalization. (Sony’s A7R V offers the same resolution with a new processor and AI-based AF enhancements.) But, yes, I’d bet that an 'A8' or similar marketing reboot will come next, if the line continues."

Joseph T: "Olympus E-PL1 through 10, skipping 4."

SteveW: "iPhone 14."

Robert Roaldi: "There was no Canon G8, I don't believe, and they skipped G13 and G14 to go straight to G15 and then G16. (The G7 did not support RAW, an anomaly.) So, not counting the G7 because of the RAW omission, there were 12 iterations."

Dan Montgomery: "The 'Grand Tour' guys (formerly the 'Top Gear' guys) report that Subaru has sold 212 versions of the Impreza, grouped into five 'generations.' Impressive—and impressive cars, though I don't think I'd like to actually meet anyone who can talk about all 212 variants."

Søren Engelbrecht: "Time for my old Leica joke, it seems:

Q: 'How do the locals count to ten in the city of Wetzlar?'
A: "3, 2, 1, 4, 5, 4.2, 6, 7, 8, 8.2, 9, 240, 10.'"

Mike replies: Made me laugh anyway!

Michael McCulloch: "Ship of Theseus? I prefer Trigger's Broom:

Mike replies: Love it. Nice skit. That's like Howard Mansfield's book about restoring things, The Same Ax, Twice.

Comments

[Steve Rosenblum]

The Olympus XA had 4 iterations. Here is the list taken from the XA Wikipedia page:
Olympus XA: small rangefinder with aperture priority 35mm f/2.8 lens
Olympus XA1: simple mechanical camera with a selenium meter
Olympus XA2: scale focus camera, automatic shutter 35mm f/3.5 lens
Olympus XA3: Same as XA2 with "DX" automatic film speed recognition
Olympus XA4: distance focus camera, 28mm wide macro lens
I own the XA and the XA4, both great cameras. Maitani was a genius!

[Here we have another of those gray areas. Because I'd consider the restyled "Olympus Stylus Epic" to be a further iteration of the XA line and a continuation of the XA4. Same lens, same functions, same purpose. Or does the new look + new name just put it too far away from the old XA series for people to be comfortable linking them together?

Also, were the XA and XA1 different, or are those different ways of referring to the same camera? Because if they're different, then you've listed five models not including the Stylus Epic. --Mike]

[aaron c greenman]

And Mike you also forget to mention the even worse, confusing disaster that was Leica model numbering during the digital M era (in between the Leica M9 and M10 and all their variants):

- M-240 (standard)
- M-240 (M-P)

ACG

[James]

How about the Canon G series pocket camera?
I have a G12 somewhere.
Was there really 12 versions?

[Daniel]

With film the 4x5 Linhof Technika has at least Nine different models from 1946 to now.

[Tom Duffy]

Well, the last Super Bowl number was LVI. Sony has a way to go. :)
For cameras, the complicating factor is firmware upgrades. It's now normative for a given camera to be much improved at the end of its life than when it's first introduced. A Canon R5 should only have to become a Mark II when the hardware is improved.

[robert e]

I would think the popular large and medium format field and studio cameras would be even more long-lived/confusing through iterations. And in most cases one can say that both film and digital versions are fundamentally the same camera (for that matter, the different film sizes as well).

[Anton Wilhelm Stolzing]

Well, this new Sony looks good on paper, doesn't it? A huge viewfinder, a multidirectional screen ...
I won't buy it at the moment, though. I am still angry that Sony abandoned the A mount.

[Jack Mac]

I have a camera called the iPhone 14.

[John Krumm]

Yes, the Canon G might be the winner. I remember being very happy when the PTA bought a G3 for the school newspaper that I taught and advised. Worked like a charm too.

[Michael L Shwarts]

The Sony RX100 might have 7.5 iterations if you count the VA as a partial upgrade of the V.

[Bob G.]

If a camera might be defined by it’s sensor, how about all those based on one of Sony’s versions?

[Herman Krieger]

I wonder how many iterations the Kodak Brownie went thru.

[Dogman]

Sure it's a great camera (like every other camera today). $3900 worth of great. I see it's 61mp and shoots a range of video formats I don't even know what they are. Impressive. But....

I just finished downloading to Lightroom the shots I did yesterday. Nikon D700 using an old 35/2.8 Nikkor-S manual focus lens. The finished photo is B&W and looks beautiful.

Yesterday, I was using a Nikon D200 that I bought at KEH for $73. Same lens. B&W. Love the grain (noise) from the CCD sensor.

While the whole world is either going to mo-betta digital or flocking to expensive film, I'm going to retro digital with cheap old cameras and lenses.

Nobody ever said photography is a cheap hobby. But thank God for chocolate, vanilla and strawberry. Everyone can have their favorite flavor.

[Stephen S.]

For the Olympus C-2000 series, I count the C-5050 as the last, as it was the final one to use AA batteries, though some would include the Lithium-Ion powered C-5060 and C-7070.
The C-5000, C-5500, And C-7000 are even further outliers. With the C-7000 being named the C-70 in Europe, Europeans would probably consider its ancestors the C-60 and C-50, but only Canada and the US got a C-40, whereas that was named D-40 in Europe, so how does that work?
Where was I? Oh yes... C-2000 to C-5050 was ten.

[Doug Anderson]

The Barnack Leicas went through Model A, Model B (Compur shutter), Model C (or I), Model D (or II), Model E (AKA Standard), Model F (or III), Model G (or IIIa), Model G-1938 (or IIIb), Ic, IIc, IIIc, If, IIf, IIIf, Ig and IIIg. I think that works out to 16 varieties.

[Arg]

Mike, you may or may not have noticed that inflation is rampant at the moment globally, production and supply costs have gone up a lot, so I seriously doubt that the price increase represents a higher profit margin.

[Rob Campbell]

Aaron’s “La Grande Bellezza” rings many bells. Nice site, folks, go visit. The city, too.

[kevin willoughby]

35mm Exakta SLRs: I, II, Varex/VX, VX-IIa, VX-IIb, VX-1000, VX-500.

That's seven, over a 40+ year lifespan.

[ronin]

Yet the yen this year has slipped more than 20% under the dollar.

That would imply the higher price of version V includes not just the nominal dollar difference, but an even higher margin to Japan than the nominal dollar difference shows.

[Stephen Scharf]

Just some "background" and "context" regarding the release of the new Sony (or any new "product" for that matter).

Regarding Mike's question: "The cynical might wonder—do they jack up the price to cover the improvements, or do they contrive the improvements to justify jacking up the price? Maybe a little of each.

The (sales) price is primarily driven by the 1) cost of the R&D, 2) the cost of the process development (which is NOT the same as the cost of the R&D), and 3) the cost of the manufacturing, including the costs of new manufacturing processes, tooling, components, sub-assemblies, as well as developing, and validating, the manufacturing, the QC, and the QA (not the same as QC) protocols and procedures.

There is also the cost of the new product development process as a whole, which includes paying the R&D staff to move the product through the various stages (assuming Sony uses a standard "stage-gate" product development process).

The normal stages for this are: DTI (Decision to Investigate), DTC (Design to Commercialize, which can include the R&D phase), SDC (Start Development Checkpoint), SMC (Start Manufacturing Checkpoint) and finally, PRC (Product Release Checkpoint), which includes the development of all the sales, marketing and product release and support materials and documentation.

In addition to this, the manufacturing group needs to be sure that, once the product is released, the product manufacturing can be kept in statistical control with respect to Manufacturing, and that the overall "pricess capability" (i.e., Cp/Cpk) is high enough to ensure a profit and lose money due to COPQ (Cost of Poor Quality).

Given that, it's not as simple as "cover the improvements, or contriving the improvements to justify jacking up the price?"

You just don't "flip a switch" and start crankin' out new SKUs that are as complex of a TOTL 100 megapixel digital camera. It's a whole lot more complex than that.

This process, depending on the product and/or it's iteration, typically can take between 3-5 years, on average.

All the factors I've covered above, plus additional factors I've not mentioned, are what drive the final MSRP so as to ensure that once launched, the product can provide a reasonable profit for the company.

Just a dose of reality for folks who may not familiar with just how much hard work this really is.

Cheers.