Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: What next for Canon?  (Read 222062 times)

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #20 on: August 26, 2017, 10:27:12 PM »

Not really, consumer camera are selling less and less... the market is the advance amateur and pro market. Look at all manufacturer, releasing more and more camera close to 2000$ or higher than that... in all the interviews of different manufacturers are saying that they sell less cameras but more in the pro sector so they can still get more money that when they were selling lots of consumer cameras. The decline in selling cameras (interchangeable lens ones) since 2012 it is mainly in consumer cameras.


http://dgpfotografia.com

Sure I agree...but my view of consumer camera is the 6d line along with the 5d line. The 1dx line is fully professional. In today's depressed camera market...I'd bet the rebels still outsell all other cameras by 10x.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2120
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2017, 11:37:37 PM »

One thing to consider Shadow is I spose that rumours around the D850 were VERY thin on the ground before the lead up to the release. We had assumptions that it would use the D5 AF system but the combination of very high resolution AND high FPS is not something I recall ever being mentioned, at most some people were expecting it to stay at 36 MP and maybe up FPS to 6-7. That could mean that Canon themselves did not know what Nikon was going to come out with which could delay any response.

I'v seen a lot of talk saying the D850 isn't really a revolutionary camera because its combining a lot of existing tech with a decent(but not massive) resolution bump. Whilst you could counter that specifically with the speed/resolution combination to me whats perhaps even more significantly is that it seems to represent a shift in mentality for bodies at this level. Previously there was I'd say always somewhat of the feeling you were dealing with releases that were intentionally limited to either avoid cannibalising sales of flagship bodies or were holding back leaving room for a future update. This camera on the other hand seems like more of a case of Nikon throwing everything it has into the body besides perhaps build(relative to the D5) so again perhaps something likely to catch rivals on the hop?

The language coming out of Nikon after the DL debacle did seem to point at significant changes in there corporate mentality. The 1 series mirrorless bodies for example were for many THE classic case of a product sabotaged by trying to avoid cannibalisation of its existing business.

It's a revolutionary design. The individual parts are not (AF system from the D5, sensor which likely isn't too different from other sensors Sony has put out recently, etc.), but when combined, bring capabilities that have never previously existed in a commercially-available camera. No other camera combines the AF of a top-tier camera with a full-frame sensor that has as high a pixel density as a contemporary crop sensor (i.e. leaving no reach advantage to the crop body, while giving the new camera much more cropping flexibility), while being capable of shooting in the 8-10fps range required of a sports or wildlife camera. Prior to this, the closest we had was the 5D4, but that doesn't have quite the frame rate of an action camera, nor the resolution needed to completely negate the reach advantage of a crop sensor.

I think what may be emerging is a realisation that the pro market isn't a monolithic block of sports photographers who just want speed, speed and more speed. There are also those who need resolution, resolution and more resolution (and some DR) - commercial/studio/advertising photographers (some of whom previously shot digital MF), real estate photographers, those shooting backdrops and textures for TV, cinema, VR and other SFX, etc. Then there are those who need a balance - field sports, wildlife documentary and others (typically operating at longer focal lengths) who need sufficient resolution as wel as sufficient speed, as well as photojournalists and other general/all-subject photographers who need a do-everything body (or a pair of them) rather than something that specialises too much at one end, at the expense of the other. And, increasingly, they may be realising that, just because these groups don't require the frame rates of the speed-focused photographers doesn't mean that they don't need the same AF, build and other features of the top bodies. Just as importantly, the technology, especially in terms of data handling speed, now allows it - if you can make a 24MP/20fps body, as well as a 24MP crop sensor, you can also make a 48MP/10fps full-frame body. And all these capabilities are necessary to reach the next milestone of an 8k video camera (39MP at a minimum 25fps, if keeping the 3:2 aspect ratio), so they do not represent wasted effort catering to photographers alone.

There have always been three basic groups of requirements among those wanting top-tier bodies - speed-focused, balanced speed and resolution, and resolution-focused. Even in the film days, this would have been represented by 35mm cameras with motor drive systems (speed), the same 35mm camera without the motor drive (balanced) and medium-format film. There is also often overlap between the groups - a sports photographer will also often want a balanced second body for longer-distance shots or sports played on larger fields, while a resolution-focused photographer will often also want a balanced second body for occasional action use. So far, the speed-focused group has been very well served, but the other groups have been somewhat neglected since the demise of the D3x and 1Ds3 (both resolution-only) and D700 (balanced) bodies, having to rely on bodies with second-tier AF capabilities in order to meet the resolution and frame rate requirements. This is obviously more of a problem for the balanced group than the resolution-focused group, since the latter are likely to be shooting static subjects anyway. The D850 elevates the balanced group to the top tier again. I would guess that the 5Ds2 would do the same for the resolution-focused group, since it will almost certainly have a higher resolution than the 5Ds (and, by definition, the D850); seeing the D850, Canon still has time to put a 1Dx2-level AF system into it to remain competitive, even if they had been intending to use a 5D4-level system. Getting blindsided by the D850 is one thing (I believe Canon were blindsided by the initial D800, or, at the very least, knew about it but were in no position to compete against it). Getting blindsided and then being stubborn enough to ignore it is a whole new level of stupidity. I would say that Sony's next few releases will also do the same, at least for the A7r2 replacement (using the A9 AF system) in the 'resolution-focused' group, and possibly a 'balanced' body as well - unlike Canon, there's little chance that Sony didn't know what Nikon was up to, since they made their sensor!
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 12:14:45 AM by shadowblade »
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2120
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2017, 11:45:39 PM »

Flagship cameras to show off their muscle so all the wannabe photographers can see the big cameras and lenses and want to be like the pros. You highly doubt Canon or Nikon sell very many high end cameras...the money is at the consumer / advanced amature end.

Consumer cameras are dying. Pro-level cameras (5D/D750 and up, being the weapon of choice for wedding/event pros) may not sell as many units in absolute numbers, but the profit margin in these bodies is greater than that of lesser bodies, both in absolute and percentage terms. Also, pro camera sales come with pro lens sales. A consumer body sells them a few kit lenses and the odd mid-grade lens. A pro body sells them a whole set of top-end lenses - 11-24/4, 14-24/2.8 or 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and usually at least one longer telephoto (zoom or prime) and often some primes too.

One 5D4 or D810 sale probably nets Canon or Nikon as much profit as 20-30 sales of entry-level crop bodies, all things considered.
Logged

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #23 on: August 27, 2017, 01:20:02 AM »

Consumer cameras are dying. Pro-level cameras (5D/D750 and up, being the weapon of choice for wedding/event pros) may not sell as many units in absolute numbers, but the profit margin in these bodies is greater than that of lesser bodies, both in absolute and percentage terms. Also, pro camera sales come with pro lens sales. A consumer body sells them a few kit lenses and the odd mid-grade lens. A pro body sells them a whole set of top-end lenses - 11-24/4, 14-24/2.8 or 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and usually at least one longer telephoto (zoom or prime) and often some primes too.

One 5D4 or D810 sale probably nets Canon or Nikon as much profit as 20-30 sales of entry-level crop bodies, all things considered.

If the pro market is where its at for the camera manufactures...why are they hurting lately and scrambling so much as the phones eat into their consumer market?

Consumer market is magnitudes larger than any pro market. Since they basically lost the consumer market to phones, they have no choice but to concentrate on the higher end market and we'll all pay for this with high cost gear. The consumer market used to pay for all the nice R&D for the high end gear...now it has to stand on it's own. Both you and I will be paying much more in the future for our equipment. Cameras being basically digital devices will not see the huge price drops as other digital devices because the consumer segment has been eroded.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2120
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #24 on: August 27, 2017, 02:05:26 AM »

If the pro market is where its at for the camera manufactures...why are they hurting lately and scrambling so much as the phones eat into their consumer market?

Consumer market is magnitudes larger than any pro market. Since they basically lost the consumer market to phones, they have no choice but to concentrate on the higher end market and we'll all pay for this with high cost gear. The consumer market used to pay for all the nice R&D for the high end gear...now it has to stand on it's own. Both you and I will be paying much more in the future for our equipment. Cameras being basically digital devices will not see the huge price drops as other digital devices because the consumer segment has been eroded.

Because losing a significant chunk of your income still hurts. The consumer market isn't 90% of the interchangeable-lens camera market by profit, but nor is it 10%.

The point-and-shoot market is essentially dead, and this was the high-profitable segment they are scrambling to replace, as point-and-shoots are cheap to manufacture and could be sold in large volumes (one or two orders of magnitude bigger than the entire interchangeable-lens market by units sold) and at a steep markup. Camera manufacturers are having to shift from selling whole cameras to this market to providing camera units to go in phones, drones, driverless cars and other consumer goods for non-photographers. Canon and Sony are well-placed to do this, since they actually design and manufacture sensors themselves. And you can see it in their product development and the technologies they have been pioneering. Where do you think curved-sensor cameras are first going to show up? Odds on it will be a phone - a curved sensor can give improved image quality on the small sensor, while the simplified lens can be both thinner and sharper. On-sensor AF (since all compact/phone cameras are mirrorless), BSI (small pixel pitch), stacked sensors (ditto), five-axis stabilisation (phones are held at arm's length, drones and cars vibrate) and other technologies are similarly applicable - the big cameras are merely the showcase for them, not the primary reason for developing them. Those who don't design and make sensors are going to find it much harder to compete in the new environment, deprived of the point-and-shoot market and with no way of replacing it.
Logged

MoreOrLess

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 236
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #25 on: August 27, 2017, 05:25:36 AM »

To be fair I think a lot of this comes down to semantics, I'm guessing that when Shadow says "pro" he's taking more about a level of product rather than whether those buying are actually professionals, the majority of people buying the D850 will likely be amateurs.

I do think he touches on an important point that a lot of analysis of the camera market seems to highly questionable because it seeks to compare it with consumer electronics like phones were price and profit margins are far more standardised, looking purely at shipment numbers of example. Really though photography has always tended to be a business with strong potential for very high value sales, whats happening now is I think more of a reversion after the blip of early digital.

A big thing to consider as well of course is R&D, whilst doubtless the D850 wasn't cheap to produce it most likely did not have to excessive a cost due to reusing and building on existing tech. I would imagine that Sony for example tends to have a lower profit margin on its FE bodies due to higher R&D costs. What will be interesting to see as well is whether this means Nikon is able to introduce potential new mirrorless products in the near future or whether perhaps its prioritised the D850 more heavily.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 06:39:53 AM by MoreOrLess »
Logged

Rado

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 82
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2017, 08:47:13 AM »

I believe Canon were blindsided by the initial D800, or, at the very least, knew about it but were in no position to compete against it. Getting blindsided and then being stubborn enough to ignore it is a whole new level of stupidity.
I expect Canon to do exactly this - ignore the competition and do their own thing as long as they hit their sales targets. They seem to have a knack for manufacturing cameras that the general public likes well enough to buy them in large(r) quantities (see e.g. Amazon's top 20 best selling DSLRs list). They promote their products too - here I can go to a free promo event at least 4 times a year and play will all the Canon gear I want. Other brands? Nothing.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2120
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #27 on: August 27, 2017, 09:49:47 AM »

To be fair I think a lot of this comes down to semantics, I'm guessing that when Shadow says "pro" he's taking more about a level of product rather than whether those buying are actually professionals, the majority of people buying the D850 will likely be amateurs.

Given that amateurs likely outnumber pros by 100-1, no doubt the majority of D850, and even D5, users will be amateurs. It's the capability that counts.

In fact, the only type of camera that would sell more to pros than amateurs is not the best, fastest, highest-resolution camera, but a technical, highly specialised, possibly scientific camera which is designed for a specific task and has almost no use in actual photography - say, something designed for art reproduction, or a scientific camera shooting 1MP at 3000 frames per second. Anything useful in any way for general photography will sell to more amateurs than pros, just by sheer weight of numbers.

Quote
A big thing to consider as well of course is R&D, whilst doubtless the D850 wasn't cheap to produce it most likely did not have to excessive a cost due to reusing and building on existing tech. I would imagine that Sony for example tends to have a lower profit margin on its FE bodies due to higher R&D costs. What will be interesting to see as well is whether this means Nikon is able to introduce potential new mirrorless products in the near future or whether perhaps its prioritised the D850 more heavily.

On the other hand, as a major sensor supplier, Sony's development costs can be amortised among a much larger range of products than just high-end camera bodies.

BSI, for example, is even more useful to a densely-packed phone camera than it is to a full-frame camera. Developments in on-sensor and AI-based AF are equally applicable to phone/drone/car cameras as they are to standalone units. Same with movable sensor technology (e.g. stabilisation).

Canon's developments can be similarly amortised, since they also make video equipment as well as still cameras, and are starting to become a sensor supplier for non-still-camera applications.

Meanwhile, most of Nikon's development costs can only be recovered from sales of their own cameras.
Logged

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #28 on: August 27, 2017, 11:26:26 AM »

Getting blindsided and then being stubborn enough to ignore it is a whole new level of stupidity.
Nikon marketshare goes down vs Canon's... that shows who is stupid and who is not  ;D ...
Logged

MoreOrLess

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 236
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #29 on: August 27, 2017, 12:57:25 PM »

On the other hand, as a major sensor supplier, Sony's development costs can be amortised among a much larger range of products than just high-end camera bodies.

BSI, for example, is even more useful to a densely-packed phone camera than it is to a full-frame camera. Developments in on-sensor and AI-based AF are equally applicable to phone/drone/car cameras as they are to standalone units. Same with movable sensor technology (e.g. stabilisation).

Canon's developments can be similarly amortised, since they also make video equipment as well as still cameras, and are starting to become a sensor supplier for non-still-camera applications.

Meanwhile, most of Nikon's development costs can only be recovered from sales of their own cameras.

You say "Sony" but really your essentially dealing with two separate companies there in terms of the sensor division and the camera division, I was referring to the latter.

You might well be right that Nikon lacking a videocamera business is naturally less inclined towards mirrorless development although in some respects the one series was pretty forward looking being well ahead of the comp in AF performance at the time.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2120
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #30 on: August 27, 2017, 05:02:43 PM »

You say "Sony" but really your essentially dealing with two separate companies there in terms of the sensor division and the camera division, I was referring to the latter.

You might well be right that Nikon lacking a videocamera business is naturally less inclined towards mirrorless development although in some respects the one series was pretty forward looking being well ahead of the comp in AF performance at the time.

They're one and the same - the leadership is the same at the top level, and the overall strategy is thr same. Splitting into separate companies under one shell was an organisational tool for a large company getting too big and diverse to manage, not a case of jist splitting up and going the same way. Each company works towards the common goal, as directed by overall management - no different to a nation having a navy, air force and army working as separate organisations under a unified command, towards a common goal.

The 1-series is years old and its AF requirements are far less onerous than that of a full-frame camera - being a 2.7x crop, almost everything is in focus anyway. I'm not even sure who designed the sensor - being a mirrorless camera,  the AF system is integral to the sensor itself, and Nikon doesn't make sensors.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2120
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #31 on: August 27, 2017, 05:22:46 PM »

Nikon marketshare goes down vs Canon's... that shows who is stupid and who is not  ;D ...

One point doesn't make a trend. The overall trend for both Canon and Nikon are down (since the camera market is turning from a two-horse race to a three-horse race), with Canon starting from a higher base.

Looking at the longer trend, each time one company releases a disruptive new product, with no answer from the other side, the other loses a chunk of market share. It happened with the 1D2 (CMOS), 5D (cheaper full-frame) and 5D2 (high-resolution and video), accounting for a string of Canon wins early in the digital era and a large part of their current market share. More recently, it happened with the D800 and was reinforced with the D810; the D750 had a smaller effect, likely because it didn't so much bring new capability as it brought a better 5D3 at a lower price point. And it will happen again with the D850. The bottom end is dropping out of the camera business, so the fight for high-end market share is much more important now. Canon and its big, white sports lenses still has an advantage here (a legacy from when Canon held a major technological advantage) but this has been steadily dropping with each generation, likely as old telephotos reach the end of their service lives and users lool to replace them with the current best and newest.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10639
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #32 on: August 27, 2017, 05:29:17 PM »

The 32mm 1.2 is a very sharp lens with shallow enough DoF and it was focused very fast and consistently by 1 series cameras. I know, I owned and used that lens.

The AF of these was years ahead of competitin and there is little doubt that the sensor, manufactured by Aptina, were using Nikon's design.

When Nikon decides to go mirrorless they are likely to maintain their lead in AF technology. The real AP is in the AI based algos that predict subject movement and the D5 demonstrates clearly enough their superiority.

Make no mistake, everything they did not delver on the D850 in terms of lve view AF is already part of a strategy aimed at creating psitve differentiatin for their mirrorless body.

The real concern of Nikon isn't to be able to beat Sony, it is to be able to beat their class leading DSLRs.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
A few images online here!

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2120
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #33 on: August 27, 2017, 06:58:47 PM »

The 32mm 1.2 is a very sharp lens with shallow enough DoF and it was focused very fast and consistently by 1 series cameras. I know, I owned and used that lens.

The AF of these was years ahead of competitin and there is little doubt that the sensor, manufactured by Aptina, were using Nikon's design.

When Nikon decides to go mirrorless they are likely to maintain their lead in AF technology. The real AP is in the AI based algos that predict subject movement and the D5 demonstrates clearly enough their superiority.

Make no mistake, everything they did not delver on the D850 in terms of lve view AF is already part of a strategy aimed at creating psitve differentiatin for their mirrorless body.

The real concern of Nikon isn't to be able to beat Sony, it is to be able to beat their class leading DSLRs.

Cheers,
Bernard

Focusing an f/1.2 lens on full frame is completely different to focusing it on a 2.7x crop. The DOF is so thin there's no margin for error. It's the difference between focusing f/1.4 and f/4 on full-frame.

'Lead'? They haven't released a body or shown any evidence of their mirrorless capabilities in years. None of their current bodies AF particularly well in live view mode. They'll be up against the A9, not an A7 or A7r which was little more than a rapidly-replaced prototype. A system that makes very heavy use of AI-based algorithms for predictive tracking and subject identification, and does it very well. They'll also be up against Canon and its dual-pixel technology, which is proven and works well in multiple existing bodies. Meanwhile, very little of Nikon's developments in SLR AF can be translated to mirrorless cameras, nor can most of their lens lineup (since they lack stepping motors).
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 07:20:19 PM by shadowblade »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10639
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #34 on: August 27, 2017, 07:56:52 PM »

DoF is impacted by focal length, aperture, subject distance and little document lens technological factors that aren't easy to model with simple formulas.

Here is an image shot with a 28mm f1.4 lens at f1.4.



I am sure you would agree that a 32mm f1.2 at f1.2 will have less DoF all other things equal right? Even compensating for the fact that subject distance would typically be longer with a 32mm lens, it seems to me that the amount of DoF isn't large enough to make an accurate AF not needed. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
A few images online here!

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2120
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #35 on: August 27, 2017, 08:37:26 PM »

DoF is impacted by focal length, aperture, subject distance and little document lens technological factors that aren't easy to model with simple formulas.

Here is an image shot with a 28mm f1.4 lens at f1.4.



I am sure you would agree that a 32mm f1.2 at f1.2 will have less DoF all other things equal right? Even compensating for the fact that subject distance would typically be longer with a 32mm lens, it seems to me that the amount of DoF isn't large enough to make an accurate AF not needed. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

No, DOF is impacted only by sensor size, aperture, focal length and subject distance. It's based on simple optical formulae, which are easy to calculate. The relationship is such that, for any given framing at the plane of focus, the depth of field will be the same at the same aperture and sensor size, regardless of the distance and focal length - a composition that subtends a 40x60cm rectangle at the focal plane on a full-frame sensor will have the same DOF at f/2.8, whether you're shooting at 24mm or 400mm. The only difference is the distance. You can calculate it. Resolution has an indirect effect - the full resolution of a high-resolution sensor is realised over a narrower band than a low-resolution sensor - but the depth of field doesn't change.

A f/1.2 lens on 2.7x crop will have the same DOF as f/3.2 on full frame. It will also have much less glass to move than a full-frame lens, so, other factors being equal, should move faster.
Logged

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 584
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #36 on: August 27, 2017, 10:47:23 PM »

One point doesn't make a trend.

it is not one point

with Canon starting from a higher base.

which it got by kicking N's a$$ back then and still does now even with ILCamera going racing to the bottom... the "best" cameras as defined by "various forums" don't make the company successful



Logged

hogloff

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 349
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #37 on: August 27, 2017, 11:03:32 PM »

One point doesn't make a trend. The overall trend for both Canon and Nikon are down (since the camera market is turning from a two-horse race to a three-horse race), with Canon starting from a higher base.

Looking at the longer trend, each time one company releases a disruptive new product, with no answer from the other side, the other loses a chunk of market share. It happened with the 1D2 (CMOS), 5D (cheaper full-frame) and 5D2 (high-resolution and video), accounting for a string of Canon wins early in the digital era and a large part of their current market share. More recently, it happened with the D800 and was reinforced with the D810; the D750 had a smaller effect, likely because it didn't so much bring new capability as it brought a better 5D3 at a lower price point. And it will happen again with the D850. The bottom end is dropping out of the camera business, so the fight for high-end market share is much more important now. Canon and its big, white sports lenses still has an advantage here (a legacy from when Canon held a major technological advantage) but this has been steadily dropping with each generation, likely as old telephotos reach the end of their service lives and users lool to replace them with the current best and newest.

As I recall not too long ago Canon and Nikon were almost neck and neck as far as market share. Today...Nikon's market share has been slipping every year and now sits at less than 25% as published by Nikon themselves...that's a substantial drop. So the camera pie is shrinking big time and Nikon's piece of that pie is also shrinking big time. Not sure one higher end camera will change much.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2120
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #38 on: August 27, 2017, 11:19:56 PM »

As I recall not too long ago Canon and Nikon were almost neck and neck as far as market share. Today...Nikon's market share has been slipping every year and now sits at less than 25% as published by Nikon themselves...that's a substantial drop. So the camera pie is shrinking big time and Nikon's piece of that pie is also shrinking big time. Not sure one higher end camera will change much.

The bottom is dropping out of the low-end interchangeable lens camera market. Unless you make sensors for phones/drones/non-cameras, the high end is all that's left to compete for. It's also the region where Canon has been historically strongest (sports cameras and the 5D2) but is now technologically weakest.

Canon has a large market share of a dying sector within the camera market. The high end is the future, and is up for grabs.

But I think Nikon's left it too late to win much market share, even with a great camera with no real weaknesses - the SLR's days are numbered and some people would be loathe to switch to a system whose lenses may not be fully compatible with a future mirrorless system. More likely, they'd stick with whatever system they already have (Canon in most cases) and switch to a mirrorless system when the time comes, when mirrorless is more mature (the A9 likely represents a watershed moment in capability) and their gear is up for replacement anyway.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2017, 12:46:51 AM by shadowblade »
Logged

MoreOrLess

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 236
Re: What next for Canon?
« Reply #39 on: August 28, 2017, 01:08:53 AM »

They're one and the same - the leadership is the same at the top level, and the overall strategy is thr same. Splitting into separate companies under one shell was an organisational tool for a large company getting too big and diverse to manage, not a case of jist splitting up and going the same way. Each company works towards the common goal, as directed by overall management - no different to a nation having a navy, air force and army working as separate organisations under a unified command, towards a common goal.

The 1-series is years old and its AF requirements are far less onerous than that of a full-frame camera - being a 2.7x crop, almost everything is in focus anyway. I'm not even sure who designed the sensor - being a mirrorless camera,  the AF system is integral to the sensor itself, and Nikon doesn't make sensors.

Sony might own both companies but the sensor business was spun off awhile ago so operates independently from the camera division. Indeed the main reason companies do that is that they want a division to maximise its own profits by not having to deal with company politics, so its run for its own benefit not to potentially benefit over sub divisions. Whilst doubtless the camera division has input into the sensors(and some exclusivity to sensor built with that input) it uses sometimes just as Nikon do the cost of sensor fabrication R&D is not directly connected to it.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 8   Go Up