Canon: In Denial - or Looking at The Whole Picture?

In Denial

21 (60%)

Looking at the Whole Picture

14 (40%)

Total Members Voted: 34

[John Koerner]

I realize there are already alot of posts about Canon, especially about "abandoning the pros," but there is a recent DP Review interview with Canon's Masaya Maeda, where he addresses most of the questions put on here, and where he states that he believes Canon already has the best sensors in their cameras, all things considered. He also answers questions about "would Canon use other sensors?"

When asked directly about the sensor in the new G7X not being made by Canon, and if this this represents a new philosophy at Canon, Maeda said, "We select the best sensor, whoever the manufacturer is. That’s our policy."

When asked directly about Canon DSLR sensors not quite competing with some modern sensors from Sony (in terms of dynamic range), Maeda said, "I’m not sure what measurements you’re looking at but when it comes to dynamic range for example we consider image quality as a whole, from low to high ISO sensitivities and on balance we consider our sensors to be the best. My ideal camera is one that can take a picture in any environment from complete darkness to the brightest sunshine." (I also assume he means other considerations, such as color/skin tone, etc.)

When asked directly about the 7D II Maeda said, "We think that in the EOS 7D Mark II we got very close to achieving EOS-1D-type features in a lightweight body." (Therefore, as suspected, the goal wasn't absolute resolution, but excellent resolution backed by greater overall speed/control/flexibility.)

When asked directly about the fact that no Canon camera offers more than 22mp resolution, Maeda said, "We know that many of our customers need more resolution and this is under consideration. In the very near future you can expect us to show something in terms of mirrorless and also a higher resolution sensor."

I read that as meaning that Canon's next big move is going to be a double-feature: both higher resolution and on a mirrorless ...

Will be interesting to see ...

[Chris_Brown]

The trick focusing with Canon's dual-pixel tech only works when the sensor is receiving/reading light, and a mirror flapping around disrupts the focusing ability. A mirror-less camera system would address this issue (as in their C-300/500 cine cameras).

I also think that Canon looks at the photographer who needs high pixel count, without über-autofocus, is a niche market compared to all the amateurs and PJ/Sports pros who utilize autofocus w/ high frame rates. This tipped my vote to "whole picture".

[robdickinson]

TBH canon sensors are probably the best balance of low ISO quality with high ISO ability and resolution.

And regardless of that the market is still loving their gear. My last workshop out of 22 people 21 used canon...

[John Koerner]

The trick focusing with Canon's dual-pixel tech only works when the sensor is receiving/reading light, and a mirror flapping around disrupts the focusing ability. A mirror-less camera system would address this issue (as in their C-300/500 cine cameras).

Good points.

I also think that Canon looks at the photographer who needs high pixel count, without über-autofocus, is a niche market compared to all the amateurs and PJ/Sports pros who utilize autofocus w/ high frame rates. This tipped my vote to "whole picture".

I think this is absolutely the case. It's proven by sales #s, it's proven by market share, and it's proven by what their focus has been: they just came out with a 200-400 mm + 1.4x tele lens, without any rival ... their 1Dx is already the leader in FF sports/nature hands ... and they just came out with the 7D II for demanding amateur nature hands.

I think the last statements he made about FF resolution and mirrorless show a desire now to specifically address the high-pixel, ultimate res crowd in a unique way. But they handled their largest customer base first, as well they should.

Jack

[John Koerner]

TBH canon sensors are probably the best balance of low ISO quality with high ISO ability and resolution.

That seems to be what he said, yes. The focus is overall excellence in balance, not one extreme.

And regardless of that the market is still loving their gear. My last workshop out of 22 people 21 used canon...

The world has a place for niche vendors, and it is good to have niche vendors for those occupying that niche.

However, the most successful vendors are going to be those who target the needs of the greatest majority, and address all of their issues well, and I think Canon knows this.

To market only the comparatively-small group, such as landscape photographers (who need high px $3,500 cameras), at the expense of  the needs of the much more voluminous general enthusiast (who wants a truly capable all-around $1-$2,000 camera) ... or the great number of pro sports photographers (who want a fully-functional beast at $6-7,000) is not the wisest way to go. It seems, now that Canon has addressed the needs of its largest base of consumers, amateurs and sports pros, and only now are they going to focus on the smaller subset of high-res folks.

I think the numbers your workshops reflect indicate the soundness of their strategy.

Jack

[Glenn NK]

However, the most successful vendors are going to be those who target the needs of the greatest majority, and address all of their issues well, and I think Canon knows this.

To market only the comparatively-small group, such as landscape photographers (who need high px $3,500 cameras), at the expense of  the needs of the much more voluminous general enthusiast (who wants a truly capable all-around $1-$2,000 camera) ... or the great number of pro sports photographers (who want a fully-functional beast at $6-7,000) is not the wisest way to go. It seems, now that Canon has addressed the needs of its largest base of consumers, amateurs and sports pros, and only now are they going to focus on the smaller subset of high-res folks.

I think the numbers your workshops reflect indicate the soundness of their strategy.

Jack

Jack:

It seem to me that so many posters are missing this point on forums lately.  Single issues seem to be in vogue, ignoring the fact that a corporation's primary duty is to create a profit for the owners - not satisfy a niche group of buyers.  The exception would be a corporation that is small and has a highly specialized/unique product on which it has a monopoly.  I can't think of any corporation in photography manufacture that fits into this exception/category.

And yet, I keep reading posts suggesting that Canon/Nikon have "lost their way", "are ignoring the pros", and "don't know what they're doing or where they're going".

Glenn

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... However, the most successful vendors are going to be those who target the needs of the greatest majority, and address all of their issues well, and I think Canon knows this...

And what do you think drives those needs? If the majority of Canon's profits comes from Rebels, why are people buying them? Because of the name Canon, which the masses heard is the leader in the digital era. And it had become the leader based not on Rebels but on 5D, top of the line.

There was a time when Nikon was the undisputed professional camera (in the film era).  Canon tried to match it with F1, but never got close. If you were an amateur at the time, you would go for a cheaper Nikon model, because you knew Nikon is the undisputed pro king at the time.

How long before the unwashed masses learn that Canon has lost it to Nikon at the top? Do you think they would still stand in line for Rebels?

[John Koerner]

Jack:
It seem to me that so many posters are missing this point on forums lately.  Single issues seem to be in vogue, ignoring the fact that a corporation's primary duty is to create a profit for the owners - not satisfy a niche group of buyers.  The exception would be a corporation that is small and has a highly specialized/unique product on which it has a monopoly.  I can't think of any corporation in photography manufacture that fits into this exception/category.
And yet, I keep reading posts suggesting that Canon/Nikon have "lost their way", "are ignoring the pros", and "don't know what they're doing or where they're going".
Glenn

Agreed Glenn.

But I am going to stop talking about gear anymore (except positively) ... if I can help it 

[Osprey]

Some of these points are good ones, particularly for things like the 1dx which are very competitive on the high end.  But, for the money in the market, the 5DMkII+ series doesn't look good compared to the aggressively priced D800+ series.  Nikon's cheaper full frame offerings are also very competitive with the 5d series.

[LKaven]

It seem to me that so many posters are missing this point on forums lately.  Single issues seem to be in vogue, ignoring the fact that a corporation's primary duty is to create a profit for the owners - not satisfy a niche group of buyers. 
[...]
And yet, I keep reading posts suggesting that Canon/Nikon have "lost their way", "are ignoring the pros", and "don't know what they're doing or where they're going".

Both companies create profit for their owners while making lots of mistakes along the way.  If they haven't /completely/ lost their way, it doesn't mean they haven't lost their way.

I'm sure sending out tens of thousands of defective shutters on the D600 and then having to replace the cameras entirely was not a finely calculated strategy on Nikon's part.  I don't think that created lots of profit for the owners. 

Nor do I think that Canon is happy that it lost the studio DSLR market by not coming up with a high-resolution camera.  Not only are such cameras profitable, but they promote the sales of the rest of their catalog.

[Jim Pascoe]

Some of these points are good ones, particularly for things like the 1dx which are very competitive on the high end.  But, for the money in the market, the 5DMkII+ series doesn't look good compared to the aggressively priced D800+ series.  Nikon's cheaper full frame offerings are also very competitive with the 5d series.

I have a 1Ds 111 which is about six years old and my wife has a 5D 111 which is a few months old.  Both of these cameras are fantastic picture making tools and earn us a reasonable living.  I'm not saying that they are any better than the Nikon equivalents but they are superb cameras and frankly most professional photographers probably don't need more. 

I also have a new E-M1 and already have been using Panasonic micro four thirds for five years.  To me the biggest camera missing with both Canon and Nikon is a full frame EVF camera which would have huge benefits to pro's shooting both stills and video. After having GH2's and now the E-M1 with built in OIS I can safely say that I doubt I will buy another Canon optical VF camera - not because they're deficient for photography - just that for video they are lacking by comparison - for the way I and lots of other photographers shoot.

Jim

[Simon Garrett]

And what do you think drives those needs? If the majority of Canon's profits comes from Rebels, why are people buying them? Because of the name Canon, which the masses heard is the leader in the digital era. And it had become the leader based not on Rebels but on 5D, top of the line.

There was a time when Nikon was the undisputed professional camera (in the film era).  Canon tried to match it with F1, but never got close. If you were an amateur at the time, you would go for a cheaper Nikon model, because you knew Nikon is the undisputed pro king at the time.

How long before the unwashed masses learn that Canon has lost it to Nikon at the top? Do you think they would still stand in line for Rebels?

That's one factor in establishing a brand, but only one factor.  I'm not convinced that it's the only factor in driving low-cost camera sales, even consumer-end DSLRs. 

It's rather like saying that people choose airline by the quality of First Class seats.  In fact, BA for years used that sort of marketing.  They sold economy seats by association with luxury that was certainly not being offered to economy passengers. 

Until, of course, the lo-cos took away much of their economy business. 

As with airlines, it can act against you: "they are a premium brand that don't really care about low-end, and we can offer the same quality at lower prices."

[allegretto]

How long before the unwashed masses learn that Canon has lost it to Nikon at the top?

When in this going to happen..?

[Keith Reeder]

How long before the unwashed masses learn that Canon has lost it to Nikon at the top? Do you think they would still stand in line for Rebels?

Oh, here we go - Canon users are inherently ignorant and easily fooled - is that what you're saying, Slobodan? Or you incapable of expressing youself as anything other than a patronising bully?

Canon has not "lost it" to Nikon - not at the top, or anywhere else: the 1D-x outsells the D4s, just the same way that anywhere else Canon and Nikon have broadly comparable cameras, the Canons sell better.

And it's not because Canon is better known (Nikon advertises on TV about ten times more in the UK than Canon does) but because Canon kit performs.

[Keith Reeder]

Nor do I think that Canon is happy that it lost the studio DSLR market by not coming up with a high-resolution camera. 

And can you cite proof that Canon has "lost the studio DSLR market"?

[John Koerner]

How long before the unwashed masses learn that Canon has lost it to Nikon at the top? Do you think they would still stand in line for Rebels?

I don't believe $3,000 landscape cameras are "at the top" of the DSLR market ... $7,000 sports cameras are ... where Canon is at the top.

Also, in selling high volumes of selling entry-level cameras ... which means Nikon owns the middle, not the top.

Jack

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

When in this going to happen..?

That is the same question I heard from my general manager at Kodak, when I told him the digital is going to take over, implying its not going to happen anytime soon.

[John Koerner]

As said on another thread, two things are true: there is a lot of talent out there in the electronics/gadgetry world, and no "one" company is going to be able to own all the talent.

It is quite natural that some companies are going to offer "the best" in some respects, and "not quite the best" in other respects.

I suspect it will always be that way, but I think Canon knows which markets offer the most $$ return (amateurs and sports) and is concentrating its efforts in those markets.

Based on the interview with Maeda, it appears Canon may have their eyes on filling that mid-level, high-res/$3500 market with a new solution (mirrorless).

With Samsung entering into the fray, it will be quite interesting to see what kind of lens line-ups they provide.

Uber-high, high ISO capability is something I am interested in with > 1:! natural light macro photography, so high ISO capability is something I am interested in ... but I also need the lenses too.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Oh, here we go - Canon users are inherently ignorant and easily fooled - is that what you're saying, Slobodan? Or you incapable of expressing youself as anything other than a patronising bully?...

I am a Canon user, the last 40 years.

Keith, are you incapable expressing yourself without resorting to personal attacks?

[LKaven]

And can you cite proof that Canon has "lost the studio DSLR market"?

Putting aside the fact that you can use any DSLR in the studio, I think it's clear that Canon has been slow to come up with a high-resolution camera, or any camera with more than 11.5 stops of DR.  They might return with an entry in this sector, but not as soon as hoped for.