Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on November 12, 2018, 03:30:25 pm
-
A few months ago Sony was the only game in town for FF mirrorless systems.
Today both Canon and Nikon have played their cards after years of careful consideration. This being those two companies’ most important move in the past 20 years and for 20+ years to come.
I personnally see in Nikon’s release a clear ambition to gain market share over competition while Canon is apparently doing more of the same “let’s invest the least we can and let our web marketing team do the job of using our brand name”.
Based on what we have seen so far, why would anyone decide on a long term investment in the Canon mirrorless platform when all that’s coming is most probably great lenses on sub-par bodies? The same thing we’ve had in the past 10 years.
Will those who have been waiting for something different year on year since the 1Ds continue to wait or finally call it a day and move to Sony for good?
Following a long stream of DSLRs, is it still not clear that Nikon, although it is a smaller company, delivers time and again superior cameras delivering higher value to their customers while Sony is on different course all together?
Why would anyone still believe in Canon enough today to decide to invest cash on the R system?
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
1. Because photography, drawing with light, is still 90% the lens, and only 10% camera. (not considering the photographer and his/her vision).
2. Because Canon has a proven trackrecord of backing up their offerings with well established pro service.
3. Because designating Canon bodies as sub-par and accusing them of uninvesting is mere internuts hyperbole.
Yes, I would like a Z body with R lenses currently, but just because Canon sensors don't quite match the current top-of-the-line, doesn't mean they are bad sensors, and certainly doesn't mean the entire camera experience is therefore bad. Canon can and will make great cameras and hopefully they will also eventually churn out a sensor to match.
-
Canon users will, in large measure, remain Canon users. Nikon users will, in large measure, remain Nikon users. Brand loyalty counts for a lot. Not to mention current investment in lenses. Actual tech specs are way down the list except for a certain subset of photographers (you know who you are). Witness the fact that people are actually buying the Canon EOS R. Newcomers will now have a broader choice. I think Panasonic will have a hard time penetrating the market.
-
For some silly scorekeeping, the first relevant BCN survey of unit sales of 35mm format EVF cameras in Japan has the EOS R taking about 22.7%, Z7 about 10.4% for October 2018. Given the price gap, the Z6 should earn significantly more unit sales than the Z7 — I would guess about matching or exceeding the EOR R's share, so giving the first round to the Z system.
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/11/07/the-latest-full-frame-market-mirrorless-market-share-sony-67-canon-22-1-nikon-10-4.aspx/
(Please ignore all the silly comparisons to Sony, as if market share percentage decreasing means anything when they started at 100% and one is seeing pent-up demand from Canon/Nikon users.)
Beyond that, I would say that much depends on what Canon does next with bodies, if/when it adds IBIS, and how the different approaches to on-sensor PDAF compare as they mature. As a big fan if IBIS (and IBIS+ILIS), I see Nikon having an advantage that will persist at least for a while.
-
I've recently handled the Canon R during an event and after spending about 10 minutes with it figuring out how to set it up the way I want it it etc I had a very nice camera in my hands. Autofocus was snappy (both control using touch to move AF points around and actual focus acquisition) and worked perfectly with EF lenses (including my Sigma primes). I was also able to test it in a studio-like setup with strobes - it worked equally well. This is going to be my next camera purchase when it comes down in price a bit, to replace my aging DSLR.
As for who is the winner - nobody. The camera market is shrinking so all manufacturers will feel the squeeze sooner or later. Customers are/will be asked to shell out more and more money for incremental improvements or even downgrades (e.g. focus by wire).
-
Bernard, your post reads like pure PR. "…most important move in the past 20 years…" Seriously?! How 'bout: "Oh shit, we're on the verge of having our arses handed to us in a hat! Do something! Now!"
I'm just kicking back & watching to see how many (if any) of the current players manage to survive the smartdevice. :)
-Dave-
-
Bernard, your post reads like pure PR. "…most important move in the past 20 years…" Seriously?! How 'bout: "Oh shit, we're on the verge of having our arses handed to us in a hat! Do something! Now!"
I think this is totally objective. The Z and the R are a matter of survival for the camera divisions at Canon and Nikon. This is totally obvious to me even if it may not be when considering they current daily business. Project yourself in 5 years and that will totally be the case.
This per say isn't saying anything about how well they delivered.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Canon users will, in large measure, remain Canon users. Nikon users will, in large measure, remain Nikon users. Brand loyalty counts for a lot. Not to mention current investment in lenses. Newcomers will now have a broader choice. I think Panasonic will have a hard time penetrating the market.
That's the part I have a hard time understanding these days.
A majority of FF DSLR Canon users choose Canon because the brand was once delivering the best solution for photographers. They aren't married with the brand.
Considering the pretty abysmal track record of Canon in terms of body performance (sensor, AF,... you name it) these past 10 years, isn't there a point being which you just give up?
I fail to see why the R changes that perception. I fail to see how it shows an inflection point that would give Canon users hope of better tomorrows.
Yes, the new lenses seem great, in particular the 50mm f1.2, but Z lenses will be amazing too and G Master lenses are no slouch either.
If you have to buy new lenses anyway, why not move to a brand that treats its customers with consistently superior cameras? That would be Sony and Nikon.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If you have to buy new lenses anyway, why not move to a brand that treats its customers with consistently superior cameras? That would be Sony and Nikon.
Cheers,
Bernard
HahahahahahaHahaha HahahahahahaHahaha HahahahahahaHahaha
Don't know what you're drinking or smoking, but you had too much wasabi, my friend.
;D
-
HahahahahahaHahaha HahahahahahaHahaha HahahahahahaHahaha
Don't know what you're drinking or smoking, but you had too much wasabi, my friend.
You may not like the UI of Sony camera, but many do. And leaving the UI aside, their performance in terms of sensor, AF,... leaves the Canon R far far behind.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You may not like to Sony camera UIs, but many do. And leaving the UI aside, their performance in terms of sensor, AF,... leaves the Canon R far far behind.
Cheers,
Bernard
I personally have no problem with the Sony ui and i currently use Sony because the connectivity to both mobile and desktop is simple and direct. But stating that Sony somehow treats its customers with consistent cameras because they finally delivered a reasonably performing cam in version 3, compared to Canon (and Nikon) doing so for several decades, is obviously delutional.
There is nothing consistent about the Sony system. In fact, as a system, it made me wonder if they will still be a player in 10 years time. Their only claim to fame currently is the rate of innovation implementation, and they'll soon find out that photographers don't have the kind of money to justify spending on a new body each and every time that Sony decides to move a button or add a megapixel.
The pro market demands consistency, and neither Sony's progress offers consistency, nor its entire system with Zeiss, Sony-Zeiss, G and GM lenses and the corresponding non-sensical pricing offer any consistency. And they have yet to show that they can offer pro services with any consistency.
Personally, from a business perspective i don't see why you'd even want to start in and dominate that dwindling market, but if it makes them happy to try, all the better for us.
-
My point wasn't about the consistency of the system, but the way Sony and Nikon have been producing bodies that have all been great performers (better than Canon for sure) on what really matters, which is image quality and AF. OK, Sony may have needed some iterations to get there, but Nikon has been there for 10 years or so.
And we have seen consistent progress and a clear willingness to move forward at the fastest possible speed. Which I just don't see in Canon's releases. At least not for still photography.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
...and the winner is...rustle of envelope...choice.
-
That's because "consistent" and "moving forward at the fastest possible speed" are mutually exclusive. If you cater to pros, you are trying to build a durable system, even a single camerabody needs some kind of durability. These are not plastic 3d printed casings around the latest and greatest processor every 18 months.
I wonder what you think that marketsegment is expecting vs what you are expecting. Innovation is not a goal in itself, at least not for a pro photographer who needs a familiar and reliable tool for the job.
Decades of Olympics have been recorded with digital Canon gear without much problems, certainly not AF problems. For mirrorless, the C solution AF seems to be the most dependable so far. Eye AF? Nikon doesn't offer it yet either. It is far too early to tell which system is on a dead track (if at all) for a pro to make decisions on investing.
With Canon we can at least be sure that photography has been a profitable, dominating core business. That claim can not be made by either Sony or Nikon for different reasons. Let me stop my rant here, i'm starting to sound like a Canon fanboy...
I certainly hope Canon gets their sensor act together, so we'll finally get some imagequality that do their lenses justice in a ergonomically friendly and reliably durable package.
Then again, i'm no pro. WTF do i care.
-
No wait, i wasn't finished: batterylife
That's the one thing that may kill all the fun for C. Do they really need to drain a battery within 200 pics, just to produce such abominable imagequality? What happens if they ever introduce ibis? Only 100 pics per charge?
-
...and the winner is...rustle of envelope...choice.
I wish that were true.
My dislike of Canon throughout these years results from exactly that... it has been a very long time since they have come up with a body I consider to be a credible choice relative to competition.
They hurt my consumerist self. How can a company so consistently not produce anything I want? ;D
Heck, pretty much every other manufacturer managed to come up with cameras that made me think at some point "it may make sense to get that one, it would deliver some value compared to what I already have".
And if Canon can't achieve that with the first iteration of their strategic next gen mirrorless platform... well... I am not optimistic.
Even if we agree that I am more easily bored than the average photographer...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Choice is good, just imagine that the only choice was Canon.
;-)
-
I wish that were true.
My dislike of Canon throughout these years results from exactly that... it has been a very long time since they have come up with a body I consider to be a credible choice relative to competition.
Cheers,
Bernard
It seems that what you consider, and what the market considers, is miles apart. Frankly, why do you feel the need to regularly bash Canon and praise Nikon? Not everybody requires the greatest Nikon DLSR or MILC camera ever built to take pics and make a living out of it.
Sometimes, quite often, I dare to propose, one of those many crappy Canon cameras will do fine, thank you very much...
-
You may not like the UI of Sony camera, but many do.
The best thing about the Sony UI is that once you have mastered it you have a real feeling of accomplishment ;).
-
It seems awfully early in the first half to be picking a winner.
As for Sony, they are holding up well with a year old model. None of the newcomers are clearly better overall, despite each having some advantages. Sony still has Zeiss and other third party optics in their corner because they opened up the lens mount. Sony have also shown that they can produce some great lenses with recent G and GM releases. We know they have a new, higher resolution, EVF coming, and no-doubt some significant sensor improvements. Will they improve weather sealing and ergonomics? Seems likely. Will they straighten out the menus... only time will tell.
Nikon has a great first release, superb EVF, with only two soft points. They are a bit behind in auto-focus, but only for certain applications. Their big Achilles heel is native lenses. If one has a stable of F-mount Nikkors, no problem. But for someone like me, with no large stable of glass, I am certainly not going to buy F-mount lenses going forward. Nikon would be smart to license the mount specifications to Zeiss and perhaps Sigma to jumpstart things. Will Nikon ever, significantly outdistance Sony in sensors? Seems unlikely since Sony is doing the fab. That's not to say that Nikon sensors might have some small advantages.
Canon is a sleeping giant. They can clearly become (have become?) number two, and might pass Sony in volume on momentum and name recognition alone. They have build great adapters for existing EF lenses. The first body isn't attractive to me, but as others have pointed out, Canon tends to lead with a trial balloon consumer-level body and then follow with the pro bodies. Hopefully the function bar will go the way of the Dodo bird, and a joystick will evolve. The real question is can they develop a high resolution sensor with class-leading DR? They haven't yet, but they have been making small improvements.
What we don't know about any of these players is the rate at which they intend to iterate going forward. We know Sony can do it every couple of years, but we don't know how fast they can go when they have completion. Canon is big... they can throw lots of money at the problem. We have no idea how quickly Nikon will iterate or introduce higher end bodies.
The second half will be interesting... I will have to go get snacks before it starts.
Glenn
-
It seems awfully early in the first half to be picking a winner.
Yes, what is the rush? Wait a couple of years until Canon comes out with a better body, and Canon and Nikon come out with some native lenses.
-
The rush for these 2 companies should be fairly obvious.
They were very late to the party to start and the great innovator Sony has no intention to slow down.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The rush for these 2 companies should be fairly obvious.
Their rush isn''t our rush. And given the recent announcements, they don't appear to be in that big of a rush either.
-
The rush for these 2 companies should be fairly obvious.
They were very late to the party to start and the great innovator Sony has no intention to slow down.
I don't think anyone is in a rush and I also don't think anyone has any intention of slowing down. Each corporation will have a time frame for development based on their resources and how they view the importance of this segment of the market in their overall business.
-
I use Nikon and just have tried some days the Z7;
It is a very capable camera with d850 quality images...IBIS and very capable video
But Nikons problem is they have not enough (good) lenses for the Z.
the 35mm Z is very good but not for landscape- the 24-70 however is a small very nice universal lens that never disappoints.
I am not interested in the upcoming Z-lenses apart from the .95 lens. I want stellar lenses if they are not zoom.
I very much hope third party lenses ( Zeiss, Sigma- or possibly Canon!) will be available soon. That would make the Z-platform more interesting.
Also i am afraid too much attention will go to the Z-platform, delaying or even canceling the design of more good lenses for the F-bajonet that are already most needed.
Canon has better TS lenses except for the 19mmpPCE- i doubt if nikon wil come up soon with PCE's and for me they are needed.
Nikon F has no stellar wide angle lenses...beyond 28mm...
Nikon F has no stellar 35 and 50mm lens.
I now need to buy a Z-body first to buy a decent 50mm Nikkor lens...
-
I consider the 19mm T/S to be the best wide lens ever designed for 35mm.
I would agree that Nikon has no great ultra wide, altgough the 14-24mm f2.8 remains very good 10 years after its introduction.
And yes, F mount lenses will be fewer moving forward.
I have high expectations that the compact 14-30 S will be the best performing ultra-wide zoom on the market at typical landscape apertures.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Mirrorless war - Canon vs Nikon - who is the current winner?
:) Fujifilm
Rand
-
I have high expectations that the compact 14-30 S will be the best performing ultra-wide zoom on the market at typical landscape apertures.
I'm actually really excited about that lens, even though I'm on sony. I shoot something like 80-90% of my shots with a 16-35 f/4. I could use more on the short end, and on my copy lens 32mm+ is not that great anyway.
-
Agree with Rand. Fuji X-T2 and 3 with 35mm f2 are giving me great results for a national project. 56 f1.2 is fantastic. The bodies, 18-55 and 55-200 are all I need for travel.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
-
I would agree, Fuji looks better than Canon these days for many photographers.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would agree, Fuji looks better than Canon these days for many photographers.
Cheers,
Bernard
I remember a mention a few years back about a Canon exec stating that the company they "feared" most was Fujifilm. Not sure about it these days.
Anyway, according to this report:
https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/8563164917/wildfire-photographer-stuart-palley-on-the-new-abnormal
Looks like the Z7 has trouble focusing at night and/or low light. So not all are roses in the land of the big yellow.
-
I remember a mention a few years back about a Canon exec stating that the company they "feared" most was Fujifilm. Not sure about it these days.
Anyway, according to this report:
https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/8563164917/wildfire-photographer-stuart-palley-on-the-new-abnormal
Looks like the Z7 has trouble focusing at night and/or low light. So not all are roses in the land of the big yellow.
I'm not sure he knew how to use the autofocus. But I'm not sure he doesn't -- I'd like to try it myself, and perhaps will. He says something like (this is close but perhaps not an exact quote) he was using 'the regular center point' autofocus. If that means what I think (spot focus) that's a rather odd choice for a fast-moving flickering fire where it goes from pitch black to over-the-top bright in fractions of a second and an inch or so can separate black from bright...and you are moving yourself. If he means center-weighted (which is not what I think he means) then there's a problem. I personally (and I shot a lot of news coverage with Nikon film cameras) would have set it on "auto" under those conditions where you want to shoot a lot but may have to run at any moment.
-
Hi Dave,
I would say there have been a couple of tidal changes:
- 1960-s, the move from rangefinder to SLR
- Mid 1980-s, the shift to AF
- Around 2005, the shift to digital
- Around 2018, the shift to mirrorless
What we see now is that the R in the SLR is no longer needed, as fast readout CMOS sensors and EVF are good enough to replace the optical viewfinder mostly. It is like the rangefinder/SLR conversion. Early SLR designs had disadvantages but the design evolved to be dominant. And that will happen with DSLR/ILCE.
Both Nikon and Canon do a bayonet change. That is a big step for any company.
So, I am with Bernard on this.
I would also add that I am not concerned about cell phones. I would think there is a significant market for advanced system cameras, but I think that market is more like the SLR market was in 1995 (or so). So I think that the photographic industry will shrink, and some players will be gone.
Best regards
Erik
Bernard, your post reads like pure PR. "…most important move in the past 20 years…" Seriously?! How 'bout: "Oh shit, we're on the verge of having our arses handed to us in a hat! Do something! Now!"
I'm just kicking back & watching to see how many (if any) of the current players manage to survive the smartdevice. :)
-Dave-
-
There is certainly a significant market for advanced system cameras, but it's probably mostly the >$1000 side of the present market. Keeping a low-end market going will involve figuring out how to play nice with phones... Is that having a SIM card in the camera itself for direct uploads (which probably means Android, along with all the risks of Android on a connected device)? Is it some "always connected when the camera's on" app like Nikon's Snapbridge (except that it actually works)? It's more than most camera apps...
A great $500 camera will also involve an improved kit lens - the budget for a lens in a $500 camera bundle means that the lens resolves far less well than the sensor. Can they do something with molded (maybe some kind of plastic) aspheric elements that is cheap to produce, yet resolves better than most current kit lenses (it can still be an 18-55 f3.5-5.6, just not a lousy one)? The only decent "kit" lenses show up on much more expensive bodies - the cheapest of the lot is Fuji's 18-55 f2.8-4, which starts in $1000 bundles - Nikon's 24-70 f4 Z lens and Canon's full-frame 24-105 (in EF and EF-R guise) also fall in the "not really a kit lens, although often discounted with a body" category.
In the healthier $1000 and up market, we have four relatively conventional players trying to cover many parts of the market (Nikon, Canon, Sony and Fuji), plus two players offering unusual combinations of features (Olympus and Panasonic), plus a marginal player catering to people with collections of old lenses (Pentax). Even excluding Pentax, Sigma's occasional experiments with cameras and the ultra-high end only companies (Hasselblad is the most relevant, followed by Leica, Zeiss and Phase One), is there room for six mainstream players? Sigma and Zeiss are, of course far more relevant as lensmakers (neither is going anywhere) than they are for their cameras.
The most likely losses other than the niche players are Olympus or Panasonic, which is a shame, because they offer more differentiated products than the others. Panasonic has really prodded the state of the whole market on video, and Olympus has offered small, rugged bodies and a true sports camera far cheaper than anyone else. At this point, losing Panasonic might not matter that much, since everybody else except Canon is also pushing the video envelope, and Sony makes video-first bodies. If Olympus went away, real high-speed performance would retreat back up the line to Canon and Nikon's traditional high-speed DSLRs.
I can't see any of the four mainstream players going anywhere. Nikon may be in the weakest market position, but might have the strongest full-frame lineup - their weakness is in zero-innovation low-end APS-C DSLRs. If the market collapses back to the film SLR market, that's essentially "everything at or above the D610 plus a model or two below", and that's precisely where Nikon's strong. Canon has the weakest sensors (everybody else is buying from Sony), but huge legacy, including millions of very high-end lenses already in circulation. Fuji is the most differentiated of the bunch, and has terrific lenses. Sony has the only full line in FF mirrorless, and is essentially FF-only, which leaves them losing less than anyone else if the low end goes away...
-Dan
-
Sony has the only full line in FF mirrorless, and is essentially FF-only, which leaves them losing less than anyone else if the low end goes away...
I think the industry is correct to be focusing on the high end. The days of people being interested in buying a low-end DSLR are over.
-
We'll see how it goes. Personally I bet the situation even 5 years from now will be a lot different than it is today.
-Dave-
-
Hi,
What I may think matters a lot is that there is an upgrade path. Photographers buy into a system they can grow with. So, they may start with APS-C and go for full frame or larger, as we have seen with the Fuji GFX.
In a way, I may serve as an example.
- I have started with APS-C, back in 2005 with 6 MP.
- 2008, I got full frame at 24 MP, but no live view.
- 2010, I got 16 MP APS-C, with usable live view off sensor.
- 2011, I got 24 MP full frame, with live view. Bingo!
- 2013, I got 39 MP, CCD on 49x37 mm (P45+). The worst expenditure of my life...
- 2015, i got 42 MP, CMOS on full frame, with well working live view. All expectations met. A camera that delivers what I need.[\li]
- 2017-2018, affordable MFD gets around. Great usability improvements on Sony cameras, Nikon and Canon enter full frame mirrorless. Great stuff, but I am happy with what I have.
To sum up, I have a Sony A7rII that pretty perfectly fulfills all my needs. Are there any better cameras? Yes, the Sony A7rIII beats my A7rII in all areas that don't affect me. But, now I have what I need.
I regard money as a finite asset. So, now I have a camera that makes the job perfectly well. So my priorities have changed:
- I got myself some tilt and shift options.
- I also got me an RV/camper that takes me to great locations.
- I plan to spend on travel instead of gear.
What happened was that the gear I have got good enough, and once I got there it was time to switch from spending on gear to spending on other things.
Best regards
Erik
There is certainly a significant market for advanced system cameras, but it's probably mostly the >$1000 side of the present market. Keeping a low-end market going will involve figuring out how to play nice with phones... Is that having a SIM card in the camera itself for direct uploads (which probably means Android, along with all the risks of Android on a connected device)? Is it some "always connected when the camera's on" app like Nikon's Snapbridge (except that it actually works)? It's more than most camera apps...
A great $500 camera will also involve an improved kit lens - the budget for a lens in a $500 camera bundle means that the lens resolves far less well than the sensor. Can they do something with molded (maybe some kind of plastic) aspheric elements that is cheap to produce, yet resolves better than most current kit lenses (it can still be an 18-55 f3.5-5.6, just not a lousy one)? The only decent "kit" lenses show up on much more expensive bodies - the cheapest of the lot is Fuji's 18-55 f2.8-4, which starts in $1000 bundles - Nikon's 24-70 f4 Z lens and Canon's full-frame 24-105 (in EF and EF-R guise) also fall in the "not really a kit lens, although often discounted with a body" category.
In the healthier $1000 and up market, we have four relatively conventional players trying to cover many parts of the market (Nikon, Canon, Sony and Fuji), plus two players offering unusual combinations of features (Olympus and Panasonic), plus a marginal player catering to people with collections of old lenses (Pentax). Even excluding Pentax, Sigma's occasional experiments with cameras and the ultra-high end only companies (Hasselblad is the most relevant, followed by Leica, Zeiss and Phase One), is there room for six mainstream players? Sigma and Zeiss are, of course far more relevant as lensmakers (neither is going anywhere) than they are for their cameras.
The most likely losses other than the niche players are Olympus or Panasonic, which is a shame, because they offer more differentiated products than the others. Panasonic has really prodded the state of the whole market on video, and Olympus has offered small, rugged bodies and a true sports camera far cheaper than anyone else. At this point, losing Panasonic might not matter that much, since everybody else except Canon is also pushing the video envelope, and Sony makes video-first bodies. If Olympus went away, real high-speed performance would retreat back up the line to Canon and Nikon's traditional high-speed DSLRs.
I can't see any of the four mainstream players going anywhere. Nikon may be in the weakest market position, but might have the strongest full-frame lineup - their weakness is in zero-innovation low-end APS-C DSLRs. If the market collapses back to the film SLR market, that's essentially "everything at or above the D610 plus a model or two below", and that's precisely where Nikon's strong. Canon has the weakest sensors (everybody else is buying from Sony), but huge legacy, including millions of very high-end lenses already in circulation. Fuji is the most differentiated of the bunch, and has terrific lenses. Sony has the only full line in FF mirrorless, and is essentially FF-only, which leaves them losing less than anyone else if the low end goes away...
-Dan
-
...
What happened was that the gear I have got good enough, and once I got there it was time to switch from spending on gear to spending on other things.
Best regards
Erik
At the moment i also think I have enough camera stuff to do what i want.
I really like however a good made lens; My camera has 46MP ( nikon d850) and does alsmost every job I throw at it.
If i need more resolution or more angle i start stitching. But doing that i need a good lens.
My only reason to go MF would be the better lenses; if i could use it on my Nikon i would buy the 23mm Fuji lens for MF.
I am lucky Zeiss and Sigma has come up with some really good lenses for FF that Nikon does not make.
one my list that i would like (if i have/want to spend the money) are the Nikkor 19mm PCE , the 135mm Sigma 1.8 and the Zeiss 25mm 1,4.
but.. the good thing of the Z body for me is the IBIS- that would make my choice for the 135mm Sigma easier... ( and i would drop the 70-200 zoom)
so ... i keep on buying things... ;)
-
There certainly is a point where "more camera" doesn't buy you "better image". Part of it is resolution, while dynamic range, noise, color quality, etc. also figure in. If it were just resolution, you wouldn't be able to tell any camera sold today apart on any screen readily available today (you certainly could on a print). The highest resolution monitor readily available (the 5K screen in many iMacs and occasionally found separately) is under 16mp, and, once you account for menu bars and other interface, probably displays (roughly) a 12 mp iPhone image - you can't buy an interchangeable lens camera below 16 MP, and haven't been able to for years.
Since factors other than resolution matter, it's relatively easy to spot that iPhone image on screen, even without a super-resolution screen. iPhone hallmarks include very poor dynamic range (or noise associated with computationally enhanced dynamic range), high noise, auto-editing and very specific lens choices (modest wide-angle and sometimes a portrait lens). Exposure is purely automatic, and may or may not match what a photographer would have chosen for artistic effect, although it's often close to technically correct. I can generally pick out a phone image of most subjects even at web size, if the subject is at all challenging or the "alternate" real camera image has any degree of creative choice involved (and I'm sure most photographers can).
Once you get clear of a phone camera, more and more cameras become tough to tell apart on a screen as you get more recent (without magnifying beyond what the screen can show) - a print is always going to be easier to tell than on screen, and a high resolution screen will be easier than a web image. I'm picking cameras I have known well over the years here - holding the Z7 constant because it's the camera with the highest IQ I've got more than a few shots on (I've handled a Phase, but never shot one seriously in the field). If you prefer Sony, please feel free to substitute an A7rIII where I say Z7 (or if you prefer DSLRs, throw in a D850) - they'd all be VERY,VERY hard to tell apart on screen, and so would a GFX or an X1D...
1.)Nikon D70 vs Nikon Z7? Easy - the resolution is a giveaway on a high-res screen, and the D70's color is nowhere close to what a modern camera can do (and is weird enough that it's hard to edit to look like a modern camera). The dynamic range is a huge difference, and many shots will show it - but you probably don't even need it. At web size, the color would still give the D70 away.
2.) Olympus E-M5 (original) vs. Nikon Z7? Both outresolve your screen, and the Olympus color is really nice, both are editable to look similar. Dynamic range is a giveaway in many shots, but if the scene fits within the Olympus' DR, it's hard to tell. There will be some noise in the Olympus image even at base ISO, and you can see it on screen if you look hard at a 4K or better display (no, it's not noticeable at web size unless the ISO is really high).
3.) Fuji X-T2 vs. Nikon Z7? This is very darned hard without a good-sized print (or pixel-peeping at 1:1). In a high DR scene, the Nikon will stand out, but the Fuji's colors are at least as good (and it's trivial to edit them to match). If you don't have enough DR in the scene to get the Fuji to blow a highlight or block a shadow, you'll never see the Nikon's extra 2 stops (at base ISO for both - note that they don't have the same base ISO). The other possible spot on a very high resolution screen if you really stare at it (think iMac 5K from a foot away) is that the Fuji has traces of noise even at its base ISO of 200. The Nikon doesn't at its base ISO of 64. At web size, they are extremely difficult to tell apart unless the Nikon's DR saved a highlight - you'd never spot the noise from the Fuji.
These cameras represent a pretty fair selection of digital ILC history - the D70 had a 6 MP CCD sensor that is a good representation of early-generation digital, the Olympus represents a whole generation of ~16 MP cameras from about 5 years ago, and the Fuji is a very good, modern camera with image quality very similar to what dominates the market today, with better lenses than many. The Z7 (along with the D850, A7rII and III and GFX line) is the state of the art as of early winter 2018, at least if you aren't willing to spend $20,000+ on a Phase One system. I'd love to have a 12 MP CMOS camera in here - it's the missing generation - but I never owned one...
We are also approaching a hard limit in useful resolution (technically, we aren't there yet, other than the Phase One IQ4 150). Estimates of the resolution of the human eye with perfect vision range from 130 MP (the central 45 degree section we concentrate on) to 576 MP (including our peripheral vision). To take full advantage of that 130 MP central resolution would involve looking at a 24x36" print from about 4' away, concentrating intently. From 6' away, you couldn't possibly tell the resolution of a ~50 MP camera from the Phase at that print size. From 8' away, you couldn't tell a 24 MP camera from the Phase on a 24x36" print. With a larger print, you can stand farther back to have it fill the same angle of view (or you can look at a smaller print more closely). Once you get above 130 MP, you can't get the whole print into your central vision from any viewing distance that would use the resolution (no matter the size of the print). This is pure line resolution - color vision is less acute than that, and anybody with less than 20/20 vision has less acuity than that.
We are probably between two and five years from a reasonably priced camera that outresolves our eyes even in perfect conditions - Fuji is introducing one that comes close this spring for $10,000 with the GFX 100S. A 24x36mm sensor using the pixel pitch of the popular 20 MP 1" sensor (Sony RX100 & co.) would be close to 150 MP - more than enough to reach the resolution limit. Using current technology, it would not be an acceptable high-end sensor in other ways - it would have similar dynamic range and color characteristics to a 1" sensor.
One place where we have already passed the resolution limit of the human eye is that some modern 4x5" films are past that line - there is no reason any more to shoot 8x10" for the resolution, whether for contact printing or billboard enlargement. 8x10" still has different depth of field and adjusting movements can be easier, plus it's useful for contact-only processes like platinum or palladium printing - an original 8x10" negative spares the step of making an enlarged internegative for an 8x10" print.
Of course, that's just resolution - the human eye can see a range of colors no camera can yet capture, no monitor can display, and no printer can print (there actually are color spaces that can store it). Our eyes also have 20 stops or so of dynamic range and, again, no mechanical form of reproduction is close (a few digital cinema cameras claim 16 stops, but nobody can project or display more than 10 or 11, so those 16 stops have to be brought down, by gamma curves and other editing, into the projector's range).
-
Hi Erik,
Regarding the ‘tidal changes’ allow me to add one more line here.
• 1960-s, the move from rangefinder to SLR
• Mid 1980-s, the shift to AF
• Around 2005, the shift to digital
• Around 2018, the shift to mirrorless
• Around 202x, the shift to Bayerless.
I hope this will be sooner than later because I don’t really like (the required interpolation with) Bayer/X-Trans sensors. By no means I’m going to say that Bayer sensors are bad or something but from a background in 3CCD development for Broadcast cameras I do know the differences in image quality. We’re not there yet but my expectations are high with respect to organic sensors without a color filter array.
To keep things into perspective, I’m working with a Bayer/X-Trans camera myself and life isn’t that bad at all ;)
Regards,
Jaap.
-
So, now I have a camera that makes the job perfectly well.
I think that too. I have thought it following every new camera purchase :-)
-
https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-r/11
It would appear that DPreview is as much as a Nikon fanboy as I am. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The last stats I saw had Sony’s unit ILC sales splitting at over 85% APSC, under 15% 35mm format. The idea that “Sony is mostly Full Frame” or that APSC format is part of the “low end” of the camera market that is going away is bizarre distortion of the facts—perhaps due to living in this Internet forum bubble of passionate and/or professional photographers.
Hint: the low end is mostly compacts, not c. $1000 ILC kits!
-
I wonder what percentage of global mirrorless sales are in Asia? When I look around, either in New England or on the West Coast of the US, at what people are actually shooting with, Sony APS-C simply doesn't figure. The vast majority of ILCs I see, whether at a National Park, a baseball game (not in the press well) or just people running around the city taking pictures of their kids, are Canon and Nikon APS-C DSLRs - largely Rebels and D3x00s, but a fair smattering of everything up to D7x00s and 80Ds. The mirrorless I see is Fuji, Micro 4/3 and Sony FF in reasonably equal proportion (I'm not counting - just noting "I see that from time to time"). I can't recall when I last saw a Sony APS-C body, except that one (out of 400 over the years) of my students had one. I've also seen a lone Pentax DSLR, a film Leica, a Nikon F (well, maybe it was an F2), an Instax (student also had a D3200) and a few medium format film cameras (a Holga and a couple of TLRs) among MANY Canon and Nikon DSLRs and various compacts with controls.
It's possible that this is another case of a very popular camera in Asia simply not translating West very well. The EOS-M line has a large percentage of global mirrorless sales, but you pretty much never see them in the US - it turns out that they are huge sellers in Japan. The Fuji X-A series (which many US dealers don't even stock) is very popular in Thailand (I believe). I wouldn't be at all surprised if Sony APS-C is similar?
-
Could well be Dan. I see a fair amount of Sony APSC cameras around. That’s in Africa. I tend to head east mostly on holidays so don’t have much idea what’s up in Europe or North America.
-
I’ve seen data showing that mirrorless share is lowest in the US, highest is Asia, with Europe in between. A few things though:
- The US consumer market is sometimes/often just slower in following a technological trend, especially the older market to whom ILC sales are a bit skewed here
- cameras in use is a lagging indicator! Of course with about 15 years of “affordable” DSLRs, there are far more in people’s hands than there are mirrorless cameras.
- Canon and Nikon between them still dominate ILC sales overall, due in part to a persistent and strong dominance of “shelfshare” and of “mindshare” as the only safe/prestigious brands, and so their now offering EVF cameras has the potential to shift the market share a lot towards mirrorless. Though for Nikon’s part that will require models at far less than $2600 for the cheapest kit, and thus will need smaller format options. Else Canon and Sony could build a huge lead over Nikon in choice of first ILC.
-
The difference in market mode (US to Europe etc) could just be the entrentched attitude to equating DSLR's with male jewllery, or just ideas of perceived 'maleness' DSLR's are much more intrusive and 'in your face' which is why I changed to APS-C Sony models but from the American TV that I see (or could see) one cannot imagine the American male using a small discrete camera if there is the chance to use a larger and more 'phallic' device....
Interestingly, Nikon (to pick out but one maker) gets the bulk of it's profits and turnover from it's entry level DSLR range in APS-C Over the last 4 years there have been three D3xxx models starting with the redoubtable D3300(2014) and then the 'mutilated' D3400 (2016) and D3500 (2018). Why Nikon has purposely weakened these models is not clear (at least to me) especially since Nikon has also introduced three AF-P lenses for APS-C in the same period....Sony by comparison, has seemingly turned it's face to the wall on APS-C lenses and bodies in that period.
-
I believe that Nikon introduced P lenses to solve an imaginary problem with video AF behaviour...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I believe that Nikon introduced P lenses to solve an imaginary problem with video AF behaviour...
Cheers,
Bernard
That problem is noise from AF motors being picked up by in- camera mikes during video recording, and the solution of using linear stepper motors seems to be industry-wide (in particular, Canon also uses them in its STM lenses, some of which are for DSLRs). You are the first person I have read calling this an imaginary problem.
-
That problem is noise from AF motors being picked up by in- camera mikes during video recording, and the solution of using linear stepper motors seems to be industry-wide (in particular, Canon also uses them in its STM lenses, some of which are for DSLRs). You are the first person I have read calling this an imaginary problem.
Let me rephrase... ;) The problem is real, but Nikon’s video AF was so abysmal till the Z that the noise of the lens AF motor should have been a rather low priority in my view.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Let me rephrase... ;) The problem is real, but Nikon’s video AF was so abysmal till the Z that the noise of the lens AF motor should have been a rather low priority in my view.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes...but if they didn't fix the noise in the AF motors and came out with a better video camera...you'd still be sh*t out of luck using these noisy lenses.
-
Yes...but if they didn't fix the noise in the AF motors and came out with a better video camera...you'd still be sh*t out of luck using these noisy lenses.
Exactly. And just as people typically keep lenses longer than digital camera bodies, so do lens deficiencies impede their owners for longer.
I am very much in the school of “think of the lenses first when choosing a digital photography system”.
P.S. I’ve just realised that we are defending Nikon against criticisms by Bernard!
-
Exactly. And just as people typically keep lenses longer than digital camera bodies, so do lens deficiencies impede their owners for longer.
I am very much in the school of “think of the lenses first when choosing a digital photography system”.
P.S. I’ve just realised that we are defending Nikon against criticisms by Bernard!
Yep. I thought I had stepped into a parallel universe.
-
Yep. I thought I had stepped into a parallel universe.
Well, I suppose there is nothing wrong in acknowledging a problem once it has been solved. And Bernard's solution is still to buy another Nikon camera, so nothing has really changed ;).
Cheers,
Fabien
-
Well, I suppose there is nothing wrong in acknowledging a problem once it has been solved. And Bernard's solution is still to buy another Nikon camera, so nothing has really changed ;).
Cheers,
Fabien
To give Bernard his due he actually uses his cameras and shoots more than endless test charts and such. I regard him as a very accomplished photographer.
-
As of Now, there is no clear winner. Still Sony leads with their a7RIII series. Canon and Nikon were able to pull some market share from Sony with their line up of mirrorless cameras. Let us see how the game matures in a couple of years. :)
-
As of Now, there is no clear winner. Still Sony leads with their a7RIII series. Canon and Nikon were able to pull some market share from Sony with their line up of mirrorless cameras. Let us see how the game matures in a couple of years. :)
When you have basically 100% of the mirrorless full frame market there is really only one way to go. I'm actually quite surprised that Sony has held onto such a large percentage given both the recent Canon and Nikon releases and all the pent up demand from the loyalists for these cameras.
-
I am not interested in market shares, up to a low point that a company cannot make new models/ exist.
Look at Apple -with all their money; what have they done since the iPhone? The Apple Watch? so you can check you are still alive?
A good camera + good lenses are interesting.
having said that ; on the site below a Z7 firmware wishlist with a lot of improvements that i find very sensible.
( https://photographylife.com/nikon-z7-firmware-update-wishlist )
Knowing Nikon for some years , they have a problem with updating firmware that brings new features;
They usually wait to put these in a new camera.
On that site the question is raised if that is the right way to keep your costumers happy.
Fuji has an different approach and bring new features with firmware updates.
-
I am not interested in market shares, up to a low point that a company cannot make new models/ exist.
Look at Apple -with all their money; what have they done since the iPhone? The Apple Watch? so you can check you are still alive?
A good camera + good lenses are interesting.
having said that ; on this side a Z7 firmware wishlist with a lot of improvements that i find very sensible.
( https://photographylife.com/nikon-z7-firmware-update-wishlist )
Knowing Nikon for some years , they have a problem with updating firmware that brings new features;
They usually wait to put these in a new camera.
On that site the question is raised if that is the right way to keep your costumers happy.
Fuji has an different approach and bring new features with firmware updates.
The other way to look at it is Fuji releases half baked cameras that require additional functionality with FW releases. Personally i’d rather purchase cameras fully featured from the get go than waiting for additional features in some future FW.
-
The other way to look at it is Fuji releases half baked cameras that require additional functionality with FW releases. Personally i’d rather purchase cameras fully featured from the get go than waiting for additional features in some future FW.
The Fujis are full featured when released. The updates add some features, none of which are monumental, and some find useful. I haven't updated my XE2 or XT2 to the latest version firmware, the XE2 because it changes the way some things are handled that I like as-is, and the XT2 because the changes are minor and I haven't felt the need. I was perfectly happy with both cameras as released. If you think the Fuji cameras are "half-baked" when released, you obviously don't have much experience with them. Nikon, Canon, and Sony also make nice cameras, but each model has a thread on this and other forums containing firmware upgrade wish lists. Good luck with that. I wouldn't hold my breath.
-
The other way to look at it is Fuji releases half baked cameras that require additional functionality with FW releases. Personally i’d rather purchase cameras fully featured from the get go than waiting for additional features in some future FW.
This is IMO post-hoc rationalizing. If you're a CaNikon fan you "appreciate the extra care taken to get things right before releasing new gear," downplaying whatever flaws (software or hardware) that gear may have upon release. If you're a Fuji fan you "appreciate the company's extra attention to fixing bugs and adding features," downplaying the sometimes incomplete or underperforming (AF in early cameras) state of the firmware in new gear releases.
(If you're a Sony fan you get to be annoyed both by firmware bugs/missing features and the company's lack of haste in fixing/adding 'em. ;D )
-Dave-
-
The Fujis are full featured when released. The updates add some features, none of which are monumental, and some find useful. I haven't updated my XE2 or XT2 to the latest version firmware, the XE2 because it changes the way some things are handled that I like as-is, and the XT2 because the changes are minor and I haven't felt the need. I was perfectly happy with both cameras as released. If you think the Fuji cameras are "half-baked" when released, you obviously don't have much experience with them. Nikon, Canon, and Sony also make nice cameras, but each model has a thread on this and other forums containing firmware upgrade wish lists. Good luck with that. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Well if new features are brought to Fuji cameras with just firmware releases...why weren't those features in the camera from the beginning? Why does one have to wait a year or so to get the features? I can understand if hardware is the limiting factors...but adding some features or in fact quite often fixing existing features via firmware a year later and then bowing down to Fuji for this seems a bit much. Why weren't those features in the camera from the start?
-
I used to be into HiFi and I remember years ago when CD's were quite new to the market the established hifi brands didn't/couldn't make them. One company had an answer, they bought in Philips CD players, took the casing off and threw it away and put the electronics and mechanism in their own case and voilà! They had a CD player! and of course it got better reviews than the Philips because it was made by a specialist and respected hifi company.
We've seen the same thing in camera land with Leica reboxing Panasonic cameras and the faithful being more than willing to spend 2 or 3 times the price for a new case and a different badge and I do wonder if Canon and Nikon could have done a little better than bringing out their own mirrorless cameras if they'd bought up Sony's A7III production and got them recased.
Just a thought :D
-
The thing is that Sony’s TVs have better image quality compared to the equivalent LG TV using the same LG OLED panel... when Nikon was using Sony sensors they were typically getting better colors and DR from them than the corresponding Sony camera,...
There is always more to an end product performance than the single components it is made of.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well if new features are brought to Fuji cameras with just firmware releases...why weren't those features in the camera from the beginning? Why does one have to wait a year or so to get the features? I can understand if hardware is the limiting factors...but adding some features or in fact quite often fixing existing features via firmware a year later and then bowing down to Fuji for this seems a bit much. Why weren't those features in the camera from the start?
Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. You pays your money and takes your choice.
-
Hmm ... the ultimate winner may be different if the rumours of a Canon 75mpix body are true.
-
Well if new features are brought to Fuji cameras with just firmware releases...why weren't those features in the camera from the beginning? Why does one have to wait a year or so to get the features? I can understand if hardware is the limiting factors...but adding some features or in fact quite often fixing existing features via firmware a year later and then bowing down to Fuji for this seems a bit much. Why weren't those features in the camera from the start?
Sometimes it takes a long time to make some of those features work properly while they still have a functional camera available. Some of those updates are after extensive use and user feedback, this happens with all cameras released but only some companies make the changes.
The focus improvements means they kept changing and finessing the algorithms. Take Nikon Z7, the focus is functional but far from top of the class. I’m sure it can be improved further, good luck getting Nikon to do it particularly if they plan to release a higher level body with better focus.
Will I want to have all those features from the beginning? Sure. I’ll take the subsequent improvements any day over “the camera that you bought is the camera that you will have, period” of Nikon and others.
PS. All the Fujis that I’ve bought have been good enough for me from day one, the improvements were bonus
-
.. Take Nikon Z7, the focus is functional but far from top of the class. I’m sure it can be improved further, good luck getting Nikon to do it particularly if they plan to release a higher level body with better focus...
I read (blog Jim Kasson) the Z6 has better low light focus simply because sensorpixels are greater and capture more light.
-
Hmm ... the ultimate winner may be different if the rumours of a Canon 75mpix body are true.
Same old game they have been playing for 10 years... there is always a next magical camera down the road.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Same old game they have been playing for 10 years... there is always a next magical camera down the road.
...and still waiting (but not with bated breath) to see if said magical camera will have dynamic range matching Sony/Nikon.
-
Same old game they have been playing for 10 years... there is always a next magical camera down the road.
Cheers,
Bernard
Sort of like Nikon's mirrorless offering that came out a couple years late...always that promise down the road.
-
Sort of like Nikon's mirrorless offering that came out a couple years late...always that promise down the road.
At least Nikon has a proven track record in DSLRs and they never had to leak fake or far fetched info to keep on board customers disappointed with the currently shipping cameras. ;)
The timing of they mirrorless entry was certainly late, but they still have the overall best performing camera, the D850, on their catalog, and the Z6/Z7 are much more competitive bodies.
Canon has nothing remotely appealing to offer either in DSLRs or mirrorless unless you are invested in Canon lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Canon has nothing remotely appealing to offer either in DSLRs or mirrorless unless you are invested in Canon lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
Should not the same be said about Nikon's mirrorless cameras. If one is not vested in Nikon lenses...why would one choose a Nikon mirrorless over a Sony mirrorless today? I see Nikon's mirrorless as a good first attempt...but with Sony, we get their 3rd generations mirrorless with the more fine tuned feature set at 1st generation prices.
-
Canon has nothing remotely appealing to offer either in DSLRs or mirrorless unless you are invested in Canon lenses.
The thing is there are a lot of photographers who are heavily invested in Canon lenses.
-
The thing is there are a lot of photographers who are heavily invested in Canon lenses.
For the first time these can be used with a Nikon camera...
The Z's could possibly accept any lens if the converter exists.
I would love to use a Z7 with the 23mm MF fuji lens or the 21mm hasselblad lens and a shift converter in between.
-
Should not the same be said about Nikon's mirrorless cameras. If one is not vested in Nikon lenses...why would one choose a Nikon mirrorless over a Sony mirrorless today? I see Nikon's mirrorless as a good first attempt...but with Sony, we get their 3rd generations mirrorless with the more fine tuned feature set at 1st generation prices.
A lot less so.
Frankly, eye AF and better tracking are the only significant features I wish the Z7 had compared to an a7rIII.
For the rest I find the Nikon equal or superior.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The thing is there are a lot of photographers who are heavily invested in Canon lenses.
Certainly and many excellent lenses.
Now, how many years to you keep waiting for competitive cameras to mount your lenses on?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A lot less so.
Frankly, eye AF and better tracking are the only significant features I wish the Z7 had compared to an a7rIII.
For the rest I find the Nikon equal or superior.
Cheers,
Bernard
I've not used the Z7, but things like buffer depth and speed of clearing the buffer and fps reduced greatly make the Z7 more of a niche camera than an all around one. I've used the A7R3 for travel, landscape and sports and it excels at all these, making it a better more flexible setup.
I've also read about banding issues with the images and excessive viewfinder blackout when taking images.
Seems like a 1st generation camera which needs to be improved on in some areas...but then I used the original A7R to take nice images so I can see where you are coming from...but it ain't no A7R3 by any stretch.
-
I read that Sony has rollled out a substantial firmware update in the last week for the a7riii and ariii giving better performance with adapted lenses and much better auto focus with native lenses.
-
Thom's review of the Z7 is out and perfectly echoes my views:
https://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/camera-reviews/nikon-z-mirrorless-camera/nikon-z7-camera-review.html
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The thing is there are a lot of photographers who are heavily invested in Canon lenses.
And many of us make very nice livings using those “obsolete and DR challenged” Canon cameras. The constant chase for the next best thing can often be a fools errand.
-
And many of us make very nice livings using those “obsolete and DR challenged” Canon cameras. The constant chase for the next best thing can often be a fools errand.
It goes without saying that talent can compensate many product shortcomings.
Now the question remains, why did you pick Canon in the first place (my guess: because they were the best when you selected them) and do they still fit the bill?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've just picked up the EOS R. So far I'm very happy with it. Being able to AF fast lenses accurately all over the frame makes me giddy with anticipation for portrait shoots. I'm tempted to borrow the old 85/1.2L pickle jar and bokeh everything into oblivion in the next few months. Fun times ahead.
-
It goes without saying that talent can compensate many product shortcomings.
Now the question remains, why did you pick Canon in the first place (my guess: because they were the best when you selected them) and do they still fit the bill?
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard,
Don’t you (or we….) do exactly the same? You choose Nikon but in let’s say 4 year’s time someone may ask you then “Now the question remains, why did you pick Nikon in the first place (my guess: because they were the best when you selected them) and do they still fit the bill?”.
I like your saying which brings me to “product can compensate many talent shortcomings”. Of course I’m going to deny this but what do you think, am I completely honest to myself here?
Regards and much respect for your photography, referring to your H6D-100c images in another thread, especially the one with the narrow street, houses with lanterns and foggy mountains.
Jaap
-
It goes without saying that talent can compensate many product shortcomings.
Now the question remains, why did you pick Canon in the first place (my guess: because they were the best when you selected them) and do they still fit the bill?
Cheers,
Bernard
You picked the z7...is it the best mirrorless camera...especially if one is not vested in Nikon lenses? It always comes back to what system you are vested in...not what is the best...otherwise you would have moved to Sony years ago as it was ( still is ) the best mirrorless system.
-
Thomas Heaton non-review of the EOS-R
https://youtu.be/VQJWYJ0bXyE
-
It goes without saying that talent can compensate many product shortcomings.
Now the question remains, why did you pick Canon in the first place (my guess: because they were the best when you selected them) and do they still fit the bill?
Cheers,
Bernard
Why did I pick Canon in the first place? (when my equipment shelf was full of Horsemans, Sinars, Hasselblads and Nikons) Because it was really the only game in town...the original 1Ds. Why did I stay? Because it continued to do the job and earn me money. Never once, since I purchased that 1Ds and went full digital has a single client asked me to use anything specfic.
I shot with an old 5dII until about 2 years ago and had it been repairable I think I still would be using it. I never had a complaint about image quality. I bought an 6D to replace it and backed it up with my 1DsIII. I continued to use that 6d until I decided on a 5Ds (which I bought used), because the 1DsIII was just too much camera to carry around. My clients never noticed the difference when I began using the 5DS, and I'm only using it for the ability to crop. Amazingly, given all of this "subpar" equipment I still enjoy a healthy client list.
My competition uses Canon, Nikon and Sony and none of us gets hired based on the camera system we use. The upgrade chase is costly and rarely has a ROI. I know it all too well because in the beginning of digital world I played it too. No longer. Back in the film days 20 year old cameras and lenses were the norm. Ektachrome changed very little and boy did it have a narrow DR. Somehow we continued to produce images our clients wanted to buy. I'm not really finding any "product shortcomings" in the Canon cameras I continue to use to feed my family.
Now if you feel the need to chase the dragon, for whatever reason, more power to you. But here is some real world experience. Canon cameras still create lots of valuable images and continue to create wealth for a of photographers.
Of course, YMMV.
-
I do understand and agree with you Craig.
Now, for the sake of the discussion, what were the elements that led you to think back in the days that the 1Ds was the only game in town relative to other cameras?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
While I'm not the person the question was directed to, the 1Ds had the first major-manufacturer full-frame sensor (and this was before the current crop of APS-C ultrawide lenses - you could get to 16mm pretty easily on full-frame, but the widest APS-C lens was also around 16mm, so you were limited to a ~24mm field of view). It also had by far the highest resolution of any major-manufacturer DSLR at the time(the hedging is due to the weird Kodak DSLR (14n, SLR-N and SLR-C) line that used low-quality consumer bodies, but a FF sensor that actually out-resolved the 1Ds). According to the reviews, it was real pain to shoot, but capable of very good image quality for the time if you stayed within their narrow parameters (which pretty much meant staying at base ISO with shutter speeds under a second). The restrictions for decent image quality were unlike the 1Ds, which was heavy, but otherwise a very flexible camera that produced images several years ahead of its time...
What's happened now is that all reasonable interchangeable lens digital cameras (again, for the sake of completeness, this doesn't apply to Pentax Q cameras with tiny sensors, nor to some of the odd cameras we've seen with "Polaroid" or "Kodak" nameplates that have nothing to do with those companies, and maybe not to the Nikon 1) produce images so good, and are so flexible that they are perfectly usable way outside the use cases they were meant for...
The Nikon Z7 is really a landscape camera - and it's a great one... It's pretty much 4x5" level low-ISO IQ in a tiny package that'll take most any weather, with some sharp lenses that fit nicely in a backpack. Think of it as a 4x5" field camera that happens to get a few hundred shots in its film holder. Who'd ever shoot sports with a 4x5"? Very few people since Oskar Barnack first stuffed movie film into a metal cylinder - and certainly nobody outside of a few iconoclasts looking for a very different image since the first Nikon F with a motor drive. Yet a Z7 will do a credible job as a sports camera - there are much better tools, but if all you've got is a Z7 or two, an FTZ adapter and a couple of long lenses, you could go right into the camera pit at Fenway Park and shoot the game (while wishing you hadn't forgotten the D5 at home - it tracks focus a lot better). The most inappropriate possible current camera to shoot a sporting event will still do a better job than any film camera ever could, and better than any digital camera more than five years old.
Conversely, Micro 4/3 is the worst possible currently manufactured choice for high-detail landscape. It gives up resolution and dynamic range to any larger sensor - in return for speed you don't need for landscape. If you're standing on a mountain with nothing but an E-M1 mkII (really a dedicated sports/action camera) and a decent lens, use it! You probably got there with that gear because you were shooting skiers, for which the fast, rugged Olympus is a perfect choice, but want to grab a few scenes as well... Yes, it's the modern-day equivalent of shooting landscape with a motor-driven Nikon F3 with 800 speed film (about as likely a choice as sports with a wooden field camera), but it does a much better job than that... Again, the most inappropriate possible choice today is better than any 35mm film, and as good as any possible digital camera until late 2008 (a very expensive D3x could solidly beat the much newer Olympus at high-detail landscape).
Not only can two specialized cameras do a credible job at each other's specialties, but the broad range of ~24 MP generalist cameras will do a great job at most photographic tasks. Whether you have a Canon 6D mk II, 5D mkIV or EOS-R, a Sony a7 mkII or mkIII, a Nikon D610, D750 or Z6, a Fuji X-T2, X-T, X-Pro-2 or X-H1, or (for the iconoclast) a Pentax KP, you have a camera that does just about everything darned well. Navigate slightly sparse APS-C lens lines and you can add Nikon's D7x00 and D500, Canon's 77D, 80D and even the high end of the EOS-M line, and Sony's A6x00 line to the list. Dealing with both sparse lenses and limited controls, the inexpensive Sony A5100, Canon Rebel (anything from the past bunch of years) and Nikon D3x00/D5x00 lines also produce excellent images.
-
I do understand and agree with you Craig.
Now, for the sake of the discussion, what were the elements that led you to think back in the days that the 1Ds was the only game in town relative to other cameras?
Cheers,
Bernard
It was quite simple. It was the only game in town. Can you suggest another camera of that era to compare it with?
-
It was quite simple. It was the only game in town. Can you suggest another camera of that era to compare it with?
Yep...it was in the era where Nikon was asking "who needs full frame".
-
It was quite simple. It was the only game in town. Can you suggest another camera of that era to compare it with?
I probably wasn’t clear enough. What were the characteristics that made it the only game in town? Being FF in itself isn’t a useful spec IMHO, this is just a means to an end.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I probably wasn’t clear enough. What were the characteristics that made it the only game in town? Being FF in itself isn’t a useful spec IMHO, this is just a means to an end.
Cheers,
Bernard
Maybe not a useful spec to you. It was of utmost importance to me. As stated by another poster, the Kodak offerings were simply not up to the job. Nothing else existed. I shoot (and still do) confined space interiors. Crop cameras of the day were not useable for my needs.
The 1ds was a really great camera. I’m still amazed when I look at the quality those 11mp captured. It was a game changer.
I found some old files the other day, a test still life scene, captured as a test using the 1Ds and my Betterlight scan back on a Horseman. I’m guessing this was around 2003 with going back to find the files. The 1ds file held up surprisingly well campared to betterlight scan. The Betterlight back, as cool as it was, left a lot to be desired with studio tungsten lighting. It never was a valuable tool for me. That original 1Ds however.....
-
Maybe not a useful spec to you. It was of utmost importance to me. As stated by another poster, the Kodak offerings were simply not up to the job. Nothing else existed. I shoot (and still do) confined space interiors. Crop cameras of the day were not useable for my needs.
The 1ds was a really great camera. I’m still amazed when I look at the quality those 11mp captured. It was a game changer.
Very much the same with the original 5d...the quality of those pixels still amaze me.
-
Thanks for your feedbacks.
I used to own the Kodak and it was very limited indeed, but great within what it could do well. It took 10 years and the D810 at ISO64 to equal the cleanliness of the Kodak files at ISO6.
I have to confess that the Betterlight never worked for me...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks for your feedbacks.
I used to own the Kodak and it was very limited indeed, but great within what it could do well. It took 10 years and the D810 at ISO64 to equal the cleanliness of the Kodak files at ISO6.
I have to confess that the Betterlight never worked for me...
Cheers,
Bernard
In case you are interested, here are the samples I was referencing. Both are 100% png's. I really have no clue as to the post processing that was done on these images, other than the 1Ds file was processed with C1 v3 Please note that the Betterlight file is about 144mb.
http://www.craiglamson.com/sample/betterlight.png (http://www.craiglamson.com/sample/betterlight.png)
http://www.craiglamson.com/sample/1Ds.png (http://www.craiglamson.com/sample/1Ds.png)
-
Shot on the original 1DS at 1250 iso. At the time this was a revelation for me. Full frame so all wide angle lenses suddenly available and I had not seen anything including film that could shoot like this in the dark. Seems ordinary now. January 2004, Kathmandu
-
Great photo no matter what camera took this image...yesterday, today or tomorrow.
-
Shot on the original 1DS at 1250 iso. At the time this was a revelation for me. Full frame so all wide angle lenses suddenly available and I had not seen anything including film that could shoot like this in the dark. Seems ordinary now. January 2004, Kathmandu
Nice image indeed, thanks for sharing.
I had to wait until 2008 and the D3 to be able to visit Kathmandu (in fact I think this one was shot around Phurte if I recall correctly). ;D
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2227/2467929388_2e40fb8fcf_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nice image indeed, thanks for sharing.
I had to wait until 2008 and the D3 to be able to visit Kathmandu (in fact I think this one was shot around Phurte if I recall correctly). ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
Interesting photo, Bernard. But why did you not raise the shadows, especially considering that the D3 was renowned for its ground-breaking low noise? ;)
Is this version not better? Hope you don't mind.
-
I'd forgotten about the ultra-low ISO mode on those old Kodaks... The shots I saw from them at ISO 80 were also pretty darned impressive - but the original 1Ds was good up to its top ISO of 1250 (I'd forgotten how ISO-limited those old cameras were, too).
-
Interesting photo, Bernard. But why did you not raise the shadows, especially considering that the D3 was renowned for its ground-breaking low noise? ;)
Is this version not better? Hope you don't mind.
Hi Ray,
Thanks for the suggestion but the original is much closer to the dark atmosphere of the building as I remember it. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've done a fashion shot this weekend with the EOS R and my EF (Sigma) lenses. Several hundreds of shots at f2-3.2 with everything between wide angle and telephoto. I have yet to find one that is out of focus. As far as I'm concerned the winner of this "war" is me.
-
We all win if we get the manufacturers to push each other...
-
I don’t think “Micro 4/3 is the worst possible currently manufactured choice for high-detail landscape”. I do see benefits due to the huge depth of field, portability, flight-weight restrictions, tripod requirements, and modern complex lens designs providing sharp images from edge to edge.
On the other hand, what’s the use of an abundance of pixels while having soft(er) corners, not providing the resolution you’ll get with Micro 4/3 in the first place? I’m referring to companies slowwwwly updating their lens portfolio from the film days.
All in all for high-detail landscape I think Sony has the best cards in hand with their latest lens designs and Nikon one of the worst.
Another thing is: how large do you print and how many pixels do you actually need for that? I already get very good results from 200dpi on 20x30 inch (24Mpix) sent to a Durst Lambda printer on Fuji Crystal Archive paper.
Let me end by saying that I do not possess a Micro 4/3 nor a Sony camera so I don’t have to defend them in any way.
Regards,
Jaap.
-
Sony has some good cards in hand with very capable bodies and some excellent full-frame lenses (along with some lousy ones)- wish they'd fix their weather sealing and user interfaces. Their APS-C lenses are more or less uniformly lousy, with a few exceptions. The 16-50 pancake zoom may have the dubious honor of "worst interchangeable lens currently in production, unless you count deliberately bad lenses like Lensbabies". I completely agree with you that some of the newer FE lenses are really excellent (from the few shots I've grabbed on friends' cameras) - although many of them are big.
Nikon Z is very promising - we'll see how the lens portfolio fills out, but the initial lenses are excellent, especially for the size. The Nikkor Z 24-70 f4 is not anything like the old Sony 24-70 f4 "Zeiss" - it's a small, light and VERY sharp lens. The Sony 24-70 G-master is as sharp as the Nikkor, and a stop faster, but it's twice the weight. If the 14-30 f4 is anything like the 24-70, it'll be a two lens hiking kit that can't be beat.
There are certainly some very old F-mount Nikkors still in the line that are nothing special, as well as a lot of truly lousy Nikon APS-C lenses (many of which are superzooms), but there are a bunch of newer ones that are excellent.
Micro 4/3 has some excellent lenses, but I've never found the best of them (other than certain primes) to be smaller or cheaper than equally good lenses for larger formats. There are certainly some tiny Micro 4/3 lenses, but the good ones aren't tiny for the most part, and the tiny ones aren't good. The real advantages of Micro 4/3 are speed and stabilization (especially the E-M1 mk II), video (mostly Panasonic) and ultra-compact size if you're willing to take significant IQ loss (small bodies with small, but compromised lenses) - not take-no-prisoners image quality.
Micro 4/3 and EVERY APS-C system except Fuji are held back by the kit lenses, not the bodies. You simply can't make a decent lens that adds only $100 to the kit price!
Canon has a great lens line - I wish I was as excited about their sensors. Toss a top-end Sony sensor in a Canon body, and it would be an amazing setup. The EF-R mirrorless lenses are made for a body we haven't seen yet...
Fuji has the closest thing to a uniformly very good or better lens line (and they're nice enough to label their few lousy lenses XC and the good ones XF). Their answer to really high resolution is small medium format, which is an interesting proposition - too big and heavy for me (especially the lenses). It won't reach its full potential until they're using a newer sensor (the 5 year old 50 MP sensor is very close in overall image quality to the much newer D850/Z7 sensor - but a 100 MP sensor with 16-bit output may well pull away).
I happen to shoot Fuji APS-C and Nikon Z, so they're what I know best.
-
Hi Dan, I fully agree on everything you say about Fuji, except that I don't find their lenses too big or heavy.
With respect to Micro 4/3, yes, skip the kit lenses and directly move to the Olympus PRO line.
Nikon lenses are promising? Well I first need to see proof of that as I’m not impressed. Sony is doing a much better job here with their G-Master range. Scope: everyone can build a lens giving a sharp image in the center. These days a lens shall also be sharp near the edges.
Regards,
Jaap.
-
Micro 4/3 has some excellent lenses, but I've never found the best of them (other than certain primes) to be smaller or cheaper than equally good lenses for larger formats. There are certainly some tiny Micro 4/3 lenses, but the good ones aren't tiny for the most part, and the tiny ones aren't good. The real advantages of Micro 4/3 are speed and stabilization (especially the E-M1 mk II), video (mostly Panasonic) and ultra-compact size if you're willing to take significant IQ loss (small bodies with small, but compromised lenses) - not take-no-prisoners image quality.
I have a quick elaboration on this, since I was researching the m43 system for a possible purchase recently. All the lenses seem quite poorly corrected for distortion, as a kind of design compromise because post-processing software is so good at lens corrections these days. Some details are provided here:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3511661
Unfortunately there is a measurable image quality price to pay for that post-processing:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/you-can-correct-it-in-post-but/
-
A lens design is always a compromise. These days lens designs are very complex with all kinds of special glass and curved surfaces. During the design phase a predefined choice has been made on which aspects will be corrected optically and which can easier/better be corrected electronically (i.e. distorsion). In the end the sum of optical and electronic corrections is all what counts.
Regards,
Jaap.
-
Sony has some good cards in hand with very capable bodies and some excellent full-frame lenses (along with some lousy ones)- wish they'd fix their weather sealing and user interfaces. Their APS-C lenses are more or less uniformly lousy, with a few exceptions. The 16-50 pancake zoom may have the dubious honor of "worst interchangeable lens currently in production, unless you count deliberately bad lenses like Lensbabies". I completely agree with you that some of the newer FE lenses are really excellent (from the few shots I've grabbed on friends' cameras) - although many of them are big.
..................
I happen to shoot Fuji APS-C and Nikon Z, so they're what I know best.
Where do you get this stuff from? Would DxO Mark for example support your contention that Sony APS-C lenses are "more or less uniformly lousy"? Or is all this just from a few shots you've grabbed from other peoples' cameras?
I've been using Sony mirrorless cameras for years and have tried numerous lenses on them. I am currently using an a6300 camera with three zoom lenses and I think I know a thing or two about the strengths and weaknesses of these systems from first-hand experience. So I'll share a few first hand items of experience: (1) the menu system, never good, has improved from one model to the next. It is now usable though far from ideal. (2) Auto-focusing is not good - it can be very accurate but depending on conditions can spend far too much time seeking a focal point and then getting it wrong. I believe there may be better systems on the market. (3) Sony's stubborn refusal to release information on a safe solution for cleaning their sensors is a blight on that company's reputation. (4) With these cameras one can make excellent photographs (from my experience enlarged to 17x22 inch paper with one inch borders) because sensor performance is excellent and a number of their lenses are tack-sharp. Always bearing in mind there is sample variability with any zoom lens, from my usage I can confirm that the Sony 55-210 OSS pulls in fine, sharp detail from afar beautifully, the Zeiss/Sony Vario Tessar 16-70mm ZA OSS is a very fine lens that covers a high percentage of all my needs with this camera, and the Sony E4 10-18mm OSS is the best super wide-angle lens of the four others I've tested and rejected. I did a review of this lens on this website - you can check the performance there - it isn't MTF charts, it's real experience. I can't speak for camera systems I haven't personally worked with, but this one I know somethings about.
-
The Fuji lenses I was calling big and heavy are their medium format line. They're using small medium format as a response to 40+ MP full-frame, and it's an interesting choice, but held back by big lenses. The 5 year old 50 MP medium format sensor is pretty much directly comparable to the newest 46 MP BSI sensor found in the D850 and Z7, and has only a small advantage over the 42+ MP sensor in the A7rII and A7rIII (from comparisons online and from looking at large prints from all three at PhotoPlus - the only one of the three I have direct experience with is the Nikon, which I chose after careful comparisons of output). Only the Nikon version of the 40+ MP Sony BSI sensor has ISO 64, which brings DR and noise that last little step to compete with the medium format sensor. When Fuji gets ahold of a newer MF sensor, their choice may very well pay off.
The Nikkor Z 24-70 is a very sharp lens except in the extreme corners (so far out that they're often hidden under the mat board, and can be cropped out very darned easily). The corners aren't horrible - this is not an APS-C kit lens... Think 24-70 f2.8 or better (your choice, Nikkor, Canon or Sony G-Master) across most of the frame, with corners from a 24-120 Nikkor or some other decent compact FF lens. Don't worry about the corners - marvel at 4x5" image quality in a small package with weather sealing and stabilization. The Z7/24-70 is the sharpest camera/ lens combination I've ever used (medium format and A7rII or III are outside my experience, although I've used an original A7r quite a bit), and by a significant margin, too.
I don't consider Fuji APS-C lenses big or heavy at all - in fact, Micro 4/3 pro lenses are excellent, but big and heavy by comparison to Fuji lenses, especially given that the sensor size gives up a stop. The best example is the Olympus Pro 12-40 f2.8 vs. the equally good Fujinon 18-55 f2.8-4. They're both excellent standard zooms, but the Olympus is a bit bulkier and heavier (about 25%) despite the smaller format. Olympus fans will say "that's not fair - the Olympus Pro needs to go up against the bigger and heavier Fujinon 16-55 f2.8, not the 18-55 f2.8-4".
Once you consider the sensor size, the smaller Fujinon is actually a faster lens in most respects (by a full stop at wide angle, part of a stop through much of the zoom range, and they're the same speed at full extension). The Fujinon 16-55 f2.8 that is sometimes cited as the appropriate comparison is a full stop faster throughout the zoom range. This applies both from the viewpoint of bokeh and subject isolation and from a noise and image quality standpoint.
Is the Olympus Pro a "better lens" than the Fujinon? The proof of that would be in which lens one could make an image that looked better in a print with - whether it printed larger, or was more to your taste at the same size... I have never used a Micro 4/3 camera with the most modern 20 MP sensor seriously, but I've used that Pro lens on the 16 MP sensor extensively. It's a very good lens, and I've gotten good results out of it, but I've gotten better results out of even the 16 MP Fujis (X-T1) with the 18-55. The latest 24 MP Fujis (X-T2 and X-H1) are in a different league - they offer substantially more detail and less noise with the 18-55 mounted on them. Comparing the lens and sensor combination may not be fair, but it's reality - a Micro 4/3 lens could be perfect, but it will go on a sensor that gives up quite a bit to larger sensors and it cannot go on another sensor.
That doesn't mean that Micro 4/3 always loses, either. If you had a Nikon D3500 with a very similar sensor to the Fuji, but with the Nikkor 18-55 kit lens, I have very little doubt that the Olympus Pro would win easily. Even more so against Sony APS-C with their usual kit lens - that 16-50 pancake is terrible (and DxOMark, etc. point that out - DxO says it resolves 6 "perceptual megapixels", the lowest score of any lens). I've never really shot Sony other than a few borrowed cameras (some for significant periods, though - I have a friend with about four systems at any given time, and I've grabbed his Sonys for many hundreds of images, including taking one home for weeks) , but I was shocked when a student once handed me his a5100 with the 16-50, and I could see the lens distortion in the viewing screen before taking the picture - that's hard to do, other than with ultra-wide lenses (fisheyes are, of course, the extreme example), deliberately distorted lenses, or by staring at graph paper.
Yes, there are better Sony APS-C lenses than that one (all the rest, one hopes), but that's what you tend to get with a body, even the a6500. They have discontinued their 18-55 (just like Canon and Nikon's cheap 18-55s) in favor of the even worse 16-50. I just checked Sony's site 5 minutes ago, and they offer the a5100 and a6000 only with the 16-50 or as body-only. With the a6300 and a6500, the 16-50 is the first option, but you can also get an 18-135. B+H will sell those bodies with a much better 16-70 Zeiss, but there's no discount compared to buying body and lens separately. Sony's pushing the execrable 16-50, so it's fair to compare...
I've used the Sony 10-18 a few times - my friend with various cameras has one, and it's a very nice lens. I prefer the Fujinon 10-24 for the range (the overlap with longer lenses between 18 and 24 is nice), but they are certainly comparable in image quality. I've never seen a 16-70 Zeiss except on a shelf, but it could very well be great (it should be, for the price - it's comparable in price to the Fujinon 16-55 f2.8 when there's a good rebate on the Fujinon, so that's the standard it needs to meet) - if it is as good as that, Sony has something that Canon and Nikon don't - a really good dedicated APS-C standard zoom. Wish they'd put it in the kit with the higher end bodies and give a nice discount on it.
Micro 4/3 does always lose in overall image quality at base ISO against a larger format with a comparable lens. There are numerous caveats in that statement, though!!! I'm far from a Micro 4/3 basher - they don't fit my shooting style or subject matter, but I think they're among the most interesting cameras out there. The most general caveat is with a comparable lens. Below full-frame, only Fuji has as good a lens lineup as Micro 4/3 - I'd far rather have Micro 4/3 with a good lens than Canon, Nikon or Sony APS-C with a kit lens (any comparison of kit lens to kit lens without either a Fuji or a full-frame camera in it can effectively ignore the sensor - none of the cheapies come close to what the sensors can do).
This is made more interesting because Canon, Nikon and Sony all have APS-C lineups made up largely of kit-type lenses (several variants of literal kit 18-55s plus cheap tele zooms and various superzooms). All have a few better lenses that break that mold, but none have anywhere close to a full line of them (Thom Hogan loves to criticize Nikon for this, but Sony's no better and Canon's only a bit better). Fuji has the only full line of decent APS-C lenses...
Another place where Micro 4/3 often wins is when nothing else will get the shot (or only a few particular "something elses", all of which are much heavier and/or more expensive). The E-M1 mk II in particular is an unusually fast camera with a really special image stabilization system. You can't get that night cityscape at 1/2 second with anything else other than a tripod... The action shot at a sporting event? An E-M1 mk II has a better chance than anything except a D5 or a 1Dx mk II...
The third advantage of Micro 4/3 is at the extreme edge of compactness. Different bodies (the best Micro 4/3 bodies are the size of APS-C or even full-frame mirrorless, but there are ultracompact bodies that give up weather seals, battery life and even the viewfinder), different lenses (no lovely Pro lenses need apply), but you can build a compromised kit the size of many compact cameras. Yes it's compromised compared to most interchangeable lens cameras, but it's better than any compact camera (except a few exotics - Sony Rx1 series or some Leicas).
-
(2) Auto-focusing is not good - it can be very accurate but depending on conditions can spend far too much time seeking a focal point and then getting it wrong. I believe there may be better systems on the market.
Hi Mark, thanks for your comments. I'm wondering about this one in particular, because reviews seem to indicate that, among mirrorless cameras, Sony has industry-leading autofocus, and in particular the best eye-detect autofocus. Are you speaking of performance versus mirrorless or DSLRs here? What systems have you found to be better? (I ask as I might be purchasing a camera in the near future.)
-
I've been using Sony mirrorless cameras for years and have tried numerous lenses on them.
Good synopsis, Mark. I'll add that the "worst interchangeable lens currently in production" produced a 5 x 2 foot canvas print that looks pretty good to me, and that I have come to prefer Sony's quick settings access over those in Canon bodies. I use both systems.
-
Hi Mark, thanks for your comments. I'm wondering about this one in particular, because reviews seem to indicate that, among mirrorless cameras, Sony has industry-leading autofocus, and in particular the best eye-detect autofocus. Are you speaking of performance versus mirrorless or DSLRs here? What systems have you found to be better? (I ask as I might be purchasing a camera in the near future.)
Hi kpz,
To be very specific about auto-focus experience - if I'm outdoors in good lighting photographing subject matter that has substantial contrast, for example wall art, auto-focus works just fine. Could be a bit zippier perhaps, but it's really good enough for things that are well lit and don't move. When it comes to photographing children indoors it's a whole different ball-game. For one thing, the lighting is dimmer than outdoors, and for another, those kids never stop moving and their facial expressions never stop changing. The a6300 and all its predecessors, between focusing and actually making the exposure are just too darn slow to capture the moment you were aiming at. By the time the camera manages to expose, either the kid's position or facial expression has changed; I normally try to focus on their eyes; it's very frustrating to push an exposure button and nothing happens while the focus is seeking and the subject matter changes. The electronics of focusing and capturing really need to be instantaneous for doing this kind of work and as far as I'm concerned, the Sony cameras I've been using just don't cut it well enough. Obviously it's not an impossible situation and image quality can be excellent, so I'm not about to scrap what I've invested in this system, but to be brutally objective about it, I see a need for major improvement. Whether it's technically possible or not, and whether other systems (Fuji, Olympus etc.) are any better another matter. I can't comment on what I haven't personally experienced. All I can suggest if you are in the market for buying a system, now that there are a good number of options, go to a shop where you can test for this kind of stuff on the spot and make sure to the extent possible that you will be happy with what you've bought.
-
100% agreed on trying the systems at least in a store (rent or borrow if you can) - and try to look at some prints from the contenders as well, as big as you'll print. At least as I've used them, Fuji, Olympus and Sony FF all have very good to excellent AF on their newer cameras. Nikon's higher-end DSLRs are excellent (probably Canon's as well, but I haven't used a higher-end Canon DSLR outside a show in at least five years). The Nikon Z's have serviceable AF - certainly excellent for what I'm using it for, but I haven't tried to shoot action since my longer lenses are for my Fujis - and I believe the folks who don't like it for that case.
AF is at least mostly objective - how a camera feels to you is completely subjective.
My personal ranking is
Nikon and Fuji
Canon and Olympus
Panasonic
Sony
It may not be a coincidence that I own Nikon and Fuji... I'm both more familiar with them and I chose what I liked. Someone else could (equally rationally) love Sony and hate Fuji. Try them all and see what fits...
-
100% agreed on trying the systems at least in a store (rent or borrow if you can) - and try to look at some prints from the contenders as well, as big as you'll print. At least as I've used them, Fuji, Olympus and Sony FF all have very good to excellent AF on their newer cameras. Nikon's higher-end DSLRs are excellent (probably Canon's as well, but I haven't used a higher-end Canon DSLR outside a show in at least five years). The Nikon Z's have serviceable AF - certainly excellent for what I'm using it for, but I haven't tried to shoot action since my longer lenses are for my Fujis - and I believe the folks who don't like it for that case.
AF is at least mostly objective - how a camera feels to you is completely subjective.
My personal ranking is
Nikon and Fuji
Canon and Olympus
Panasonic
Sony
It may not be a coincidence that I own Nikon and Fuji... I'm both more familiar with them and I chose what I liked. Someone else could (equally rationally) love Sony and hate Fuji. Try them all and see what fits...
I'd say you need to try a camera for much longer and much more in depth than what can be done in a store. I've been using Sony cameras for about 4 years now and at first they felt awkward to shoot with...but the more I used them, the more they started to feel right...whereas now whenever I pick up my Canon 7D or Fuji X100...they are the ones that feel awkward.
It's very much like renting a car for a couple of weeks...at first it feels awkward to drive compared to what you drive everyday...but after a couple of weeks...the rental feels great...and in fact when I get back to the airport and pick up my car...it's the on the feels awkward.
Our brains are very malleable ( at least most of them are ) and adapt quite readily to whatever is thrown at them. Trying a camera out for 30 minutes just does not give your brain enough time to adapt...let alone for you to figure out all the optimal settings of the camera for the type of photography one wants to do. I see so many remarks about trying out the camera in a store and it feeling awkward ( well duh... ), it's different than what you are used to. Unless one is willing to give a camera a good couple week shake...it's a waste of time making any judgements by trying it out in a store.
-
"Why would anyone still believe in Canon enough today to decide to invest cash on the R system?
Thoughts?"
Back to the original question...
I sold all my Canon gear earlier this year and bought the a7r3 and a couple of Sony lenses. (I already had an a7ii so I also had some experience with the system).
I came to the same point as Bernard's thinking as he has stated many times above. I had zero regrets about the move back then and now that the R is out, even less. If I would have been waiting for that camera my heart would have been severely broken! Canon is a big company and their user base and name will keep them going for a long time, but for the avid enthusiast's market that may not be enough.
-
I'd say you need to try a camera for much longer and much more in depth than what can be done in a store.
It depends on how experienced you are and what you are trying to do. Some things you'll know pretty quickly within an hour or so in or around a store whether you're likely to be happy or not. Other things, you are right, it takes more time. Never hurts to give a camera a good tryout on or around the premises before buying.
-
It depends on how experienced you are and what you are trying to do. Some things you'll know pretty quickly within an hour or so in or around a store whether you're likely to be happy or not. Other things, you are right, it takes more time. Never hurts to give a camera a good tryout on or around the premises before buying.
I hear a lot of dislike about the Sony menu system...I really don't like it either...but the cameras are so customizable to the way you want to shoot, to the point the only time I really go into the menu system today is to format a card. The rest is either done by buttons or dials or the quick Fn function. Yet...trying the camera out in a store would leave you thinking it is unusable due to the cumbersome menu system. It's these quick one hour decisions that do you more harm than good, IMHO.
I'm lucky in that I have a very good relationship with a camera store which allows me to borrow their rental gear if not booked so I can use a camera or lens quite extensively before I decide to purchase. When I do purchase, I know what I am getting...not what some internet reviewer says and is extensively echoed in the internet chambers.
-
I recognize the dislike of Sony’s menu system, together with the small lens mount. This indeed gets echoed in the Internet chambers, keeping me away from Sony (and their great G-Master lenses). Apart from this I mentioned that Sony has the best cards in hand....
Regards,
Jaap.
-
I hear a lot of dislike about the Sony menu system...I really don't like it either...but the cameras are so customizable to the way you want to shoot, to the point the only time I really go into the menu system today is to format a card. The rest is either done by buttons or dials or the quick Fn function. Yet...trying the camera out in a store would leave you thinking it is unusable due to the cumbersome menu system. It's these quick one hour decisions that do you more harm than good, IMHO.
I'm lucky in that I have a very good relationship with a camera store which allows me to borrow their rental gear if not booked so I can use a camera or lens quite extensively before I decide to purchase. When I do purchase, I know what I am getting...not what some internet reviewer says and is extensively echoed in the internet chambers.
I hear you - but just to take the example you give - an astute dealer would know how to get a customer over that concern pretty quickly. And so I agree - a good relationship with a retailer is very useful. I'm not saying a quick tour of the camera at the shop is all one needs - just that's it's useful. Should not be dismissed out of hand.
-
"Why would anyone still believe in Canon enough today to decide to invest cash on the R system?
Thoughts?"
Many people have large investments in Canon lenses and are more likely to migrate to a Canon mirrorless than either a Sony or Nikon mirrorless system. I used to shoot Canon and made to move to Sony when they released their A7R camera...but if Canon had a full frame mirrorless at the time, I highly doubt I'd made the move to Sony.
-
I recognize the dislike of Sony’s menu system, together with the small lens mount. This indeed gets echoed in the Internet chambers, keeping me away from Sony (and their great G-Master lenses). Apart from this I mentioned that Sony has the best cards in hand....
Regards,
Jaap.
OK, reviews are another talk show - I should know because I write them, not so much cameras, but more into printers, papers, scanners etc. Let's be clear - every reviewer comes at their material emphasizing different things in different ways. Readers need to learn how to parse reviews, and especially to dismiss material that is just from the echo chamber. There is a "fine art" to reading a review, discerning whether what's being said makes sense and getting what one wants out of it, and at the end of the day, one learns a bunch of stuff from reading the useful portions of several qualified reviews, but then the serious reader in the market for equipment needs to interact with the materials themselves to see first hand.
Edit: corrected typo.
-
I can't be bothered ranking camera systems, particularly ones I don't own & use myself, 'cuz each has its own set of strengths and weaknesses. The rankings would change a lot depending on the intended use. And they'd be based solely on my own tastes and idiosyncracies.
-Dave-
-
OK, reviews are another talk show - I should know because I write them, not so much cameras, but more into printers, papers, scanners etc. Lst's be clear - every reviewer comes at their material emphasizing different things in different ways. Readers need to learn how to parse reviews, and especially to dismiss material that is just from the echo chamber. There is a "fine art" to reading a review, discerning whether what's being said makes sense and getting what one wants out of it, and at the end of the day, one learns a bunch of stuff from reading the useful portions of several qualified reviews, but then the serious reader in the market for equipment needs to interact with the materials themselves to see first hand.
I don't place much stock in reviews. The are mostly a regurgitation of marketing hype, specifications, and fanboyisms, with linkw to the major photographic suppliers so that they can get a cut of the purchase price. That and a bunch on mediocre, small, 96 ppi jpgs. The video reviews are the worst. I compare the manufacturers specs and then handle the cameras and lenses before purchasing.
-
I hear you - but just to take the example you give - an astute dealer would know how to get a customer over that concern pretty quickly. And so I agree - a good relationship with a retailer is very useful. I'm not saying a quick tour of the camera at the shop is all one needs - just that's it's useful. Should not be dismissed out of hand.
Those of you who still have retailers in your city are fortunate. The have all but disappeared down here in Washington DC. I think I would have to go up to New York to try out a Nikon Z camera.
-
Those of you who still have retailers in your city are fortunate. The have all but disappeared down here in Washington DC. I think I would have to go up to New York to try out a Nikon Z camera.
You can also purchase from suppliers who offer return privileges.
-
That's sad - there is no full-line Nikon dealer left in a big city like DC? There are certainly places in the country where that's true, but I would have thought DC would have had at least one dealer for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji and maybe Panasonic and/or Olympus... Boston is down to one real camera store, Hunt's Photo (with a bunch of branches), but their flagship store carries all six of the above plus Fuji Medium Format, Hasselblad (X1D system only) and Leica. I suspect at least one of their other branches would also have a Z7 in stock (the flagship store has several at any given time, plus they rent them). They are fully capable of pulling a Z7, an A7rIII, a GFX (although they didn't have a 50R yet when I was last there) and an X1D down for one to look at... To give an idea of how full-line Hunt's is in Nikon, they generally keep the Nikkor 800 f5.6 and several of the Perspective Control lenses in stock. They have equivalent stock depth in most brands - I'm not sure if their Leica stock is all that deep - maybe only B&H actually stocks the Noctilux! Hunt's is missing the Hasselblad H system, Pentax (they are a Pentax dealer, but stock little if any) and Phase One. We also have a Phase One dealer less than an hour away (a branch of Capture Integration).
Even Vermont, where I lived for many years, has a Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji/Olympus/Panasonic/Leica dealer. Their Nikon stock would run through the D850 and Z7, and they would often have a D5 as well. They would certainly have a 70-200 f2.8 (Nikon, Canon and Sony, plus a Sigma in at least one mount) most of the time, and probably a 300 f2.8 Nikkor or Sigma. A 300 f4 PF would be a normal stock item, while the 500 f5.6 PF would be a "maybe". They carry a relatively full line (except some exotics) in all their brands. They would have a good chance of having all of the Sony FF lenses except for the 400 f2.8, many or most of the Canons through the 300 f2.8 and probably all of the Fujinons except the 200 f2. They have full pro-line dealerships in everything - they'd be happy to order an 800mm f5.6 Nikkor or the Canon equivalent, a Leica Noctilux or a Fuji GFX. I recognize that Green Mountain Camera is unusual, maybe even very unusual, for a rural state.
I would expect a big city with a huge press corps like DC to have something like that... Has a place called Pro Photo a few blocks from the White House disappeared? There's also something called District Camera & Imaging with a big picture of a Z7 on their home page. They claim to be a dealer for the big four, although not Olympus or Panasonic...
-
That's sad - there is no full-line Nikon dealer left in a big city like DC? There are certainly places in the country where that's true, but I would have thought DC would have had at least one dealer for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji and maybe Panasonic and/or Olympus... Boston is down to one real camera store, Hunt's Photo (with a bunch of branches), but their flagship store carries all six of the above plus Fuji Medium Format, Hasselblad (X1D system only) and Leica. I suspect at least one of their other branches would also have a Z7 in stock (the flagship store has several at any given time, plus they rent them). They are fully capable of pulling a Z7, an A7rIII, a GFX (although they didn't have a 50R yet when I was last there) and an X1D down for one to look at... To give an idea of how full-line Hunt's is in Nikon, they generally keep the Nikkor 800 f5.6 and several of the Perspective Control lenses in stock. They have equivalent stock depth in most brands - I'm not sure if their Leica stock is all that deep - maybe only B&H actually stocks the Noctilux! Hunt's is missing the Hasselblad H system, Pentax (they are a Pentax dealer, but stock little if any) and Phase One. We also have a Phase One dealer less than an hour away (a branch of Capture Integration).
Even Vermont, where I lived for many years, has a Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji/Olympus/Panasonic/Leica dealer. Their Nikon stock would run through the D850 and Z7, and they would often have a D5 as well. They would certainly have a 70-200 f2.8 (Nikon, Canon and Sony, plus a Sigma in at least one mount) most of the time, and probably a 300 f2.8 Nikkor or Sigma. A 300 f4 PF would be a normal stock item, while the 500 f5.6 PF would be a "maybe". They carry a relatively full line (except some exotics) in all their brands. They would have a good chance of having all of the Sony FF lenses except for the 400 f2.8, many or most of the Canons through the 300 f2.8 and probably all of the Fujinons except the 200 f2. They have full pro-line dealerships in everything - they'd be happy to order an 800mm f5.6 Nikkor or the Canon equivalent, a Leica Noctilux or a Fuji GFX. I recognize that Green Mountain Camera is unusual, maybe even very unusual, for a rural state.
I would expect a big city with a huge press corps like DC to have something like that... Has a place called Pro Photo a few blocks from the White House disappeared? There's also something called District Camera & Imaging with a big picture of a Z7 on their home page. They claim to be a dealer for the big four, although not Olympus or Panasonic...
Bottom line for me is if i’m going to use the services of a local retailer, then i’m Going to purchase the gear from that retailer. Doing otherwise is just abusing the services of the local guy and then buying from the Internet big box store.
I’ve built a great relationship with a local camera store, buy all my new gear from them...they give me a good price along with basically free use of their rental pool. Many times it pays to shop local rather than getting an item for a few bucks less from the net.
-
Those of you who still have retailers in your city are fortunate. The have all but disappeared down here in Washington DC.
That has been a surprising and rapid collapse—it seems only a decade ago that Washington had several great pro.-oriented camera stores, with lots of more specialized gear like studio lighting, and I would have thought that the political press corp alone would keep at least one of them in business.
So now the only high-end camera store there is the Leica boutique?!
-
I buy almost all my gear from either Hunt's in Boston or Green Mountain in Vermont... The one exception is filters, where even a large dealer like Hunt's is often double B&H's price. There's also the occasional small item that nobody carries... For printing-related stuff, I use Shades of Paper frequently (they are much cheaper than most places on printers, and they're very reliable on having ink in stock).
The place I try NEVER to buy photographic equipment from is Amazon. First of all, I'd rather support my local camera dealers than B&H, and I'd rather support B&H (who at least have a great commitment to the photographic world) than Amazon. Secondly, I don't like their policy of always promoting a cheaper alternative, even in cases where the alternative is potentially dangerous. I would never use an off-brand battery in a camera I cared about - there is a very slight risk of the battery hurting someone, and a much larger risk of the battery hurting the camera - it's not worth it to put a knockoff battery in a camera that is worth between $900 and $3400... I also prefer name-brand filters to off-brand options, because they have fewer (and more predictable) effects on image quality. I just tried three searches for photographic items on Amazon...
1.) B+W 77 mm UV filter - I got two sponsored results (aka ads) for other-brand filters before I got the first result for a B+W filter (then I got three or four B+W models in a row, offering me choices of coating and regular vs. slim). Interestingly, the off-brand filters weremore expensivethan B+W. When I clicked on one of the B+W results, there was an offer of an AmazonBasics filter instead (much cheaper), but it wasn't a terribly hard sell.
2.) Nikon EN-EL 15b battery - when I specified the word Nikon, the first result was the correct Nikon battery, not an off-brand version. When I clicked through to the description page, it was festooned with ads trying to switch me to various off-brand versions, ranging from the vaguely reasonable (Wasabi Power) to names nobody has ever heard of.
3. ) w126s battery (I deliberately left the word Fujifilm off) - the first two results were sponsored links to off-brand versions, the third link was to the Fuji battery (which did have an "Amazon's choice" banner, which is relatively new - I wonder if they've taken heat for how hard they were pushing off-brands). When I clicked through to the Fuji battery, I got a page where there was a "buy the Fuji" link, but the rest of the page was primarily ads for off-brand batteries. I then experimentally clicked on one of the off-brand batteries, to see how easy it was to get back to the Fuji version. In the (probably five) lists of links to options, the Fuji appeared in two of the lists - in neither case was it the first item in the list, nor did it have any indication that it was different from the others.
Special dubious recognition to Amazon for the animated Xfinity ad that appeared on the Fuji battery page (even running two ad-blockers and a cookie-killer). There really shouldn't be second-level ads on a service that is already a catalog (which is a giant ad).
-
That has been a surprising and rapid collapse—it seems only a decade ago that Washington had several great pro.-oriented camera stores, with lots of more specialized gear like studio lighting, and I would have thought that the political press corp alone would keep at least one of them in business.
So now the only high-end camera store there is the Leica boutique?!
We used to have Penn Camera that had stores in downtown DC and in the suburbs. I don't count Ritz Camera who only offered consumer cameras and gear. They had great service and you could rent equipment from them as well. They experienced financial problems as did others with the 2008 great recession and went into bankruptcy. They were rescued for a short period of time by Calumet out of Chicago but then ultimately folded up and left the scene. Even Ritz declared bankruptcy, briefly came out of it but now are closing stores as well. Most consumer camera stuff are sold through Best Buy down here. One problem is store rents are very high in the DC area.
We do have District Camera but their main store is over in Virginia and about a 50 minute drive. Because it involves going on the heavily traveled Capital Beltway, there is a narrow travel window if one doesn't want to sit in "parking lot" traffic. They have the Z cameras listed but I don't know what they have in terms of demo stock. I'll give them a call and check.
-
Hum...
https://photorumors.com/2018/12/19/2018-worst-camera-of-the-year-award-vote-now/
33% of people voting for the R as the worst camera of the year, 4 times more vote than #2 (sony a7III) and #3 (Z7) and around 7 or 8%.
Obviously some fan boys are at play to some extent but still...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This is as dumb as asking how a bowl of new cereal will change your life - after the first bowl.
-
This is as dumb as asking how a bowl of new cereal will change your life - after the first bowl.
No, it is about asking how bad the first bowl of cereal tasted.
And why think that the following ones will be better when all the previous ones weren’t that great either?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Any cereal made by Nikon is clearly the best and is always utterly delicious. Everyone knows Nikon invented cereal and Nikon cereal is always the best.
-
Hum...
https://photorumors.com/2018/12/19/2018-worst-camera-of-the-year-award-vote-now/
33% of people voting for the R as the worst camera of the year, 4 times more vote than #2 (sony a7III) and #3 (Z7) and around 7 or 8%.
Obviously some fan boys are at play to some extent but still...
Cheers,
Bernard
After cleaning those results to improve SNR, yes, still the Canon EOS R ends up being the less exciting, lowest features/price ratio and best sold of the three FF mirrorless brands.
Exactly as expected. Why would things on mirrorless be any different than in the DSLR world?.
Regards
Enviado desde mi PRA-LX1 mediante Tapatalk
-
Any cereal made by Nikon is clearly the best and is always utterly delicious. Everyone knows Nikon invented cereal and Nikon cereal is always the best.
That's certainly not my view of things.
And the post you are reacting to wasn't very positive about Nikon either, the Z7 is in 3rd place for worst camera of the year...
The only thing Nikon should be happy about is that Canon is in a much worse position that theirs in that survey.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That's certainly not my view of things.
And the post you are reacting to wasn't very positive about Nikon either, the Z7 is in 3rd place for worst camera of the year...
The only thing Nikon should be happy about is that Canon is in a much worse position that theirs in that survey.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well my understanding is Canon is still kicking Nikon's butt when it comes to revenue...which is really what counts for these corporations. Nikon has been in a big slide in this area these last few years.
-
Well my understanding is Canon is still kicking Nikon's butt when it comes to revenue...which is really what counts for these corporations. Nikon has been in a big slide in this area these last few years.
I'm not sure your understanding is correct, however. The fact is that the camera market is saturated - too many makes and models to spread between too few incremental customers for them, so there is an intense battle over market-share, with Canon and Nikon both losing out to Sony in this niche of the photographic market place. Canon has such a diversified product slate in so many fields of imaging that as a corporation it is doing pretty well, but at this point in time I wouldn't necessarily be putting all my eggs in the camera baskets of any of these companies.
-
I'm not sure your understanding is correct, however. The fact is that the camera market is saturated - too many makes and models to spread between too few incremental customers for them, so there is an intense battle over market-share, with Canon and Nikon both losing out to Sony in this niche of the photographic market place. Canon has such a diversified product slate in so many fields of imaging that as a corporation it is doing pretty well, but at this point in time I wouldn't necessarily be putting all my eggs in the camera baskets of any of these companies.
I just look at market shares where Nikon’s share has dropped substantially whereas Canon has held on much better and revenue drops again Nikon dropping almost in half the last 4 years whereas Canon not so much.
Those figures alone paint a picture.
-
I just look at market shares where Nikon’s share has dropped substantially whereas Canon has held on much better and revenue drops again Nikon dropping almost in half the last 4 years whereas Canon not so much.
Those figures alone paint a picture.
Where did you get this data? Care needed as the picture keeps changing, differs by area and by reporting source.
-
Where did you get this data? Care needed as the picture keeps changing, differs by area and by reporting source.
Go to the Nikon financial reports and you'll see the decline in both revenue and more importantly market share. I believe at one time Nikon had over 35% of the digital ILC market...their latest figures peg it at under 23%. Revenue has dropped even more drastically, taking at least a 50% hit from 5 years ago.
I know the market is saturated...but the decline in market share is concerning. They are getting a smaller piece of a smaller pie.
-
Where did you get this data? Care needed as the picture keeps changing, differs by area and by reporting source.
I have seen several reports confirming the fact that Canon has been decreasing in volume slower than Nikon but:
1. This is mostly about APS-C bodies below 300 US$ a pop and is mostly about retailer incentivation and sales tactics (such as telling buyers that Nikon is about to go bankrupt which is a plain lie - the two people I met last year who bought low end bodies in Europe were told the exact same story in 2 different stores...)
2. It tells us nothing about the sales of the high end bodies LL shooters work with
3. This is only about the volume of new bodies sold last year and says nothing about $ value nor about what really matters which is about the total number of Canon/Nikon mount camera owned nor about the % thereof likely to see high lens value purchases. The total number of FF mount lenses sold would be a much better indicator
4. These numbers don’t reflect the reality I see around me where a majority of Nikon pro like shooters still happily shoot Nikon while 100% of former Canon shooters now shoot Sony...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have seen several reports confirming the fact that Canon has been decreasing in volume slower than Nikon but:
1. This is mostly about APS-C bodies below 300 US$ a pop and is mostly about retailer incentivation and sales tactics (such as telling buyers that Nikon is about to go bankrupt which is a plain lie - the two people I met last year who bought low end bodies in Europe were told the exact same story in 2 different stores...)
2. It tells us nothing about the sales of the high end bodies LL shooters work with
3. This is only about the volume of new bodies sold last year and says nothing about $ value nor about what really matters which is about the total number of Canon/Nikon mount camera owned nor about the % thereof likely to see high lens value purchases. The total number of FF mount lenses sold would be a much better indicator
4. These numbers don’t reflect the reality I see around me where a majority of Nikon pro like shooters still happily shoot Nikon while 100% of former Canon shooters now shoot Sony...
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, I've seen this statement from you before. Do you have any data to back any of it up?
-
Go to the Nikon financial reports and you'll see the decline in both revenue and more importantly market share. I believe at one time Nikon had over 35% of the digital ILC market...their latest figures peg it at under 23%. Revenue has dropped even more drastically, taking at least a 50% hit from 5 years ago.
I know the market is saturated...but the decline in market share is concerning. They are getting a smaller piece of a smaller pie.
OK, information "straight from the horse's mouth" - that's fine, but one needs to read the financial reports comprehensively. While acknowledging the decline in the camera segment, they also point to their restructuring efforts and strategy to move into higher value added products. Their overall profitability has been pretty stable. I wouldn't be too concerned about them.
-
Bernard, I've seen this statement from you before. Do you have any data to back any of it up?
Which of my statements would require data to be proven true or false?
Are you disputing the fact that a large majority of DSLR sold are low end APS-C bodies?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Which of my statements would require data to be proven true or false?
Are you disputing the fact that a large majority of DSLR sold are low end APS-C bodies?
Cheers,
Bernard
No I'm not disputing it...but you are implying Canon's market share is based on the low end consumer cameras whereas Nikon sells only high end cameras. Where are your figures for this?
-
OK, information "straight from the horse's mouth" - that's fine, but one needs to read the financial reports comprehensively. While acknowledging the decline in the camera segment, they also point to their restructuring efforts and strategy to move into higher value added products. Their overall profitability has been pretty stable. I wouldn't be too concerned about them.
Didn't say I was at all concerned about them...but their definitely changing from one of the leading camera manufacturer ( once was the lead ) to quickly dropping down. I'm thinking Nikon will become a niche product manufacturer which is OK...but the statement that Canon is concerned about Nikon is far fetched.
-
No I'm not disputing it...but you are implying Canon's market share is based on the low end consumer cameras whereas Nikon sells only high end cameras. Where are your figures for this?
Both companies have seen an important decrease of absolute sales numbers and Nikon obviously also sells a lot more low end bodies, but I believe that the decrease of Nikon in the value segment among knowledgeable photographers has been a lot slower than Canon.
Two main sources:
1. A wide set of empirical inputs coming from people around me, the perception I get in forums,... just to give one example... you and I. You abandonned Canon in favour of Sony, I still happily shoot Nikon,
2. A pretty regular tracking of sales ranking demonstring pretty clearly that the top ranked Canon offerings overall tend to be APS-C discounted kits while Nikon tends to be better specced bodies
So unless you have evidence of the contrary, this seems to be fairly reasonable data to base an opinion on.
It appears that the Nikon Z is selling a lot better than the Canon R for now. Which isn’t surprising when you compare the equipment that has been proposed by both brands if you try to be objective.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sales and customer base are often (and surprisingly to me) mixed up. It takes time for a bestselling newcomer (Sony) to become important in a market in terms of number of users (FF cameras market share). It's the same story as with a bestselling new car model; you can be number one in sales for a whole year and still see more cars from the competition older models in the streets.
I hear users claiming "Canikon are late for the FF mirrorless market". I don't think they are late at all. In fact I wonder if they came too soon to allow Sony build a sufficiently wide customer base to compete both for the lenses and future camera bodies markets.
Regards
-
Sales and customer base are often (and surprisingly to me) mixed up. It takes time for a bestselling newcomer (Sony) to become important in a market in terms of number of users (FF cameras market share). It's the same story as with a bestselling new car model; you can be number one in sales for a whole year and still see more cars from the competition older models in the streets.
Absolutely.
Which is worrying about the level of understanding of the world of many people since it would be reasonable to expect normally educated 10 years old kds to understand this difference perfectly.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't see that things have changed that much. Canon came out with a mirrorless camera (EOS R) with (for all intents and purposes) the same sensor as their 5DIV and Nikon came out with a mirrorless camera (Z7) with (for all intents and purposes) the same sensor as their D850. Brand loyalty being what it is, there is no reason for either Canon or Nikon users to jump ship, so their relative market shares should remain the same. For newcomers and owners of other brands there is Sony. Too simplistic?
-
Both companies have seen an important decrease of absolute sales numbers and Nikon obviously also sells a lot more low end bodies, but I believe that the decrease of Nikon in the value segment among knowledgeable photographers has been a lot slower than Canon.
Two main sources:
1. A wide set of empirical inputs coming from people around me, the perception I get in forums,... just to give one example... you and I. You abandonned Canon in favour of Sony, I still happily shoot Nikon,
2. A pretty regular tracking of sales ranking demonstring pretty clearly that the top ranked Canon offerings overall tend to be APS-C discounted kits while Nikon tends to be better specced bodies
So unless you have evidence of the contrary, this seems to be fairly reasonable data to base an opinion on.
It appears that the Nikon Z is selling a lot better than the Canon R for now. Which isn’t surprising when you compare the equipment that has been proposed by both brands if you try to be objective.
Cheers,
Bernard
Again...proof the Z is selling way better than the R. And not because your buddies use the Z...maybe some real data this time around.
The one data point I saw had the Z sales lagging by quite a bit.
-
Again...proof the Z is selling way better than the R. And not because your buddies use the Z...maybe some real data this time around.
The one data point I saw had the Z sales lagging by quite a bit.
Apologies, my source was a Japanese print magazine, I can’t find the data online.
But if you think the R is a successful launch that has convinced the market and a majority of Canon photographers, well... let’s just say that your opinion puts you among a small minority of observers.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But if you think the R is a successful launch that has convinced the market and a majority of Canon photographers, well... let’s just say that your opinion puts you among a small minority of observers.
So the question is, how many Canon users have bailed for Nikon. I haven't seen too many posts to that effect here or elsewhere. But maybe they have.
-
Sales and customer base are often (and surprisingly to me) mixed up. It takes time for a bestselling newcomer (Sony) to become important in a market in terms of number of users (FF cameras market share). It's the same story as with a bestselling new car model; you can be number one in sales for a whole year and still see more cars from the competition older models in the streets.
I hear users claiming "Canikon are late for the FF mirrorless market". I don't think they are late at all. In fact I wonder if they came too soon to allow Sony build a sufficiently wide customer base to compete both for the lenses and future camera bodies markets.
Regards
A comment about this Guillermo: it's important to keep a clear distinction between stocks and flows. Looked at from a stock perspective, yes the sheer number of Canon and Nikon cameras in operation is very large compared with the newcomers - by definition that has to be true and would take some time for marked changes of market share to show up in the stock of cameras in peoples' hands. But when talk about erosion of market share, we are talking about incremental developments (the flows) - the new boys elbowing their way into the market with innovative products (e.g. mirrorless), causing an INCREMENTAL change in market share (i.e. AT THE MARGIN). I think it's pretty clear that when Sony and Fuji were introducing these innovations, Canon and Nikon were mainly focusing on variations of the conventional, so their market share slipped AT THE MARGIN. How significant and how sustained - that remains to be seen, but these companies (e.g. Sony, Fuji) have been making inroads very aggressively and their corporate strategies suggest they are planning to gain strength in digital imaging.
-
So the question is, how many Canon users have bailed for Nikon. I haven't seen too many posts to that effect here or elsewhere. But maybe they have.
In fact that isn’t really the most relevant question.
The questions are:
1. how many current Nikon/Canon users have decided not to go Sony based on what Nikon/Canon have demonstrated with the initial Z/R releases and roadmap. I don’t have data but I clearly feel that the Z has convinced many more Nikon shooters about Nikon’s commitment to the Z platform,
2. How many Nikon/Canon users having added a Sony body will decide to go back to their original brand.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Apologies, my source was a Japanese print magazine, I can’t find the data online.
But if you think the R is a successful launch that has convinced the market and a majority of Canon photographers, well... let’s just say that your opinion puts you among a small minority of observers.
Cheers,
Bernard
Here's what I found. Looks to me like the R is more successful from a sales perspective than the Z.
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/11/07/the-latest-full-frame-market-mirrorless-market-share-sony-67-canon-22-1-nikon-10-4.aspx/
-
A comment about this Guillermo: it's important to keep a clear distinction between stocks and flows. Looked at from a stock perspective, yes the sheer number of Canon and Nikon cameras in operation is very large compared with the newcomers - by definition that has to be true and would take some time for marked changes of market share to show up in the stock of cameras in peoples' hands. But when talk about erosion of market share, we are talking about incremental developments (the flows) - the new boys elbowing their way into the market with innovative products (e.g. mirrorless), causing an INCREMENTAL change in market share (i.e. AT THE MARGIN). I think it's pretty clear that when Sony and Fuji were introducing these innovations, Canon and Nikon were mainly focusing on variations of the conventional, so their market share slipped AT THE MARGIN. How significant and how sustained - that remains to be seen, but these companies (e.g. Sony, Fuji) have been making inroads very aggressively and their corporate strategies suggest they are planning to gain strength in digital imaging.
Mark you are exactly right. The market share gives you a "today view" of how respective cameras are selling. With Nikon's market share declining by almost 1/2 from its heydays...that is significant.
-
Here's what I found. Looks to me like the R is more successful from a sales perspective than the Z.
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/11/07/the-latest-full-frame-market-mirrorless-market-share-sony-67-canon-22-1-nikon-10-4.aspx/
I stand corrected, the R has been selling more than the Z.
As a former Canon shooter, how tempted are you to replace your Sony by an R? What does that tell you about the appeal of the R? Why do you think so many people have bought the R considering what it offers?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I stand corrected, the R has been selling more than the Z.
As a former Canon shooter, how tempted are you to replace your Sony by an R? What does that tell you about the appeal of the R? Why do you think so many people have bought the R considering what it offers?
Cheers,
Bernard
No inclination to jump ship as that's a quick way to spend money foolishly. I moved to Sony when I was looking for a lighter kit for travel and Canon just did not have a full frame system for me that was light. Sony did...
The appeal of the R is directed more at the existing huge Canon photography base which allows them a lighter kit while still maintaining the things they like about Canon such as lenses and ergonomics. Most likely why you bought a Z rather than a Sony.
-
I stand corrected, the R has been selling more than the Z.
Those numbers have the R outselling the more expensive Z7;
I await data when the Z6 is on the market
-
It's all over the place, depending on whom you believe (nobody has anything close to worldwide data with any sort of accuracy).
At least what I've seen enough different places to (more or less) believe goes something like this...
Canon is pretty clearly #1 overall in camera sales, and has something in every market segment.
It's unclear whether Nikon or Sony is #2 overall. Volume in the very low end is key, and both Canon and Nikon sell a ton of cheap DSLRs, with Canon in the lead. At least in the US, I don't get the feeling the A5100 (and perhaps the a6000) is close even in sales, let alone installed base (partially judging by what my students have brought to class over the years - the Canon vs Nikon ratio changes, but Sony is 1 in 10 at most, and not really ahead of Fuji).
I'm not clear who's ahead once you get past the low end. Sony has had a lot of success with the A7 series, and has come from being an also-ran five years ago to a significant presence. Sony is clearly #1 in full-frame mirrorless - but I've never seen a reliable number on overall full-frame (DSLRs included), much less a number that includes cameras like the D500, the EOS 80D series, , the a6500 and most Fujis as well as full-frame. Both Sony and Nikon have very strong upper-end lines (Nikon has been deliberately moving upscale, while Sony 's biggest successes have come from the full-frame a7/a9 line), while Canon has a huge installed base, especially of long lenses.
The rise of Sony is a big story - they were buried in the 5% range until a few years ago, they're now definitely the third big player.
Fuji is pretty clearly the most important player beyond the Big Three, and is growing.
Everything else is much smaller - the two Micro 4/3 players may combine to Fuji's size??? Both of them have significant specialties - Olympus in sports and action, and Panasonic in video...
Medium format has historically been an ignorable blip, even compared to full frame, which is itself small by the standards of low-end APS-C. I suspect that is still true, but will it continue to be with Fuji (and to a lesser extent Hasselblad) making relatively affordable crop-sensor medium format systems that compete with the high-resolution end of full frame... How do GFX sales compare with D850+Z7 sales, or with 5Ds/5DsR sales, or with A7rIII sales? And how much of the full-frame market are the pixel monsters?
-
Those numbers have the R outselling the more expensive Z7;
I await data when the Z6 is on the market
Indeed, you are right...
I don't stand corrected at all. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It's all over the place, depending on whom you believe (nobody has anything close to worldwide data with any sort of accuracy).
At least what I've seen enough different places to (more or less) believe goes something like this...
Canon is pretty clearly #1 overall in camera sales, and has something in every market segment.
It's unclear whether Nikon or Sony is #2 overall. Volume in the very low end is key, and both Canon and Nikon sell a ton of cheap DSLRs, with Canon in the lead. At least in the US, I don't get the feeling the A5100 (and perhaps the a6000) is close even in sales, let alone installed base (partially judging by what my students have brought to class over the years - the Canon vs Nikon ratio changes, but Sony is 1 in 10 at most, and not really ahead of Fuji).
I'm not clear who's ahead once you get past the low end. Sony has had a lot of success with the A7 series, and has come from being an also-ran five years ago to a significant presence. Sony is clearly #1 in full-frame mirrorless - but I've never seen a reliable number on overall full-frame (DSLRs included), much less a number that includes cameras like the D500, the EOS 80D series, , the a6500 and most Fujis as well as full-frame. Both Sony and Nikon have very strong upper-end lines (Nikon has been deliberately moving upscale, while Sony 's biggest successes have come from the full-frame a7/a9 line), while Canon has a huge installed base, especially of long lenses.
The rise of Sony is a big story - they were buried in the 5% range until a few years ago, they're now definitely the third big player.
Fuji is pretty clearly the most important player beyond the Big Three, and is growing.
Everything else is much smaller - the two Micro 4/3 players may combine to Fuji's size??? Both of them have significant specialties - Olympus in sports and action, and Panasonic in video...
Medium format has historically been an ignorable blip, even compared to full frame, which is itself small by the standards of low-end APS-C. I suspect that is still true, but will it continue to be with Fuji (and to a lesser extent Hasselblad) making relatively affordable crop-sensor medium format systems that compete with the high-resolution end of full frame... How do GFX sales compare with D850+Z7 sales, or with 5Ds/5DsR sales, or with A7rIII sales? And how much of the full-frame market are the pixel monsters?
Where do you get your information that Fuji is growing? In 2018 the top three camera manufactures ( Canon, Nikon, Sony ) sold 87.3% of all cameras. In fact those 3 increased their market share in 2018 by 6.3% at the perils of companies like Fuji.
So at best the rest of the cameras only make up 12.7% of all sales and falling. This includes the likes of Olympus, Pentax, Hassablad, Leica, Panasonic and Fuji...etc.
-
This discussion is all over the place. Even setting aside the issue of where the data comes from and how reliable it is, there is the basic structure of the market to consider. Begin with this. There are all kinds of cameras out there meeting all manner of needs and expectations. Subtle differences of technology can make large differences of usage. Consumers are just as heterogeneous as the cameras. Some people will spend five digit sums on a Leica because it has a red dot, while others would spend it because they really believe in its optical superiority, while others wouldn't dream of it for any reason, being perfectly satisfied with a Canon/Nikon/Sony whatever at less than half the price. Then surpassing them all in terms of pricing and imaging capability is Phase One - a technically superb set of products with a niche market that just pays and stays. The latest IQ4 system costs over 50,000 dollars, but it's selling and this is a company that hasn't lost money ever; nor will they compete in the 2,000~6,000 dollar price range that characterizes most of the rest. The only way to properly understand this market is to break it down into its various segments, understand who the customers are in each segment, what innovation is happening in each, and what is driving customers to switch brands within a segment, or to jump segments altogether. Then one can begin to talk analytically about what's happening in the camera markets. And who has the information necessary to do all this with any precision?
-
And who has the information necessary to do all this with any precision?
Or the time or inclination, especially when you can just post a video on YouTube (or a post here) and be an instant expert. All of this market stuff is interesting, but not terribly relevant to making a decision about whether to buy a new camera or stick with the one you have. Sometimes we make it more difficult than it really needs to be.
-
Or the time or inclination, especially when you can just post a video on YouTube (or a post here) and be an instant expert. All of this market stuff is interesting, but not terribly relevant to making a decision about whether to buy a new camera or stick with the one you have.
For sure! That's a custom decision based on each person's specific needs, tastes, technical understanding and budget.
-
I have always found Thom Hogan to be a good source of sales information though he is more Nikon-centric. His latest article is here: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-decline-continues.html
-
I've never seen anything more than anecdotal information about something as basic as the breakdown between APS-C (plus Micro 4/3) and full-frame. Anecdotally, full-frame is something between 10-20% of the market...
What would be more interesting is actually divided something like this:
Entry-level - All Rebels plus D3x00, D5x00, a5100,a6000(?) X-T100, etc. Anything under $800 with a kit lens. APS-C and Micro 4/3 options. Very few cameras in this class are ever used with a lens they weren't purchased with (some come with two lenses)
Lower-end enthusiast - D7x00, EOS-x0D, D610,EOS 6D, A7II, a6500, X-T2, E-M5 mkII, etc. (at current pricing) All three format size options, although full-frame will be an older body paired with a notably low-end lens to get this low (you can get some excellent APS-C and Micro 4/3 lenses in this price range). Anything between $800 and $1500 with a kit or "super-kit" lens. Many photographers buy an additional lens, often a telephoto zoom, sometimes something wide (or both) to go with this sort of camera - often after the body purchase.
Upper-end enthusiast - A7III, X-H1, E-M1 mkII, D750, Pentax K1 mkII, D500, etc... All three format size options - the top end of APS-C and Micro 4/3 mixes with lower-end full-frame choices. Anything between $1500 and $2200 with an initial lens (which may or may not be bundled with the body). Most photographers own other lens(es) to go with their system, and many have investments in flashes or other accessories.
Prosumer - EOS 5D series, EOS-R, A7rII , Z6, etc. Anything under $3000 for the body... You sometimes get a promotional price on a lens with the body - but it's often a "pick a lens" deal, because most photographers at this level will already have a normal zoom they like (although they may pick up a second to have one for each body, to upgrade to a new version, or this may be a first full-frame body). All full-frame
Professional (fast) - Three possibilities - EOS 1Dx mkII, D5, A9. Anything over $3000 for the body with a top speed over 10 FPS, the finest AF in the world and a penchant for long glass... All full-frame (although Olympus is planning a Micro 4/3 body in this range!). Most photographers who use these own a closetful of lenses, some of them worth more than their car...
Professional (pixel monster) - Z7, D850, A7rIII, EOS 5Ds/5DsR, GFX 50R and 50S, X1D. Anything over $3000 for the body with a top speed slower than most $1000 cameras and a file size that crushes hard drives. Full frame or larger. Most photographers who use these own a closetful of lenses, often with unpronounceable names, and a printer that pretends to be furniture...
Exotic - Leica, Phase One, Hasselblad H System, RED, 4x5 film, etc. Just how small a piece of the market is this? Everything from weird $3000 compacts to $50,000 Phase backs...
Of course, these categories aren't perfect (there is no place to draw the lines that won't put some camera in a category different from a close relative). The weird divisions here are that the X-T2 ends up a category below the X-T3, and previous model Sonys end up in different categories from their successors. Neither of these seem right, but splitting some Sonys is inevitable in any scheme because of the profusion of previous models, and if the Fujis hadn't gotten split, something else that shouldn't have would have...
Any scheme like this (or model by model sales data) would tell us much more about what's going on than we know today.
The only solid numbers (not percentages) I've seen are that ~11 million total interchangeable lens cameras are sold annually (Thom Hogan among other places), and that Nikon can make up to 20,000 Z-series bodies (Z6 and Z7 combined) plus 10,000 D850s per month (a couple of Imaging Resource interviews). Assuming that those three models are half of Nikon's full-frame production (I suspect they are somewhat less - the less expensive D610 and D750 probably sell more, even though they are older models), Nikon alone sells at least ~700,000 FF cameras annually. If Canon and Sony are similar (most estimates I've seen are that the full-frame market has three similar-scale players), and Pentax and others are negligible, that suggests that at least a couple million, and maybe more like 3 million of the 11 million cameras sold each year are full-frame.
I saw an estimate somewhere a couple years ago that Fuji sells roughly half a million cameras annually, mostly higher-end models (this was before the X-A series really took off in Asia). Throw in sundry E-M1 mkIIs, D500s, EOS-D80s, a6500s and the like, plus a few (probably less than 100,000/year, even with Fuji's expansion of the market) medium format bodies and my best guess is that the enthusiast and professional camera market is somewhere between 3 and 4 million bodies annually.
This is very rough, but it's interesting - there's almost certainly more revenue (not to mention more profit) outside the low end than there is in the low end. Even if the split is 8 million entry-level bodies and 3 million of everything else (and I suspect it's closer to 7 million/4 million, depending on where you draw the line), the non entry-level bodies would only have to average something like 2.5 times as expensive before they became a majority of revenue. If it's 7/4, they could be less than twice as expensive... This is before including the effects of lenses - nobody buys a 400mm f2.8 for their D3500!
-
I've never seen anything more than anecdotal information...............
................This is very rough, but it's interesting ............
Perhaps to you.
-
According to CIPA, in 2017 27% of cameras sold were full frame and contributed 54% of the dollar value.
-
Roughly what I estimated - I'd believe that number easily (I'd never seen CIPA broken down that way). Add something like 10-15% of sales representing 20-30% of value for enthusiast/pro APS-C and smaller (Fuji, D7x00, D500, EOS-80D, E-M1 mkII, GH5, etc) and less than 1% of sales, but with 3-4% of value for medium format (it used to be much lower than that, but the GFX and X1D sell much more than MF ever did before)... Note that 1% of sales represents about 10,000 cameras/ month - that's the production capacity of the D850 line. Since Nikon sells every D850 they can make right away, it's a handy benchmark - 1% ~= D850... All of medium format probably doesn't quite match the D850, but it's not too far off?
What comes out is that the over 50% of sales that come from the D3x00s and Rebels of the world are only about a quarter of the value of the camera market. That's really good news - we could lose them all to phones, and not lose a significant manufacturer. The problem is what do the photography students and others who are beginning, but really interested use? The cheap DSLRs (and mirrorless) serve two functions - one is taking casual pictures (kids, trips to the zoo), which is being replaced by phones. The second is that they are a GREAT way to learn serious photography. The used market will supply student cameras for a while even if the entry models go away - but there will eventually be a problem.
Will someone make a "digital K1000"? It could sit on the market foryears - the film K1000 was sold for 20 years! The 24 MP Sony APS-C sensor is good enough for a student camera never to need an upgrade. Take a D3500 (or a Rebel, or an a6000), take away some scene modes and similar fluff, and add an additional control dial so you can control aperture and shutter speed simultaneously. Ideally, use marked controls a la Fuji. Build it a little sturdier (schools are going to rent the thing to generations of students). Mirrorless or DSLR doesn't matter, although it shouldn't be viewfinderless. An X-T2 is more than it needs to be (too fast, too many controls), but is probably the closest approach on the present market. Maybe an X-T20 is really close?
If it were a fixed design, the cost of building them would go down over time...
-
One thing that's really nice about an internet forum thread is that when we feel totally overwhelmed with blather we can just de-notify, and here goes.........
-
One thing that's really nice about an internet forum thread is that when we feel totally overwhelmed with blather we can just de-notify, and here goes.........
The other really nice thing about Internet forum threads is you can ignore them if they are not to your likings rather than drop a useless post.
Just saying...
-
Roughly what I estimated - I'd believe that number easily (I'd never seen CIPA broken down that way). Add something like 10-15% of sales representing 20-30% of value for enthusiast/pro APS-C and smaller (Fuji, D7x00, D500, EOS-80D, E-M1 mkII, GH5, etc) and less than 1% of sales, but with 3-4% of value for medium format (it used to be much lower than that, but the GFX and X1D sell much more than MF ever did before)... Note that 1% of sales represents about 10,000 cameras/ month - that's the production capacity of the D850 line. Since Nikon sells every D850 they can make right away, it's a handy benchmark - 1% ~= D850... All of medium format probably doesn't quite match the D850, but it's not too far off?
What comes out is that the over 50% of sales that come from the D3x00s and Rebels of the world are only about a quarter of the value of the camera market. That's really good news - we could lose them all to phones, and not lose a significant manufacturer. The problem is what do the photography students and others who are beginning, but really interested use? The cheap DSLRs (and mirrorless) serve two functions - one is taking casual pictures (kids, trips to the zoo), which is being replaced by phones. The second is that they are a GREAT way to learn serious photography. The used market will supply student cameras for a while even if the entry models go away - but there will eventually be a problem.
Will someone make a "digital K1000"? It could sit on the market foryears - the film K1000 was sold for 20 years! The 24 MP Sony APS-C sensor is good enough for a student camera never to need an upgrade. Take a D3500 (or a Rebel, or an a6000), take away some scene modes and similar fluff, and add an additional control dial so you can control aperture and shutter speed simultaneously. Ideally, use marked controls a la Fuji. Build it a little sturdier (schools are going to rent the thing to generations of students). Mirrorless or DSLR doesn't matter, although it shouldn't be viewfinderless. An X-T2 is more than it needs to be (too fast, too many controls), but is probably the closest approach on the present market. Maybe an X-T20 is really close?
If it were a fixed design, the cost of building them would go down over time...
Dan I think you are over analyzing things without facts. That might be fun...but can be meaningless.
One note...a 50% hit to revenue by eliminating the low end of the market is a huge hit to any manufacturer...one that could cause closure for sure.
The other issue with eliminating the low end is the rebels are stepping stones to more advanced cameras. Without a cheap stepping stone...how many customers will plunge from their phones to a $3,000 camera?
-
War?
Here's wishing you all peace and understanding.
-
The other issue with eliminating the low end is the rebels are stepping stones to more advanced cameras. Without a cheap stepping stone...how many customers will plunge from their phones to a $3,000 camera?
I'm not sure "graduating" from an iPhone to a Rebel or Dxxx is really a path.
-
I'm not sure "graduating" from an iPhone to a Rebel or Dxxx is really a path.
Price wise it sure is. I can walk into Costco today and pick up a rebel with lens for $500. If that low end camera market is wiped out...do you feel someone would plunk down $3,000 for their first camera?
-
Price wise it sure is. I can walk into Costco today and pick up a rebel with lens for $500. If that low end camera market is wiped out...do you feel someone would plunk down $3,000 for their first camera?
Everyone has a phone with built in camera. I think there is some other motivation for buying your first camera than simply "graduating" from an iPhone.
-
Everyone has a phone with built in camera. I think their is some other motivation for buying your first camera than simply "graduating" from an iPhone.
The thing is that an iPhone X or Pixel 3 typically takes more consistent and technically better pictures than a low end DSLR used in all auto mode.
For many customers it is experienced as a downgrade... ;)
You do that once and then feel never again.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Everyone has a phone with built in camera. I think their is some other motivation for buying your first camera than simply "graduating" from an iPhone.
Yes...but do you think a $3,000 camera is the answer as the next step from a phone?
-
Yes...but do you think a $3,000 camera is the answer as the next step from a phone?
There are certainly a lot of options available for a first camera.
-
There are certainly a lot of options available for a first camera.
I believe we are discussing the scenario of the rebel level of cameras being taken out by phones. The next level...which is in the $2,000 and climbing would be the entry level.
-
I believe we are discussing the scenario of the rebel level of cameras being taken out by phones. The next level...which is in the $2,000 and climbing would be the entry level.
There are options in between. Sony could do a killing if they improved the UI and lowered the price of the RX100 for instance.
I love my MkV, my wife is a lot less convinced by its level of usability that she finds plain awful.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There are options in between. Sony could do a killing if they improved the UI and lowered the price of the RX100 for instance.
I love my MkV, my wife is a lot less convinced by its level of usability that she finds plain awful.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well that's the thing. Sony stated they will focus on high end, high margin cameras...which makes total sense in a rapidly declining market. Nikon has done the same with their mirrorless release...same with Fuji and Canon.
When your revenue starts to drop...you better concentrate on product that makes you money in that declining revenue state.
-
I believe we are discussing the scenario of the rebel level of cameras being taken out by phones. The next level...which is in the $2,000 and climbing would be the entry level.
There are a lot of good cameras above the Rebels before you get to $2000.
-
I agree with Bernard and faberryman - saying "the market for Rebels, D3x00s and a5100s is being heavily cannibalized by phones " doesn't mean "the market for dedicated cameras is all over $2000". The options between $800 and $2000 are very, very interesting.
Seeing the casual shooters go to their phones may encourage someone to build even more of a "digital K1000" than we have now. It would emphasize great controls and feature high image quality (e.g. the ubiquitous Sony 24/26 MP APS-C sensor), trading "gee-whiz" features for a really solid basic camera. Sell it for $700-$800 with a good, if slow, lens.
The revenue in it is in that it can attract lots of people who are really interested in photography, but just starting out - and it can sit on the market for years...
-
I agree with Bernard and faberryman - saying "the market for Rebels, D3x00s and a5100s is being heavily cannibalized by phones " doesn't mean "the market for dedicated cameras is all over $2000". The options between $800 and $2000 are very, very interesting.
Seeing the casual shooters go to their phones may encourage someone to build even more of a "digital K1000" than we have now. It would emphasize great controls and feature high image quality (e.g. the ubiquitous Sony 24/26 MP APS-C sensor), trading "gee-whiz" features for a really solid basic camera. Sell it for $700-$800 with a good, if slow, lens.
The revenue in it is in that it can attract lots of people who are really interested in photography, but just starting out - and it can sit on the market for years...
So you are trying to entice the gee wiz crowd with a plain Jane camera...good luck with that. I've seen how my 3 children embrace new technology and they all love the gee wiz features...no going back to some nestolgic camera...that ship has sailed.
-
My observation is just reflecting on the original subject of the post.
Both producers have released an initial offering into this segment of the market which is dominated by a relative new entrant to the professional field of photography, who has created a significant impact.
It appears that Nikon has been the first to react and decide to enter the field of mirrorless interchangeable lens camera bodies. Their initial offering appears to be more mature in features and functions. Canon is in a catch up mode, however they are just out of the box and its just much to early as to who will triumph.
They have both been very competitive for several decades and each have significant following.
It is very surprising at the delay in their response.
Agreed the war has started, who is the winner, much to early to say. We only have "Beta" models to test.
-
The thing is that an iPhone X or Pixel 3 typically takes more consistent and technically better pictures than a low end DSLR used in all auto mode.
For many customers it is experienced as a downgrade... ;)
..
If true, then true for any ILC. Let’s instead look at people who want more than a phone because they (a) want the advantage of controls beyond full auto mode (b) want telephoto reach beyond wide–normal (before heavy cropping to few, small pixels) (c) want better low light/high shutter speed performance than the tiny lens of a phone can ever offer.
A lot will achieve big advantages in those areas with a $1000 kit, but not in 35mm format
-
And want an image that reflects what was in front of them (possibly to edit in any way they desire - see the beautiful digital art of John Paul Caponigro, which starts as one or more photographs), rather than heavy-handed baked-in digital processing.
-
If true, then true for any ILC. Let’s instead look at people who want more than a phone because they (a) want the advantage of controls beyond full auto mode (b) want telephoto reach beyond wide–normal (before heavy cropping to few, small pixels) (c) want better low light/high shutter speed performance than the tiny lens of a phone can ever offer.
A lot will achieve big advantages in those areas with a $1000 kit, but not in 35mm format
I guess the ultimate question is how large is this market? Will the people versed on the phone for photography and its ease of posting their images onto the net and the ever increasing abilities of these phone cameras ever want or need another device to take pictures?
One huge drive of new phones is their photography capabilities along with advanced image processing abilities...lots of R&D heading into phone photography.
-
I guess the ultimate question is how large is this market?
ILC sales give us a hint: a small fraction of the several billion phone-photographers, but still about ten million per year—and still with the c. $1000 kit buyers far more numerous than those willing to pay two or three times asthat much for the performance increment of an “entry level 35mm format” kit over the already impressive performance of the mainstream ILC formats
-
https://photorumors.com/2018/12/28/2018-digital-camera-award-by-dc-watch/
The Z (Z6 + Z7) getting 2.5 times as many popular votes as the R in Japan for camera of the year award.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://photorumors.com/2018/12/28/2018-digital-camera-award-by-dc-watch/
The Z (Z6 + Z7) getting 2.5 times as many popular votes as the R in Japan for camera of the year award.
Cheers,
Bernard
And the A7III still kicking ass. 8)
No wonder Sony didn't release anything for the Xmas season...it didn't need to. :-*
-
And the A7III still kicking ass. 8)
No wonder Sony didn't release anything for the Xmas season...it didn't need to. :-*
Indeed.
But the Zs still get more total votes than the Sony by a wide margin.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Indeed.
But the Zs still get more total votes than the Sony by a wide margin.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, the new shiny toys get the most attention...obviously. Do you really think the Z6 is better than the A7R3 which did not even make the list...even your beloved D850 is missing. Must be a dog...right?
Popularity in a poll where it doesn't cost you anything is totally different than putting your money down. I'd love to see a breakdown like this by actual sales rather than an unanimous poll.
Really, meaningless numbers.
-
Yes, the new shiny toys get the most attention...obviously. Do you really think the Z6 is better than the A7R3 which did not even make the list...even your beloved D850 is missing. Must be a dog...right?
Popularity in a poll where it doesn't cost you anything is totally different than putting your money down. I'd love to see a breakdown like this by actual sales rather than an unanimous poll.
Really, meaningless numbers.
I don’t think they are meaningless at all if you try to understand them.
They are focusing on cameras newly introduced in 2018 I believe.
They very clearly convey the lukewarm welcome of the Canon R.
A few months back a majority of observers were deeply convinced that Canon would hit it out of the park with their new super strategic mirrorless offering.
And Canon marketing is still desperately trying to convince the world that they have... ;D
The reality is vastly different.
As far as the comparison of Nikon to Sony (topics that you brought in), I see the a7rIII as the best mirrorless body for applications where AF matters and the Z7 as the best for all other applications, including landscape, still, architecture,... and the R is... best at nothing... just a mirrorless platform for Canon users still hoping that their heavy investment in excellent glass will some day be rewarded by the release of cameras able to let them express fully their talent.
If you insist on adding DSLRs to this discussion then the D850 is indeed IMHO the best all rounder on the market.
I was reading yesterday discussions at FM about a world famous bird photographer having moved to Nikon who was providing very detailed info about how the D5 (and D850) were ahead of the 1DxII (the 5DIV being far behind) in terms of auto-focus and about how happy he was about the Canon until he found out how much better the D5 is. ;D
I feel for the many talented photographers who went the Canon route because it was the obvious one and now find themselves in the uncomfortable position to somehow have to defend a brand that has consistently let them down compared to competition for nearly 10 long years. And now Sony is adding another layer of frustration.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don’t think they are meaningless at all if you try to understand them.
They are focusing on cameras newly introduced in 2018 I believe.
They very clearly convey the lukewarm welcome of the Canon R.
A few months back a majority of observers were deeply convinced that Canon would hit it out of the park with their new super strategic mirrorless offering.
And Canon marketing is still desperately trying to convince the world that they have... ;D
The reality is vastly different.
As far as the comparison of Nikon to Sony (topics that you brought in), I see the a7rIII as the best mirrorless body for applications where AF matters and the Z7 as the best for all other applications, including landscape, still, architecture,... and the R is... best at nothing... just a mirrorless platform for Canon users still hoping that their heavy investment in excellent glass will some day be rewarded by the release of cameras able to let them express fully their talent.
If you insist on adding DSLRs to this discussion then the D850 is indeed IMHO the best all rounder on the market.
I was reading yesterday discussions at FM about a world famous bird photographer having moved to Nikon who was providing very detailed info about how the D5 (and D850) were ahead of the 1DxII (the 5DIV being far behind) in terms of auto-focus and about how happy he was about the Canon until he found out how much better the D5 is. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
I believe you are talking about Artie Morris. Wonder how much incentives were involved in the switch. Money talks loudly.
There is another photographer on FM who is not affiliated with any system and has tried them all and claims the A9 has the most accurate and consistent AF tracking of all cameras he tried. His work speaks to his abilities and I trust some who has no affiliation with a company much more than someone who is in bed with a company.
-
I believe you are talking about Artie Morris. Wonder how much incentives were involved in the switch. Money talks loudly.
No, I am not.
But Artie made the same choice.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There is another photographer on FM who is not affiliated with any system and has tried them all and claims the A9 has the most accurate and consistent AF tracking of all cameras he tried. His work speaks to his abilities and I trust some who has no affiliation with a company much more than someone who is in bed with a company.
I am sure you do. ;)
There is just one small issue, most bird photographers consider a 400mm f2.8 to be far for optimal for that application.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am sure you do. ;)
There is just one small issue, most bird photographers consider a 400mm f2.8 to be far for optimal for that application.
Cheers,
Bernard
Actually the tests were with a 1.4 extender compared to the 600 f4 from CaNikon. Still resulted with more accurate tracking in challenging conditions...more keepers.
Let's also not forget the bird-eye tracking that Sony has let out of the bag.
-
Actually the tests were with a 1.4 extender compared to the 600 f4 from CaNikon. Still resulted with more accurate tracking in challenging conditions...more keepers.
Let's also not forget the bird-eye tracking that Sony has let out of the bag.
Ok, Canikon doesn’t mean anything since Nikon is in a different league compared to Canon.
The a9 is an excellent camera, no question. I haven’t seen that test but that opinion is still pretty minor it seems.
I understand your urge to bring Sony in this discussion, but my point was on Canon vs Nikon.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ok, Canikon doesn’t mean anything since Nikon is in a different league compared to Canon.
The a9 is an excellent camera, no question. I haven’t seen that test but that opinion is still pretty minor it seems.
I understand your urge to bring Sony in this discussion, but my point was on Canon vs Nikon.
Cheers,
Bernard
Ok...your thread. But I personally like looking and discussing cameras from the various manufactures rather than artificially limit what is discussed.
Especially when your are talking about the "Mirrorless war"... Why exclude the reigning champion?
-
Ok...your thread. But I personally like looking and discussing cameras from the various manufactures rather than artificially limit what is discussed.
Especially when your are talking about the "Mirrorless war"... Why exclude the reigning champion?
I agree with you that a large majority of Canon shooters would be better off moving to Sony in terms of technical results. I don’t think it is the case yet in terms of shooting experience.
In fact I feel that Nikon already did better than Sony with the Z6/7 on that front.
Yes, it is subjective but many share the same feeling.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don’t think they are meaningless at all if you try to understand them.
They are focusing on cameras newly introduced in 2018 I believe.
They very clearly convey the lukewarm welcome of the Canon R.
A few months back a majority of observers were deeply convinced that Canon would hit it out of the park with their new super strategic mirrorless offering.
And Canon marketing is still desperately trying to convince the world that they have... ;D
The reality is vastly different.
As far as the comparison of Nikon to Sony (topics that you brought in), I see the a7rIII as the best mirrorless body for applications where AF matters and the Z7 as the best for all other applications, including landscape, still, architecture,... and the R is... best at nothing... just a mirrorless platform for Canon users still hoping that their heavy investment in excellent glass will some day be rewarded by the release of cameras able to let them express fully their talent.
If you insist on adding DSLRs to this discussion then the D850 is indeed IMHO the best all rounder on the market.
I was reading yesterday discussions at FM about a world famous bird photographer having moved to Nikon who was providing very detailed info about how the D5 (and D850) were ahead of the 1DxII (the 5DIV being far behind) in terms of auto-focus and about how happy he was about the Canon until he found out how much better the D5 is. ;D
I feel for the many talented photographers who went the Canon route because it was the obvious one and now find themselves in the uncomfortable position to somehow have to defend a brand that has consistently let them down compared to competition for nearly 10 long years. And now Sony is adding another layer of frustration.
Cheers,
Bernard
Do you think photographers need to defend their equipment choice and feel uncomfortable about that if they use Canon? That’s just weird. Take a good photo, that’s all that matters. That’s all the defense you need if you think it’s some kind of war and you need to defend a position. To this day I cannot look at photographs and decide what camera must have been used. I can figure out film vs digital usually. Prints up to A2 I can’t even tell I’d it was micro four thirds or MFDB. I certainly couldn’t look at images
Taken on a Canon R, Sony A7 whatever or a Nikon Z whatever and tell you the better image was clearly a Nikon.
With this odd idea we get back to choosing our commercial photographers based on equipment I suppose.
What is really strange is all the articles telling me an iPhone is good enough and on the other hand the opinions that the minute differences between Canon and Nikon matter a dam. Which is it?
-
Quick answers:
- I agree they shouldn’t but many do,
- In many cases, in particular BIF/action, this is about hit ratio. The story is in the great moments that could not be captured because of inferior gear. Looking at the pictures that were taken is only part of the story and those are not tiny differences,
- if you think all equipment is the same why bother commenting in a thread dedicated to gear discussion m?
- the iphone is progressing fast and producing incredibly good results for some types of photography, putting at huge risk the top line of camera companies relying on liw end DSLRs, but I don’t believe you truly think it is able to compete for serious photography against top interchangeable camera, do you?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Quick answers:
- I agree they shouldn’t but many do,
- In many cases, in particular BIF/action, this is about hit ratio. The story is in the great moments that could not be captured because of inferior gear. Looking at the pictures that were taken is only part of the story and those are not tiny differences,
- if you think all equipment is the same why bother commenting in a thread dedicated to gear discussion m?
- the iphone is progressing fast and producing incredibly good results for some types of photography, putting at huge risk the top line of camera companies relying on liw end DSLRs, but I don’t believe you truly think it is able to compete for serious photography against top interchangeable camera, do you?
Cheers,
Bernard
Aren't we discussing Canon and Nikon mirrorless here? Their mirrorless system isn't even close to being an BIF system. I thought you were the one that wanted to keep on topic...so let's do that.
-
Aren't we discussing Canon and Nikon mirrorless here? Their mirrorless system isn't even close to being an BIF system. I thought you were the one that wanted to keep on topic...so let's do that.
Apologies, I don’t appreciate your tone... I’ll enjoy the beach instead.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ok...your thread. But I personally like looking and discussing cameras from the various manufactures rather than artificially limit what is discussed.
Especially when your are talking about the "Mirrorless war"... Why exclude the reigning champion?
Because it doesn't have the right badge.
-
Because it doesn't have the right badge.
The 2 of you are the ones obsessed with Sony.
I just dislike the continued mediocrity of Canon. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The 2 of you are the ones obsessed with Sony.
I just dislike the continued mediocrity of Canon. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
Yeh...those poor Canon souls can't produce a decent image if their life depended on them.
Bernard...you are such a fanboi.
-
Yeh...those poor Canon souls can't produce a decent image if their life depended on them.
Bernard...you are such a fanboi.
With a y please.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It puzzles me that some people are declaring the clear superiority of Sony over Canon and Nikon in EVF camera systems (on the basis mostly of the likely transient advantage of having been in that market longer) but then call it fanboyism to claim a technological advantage for Nikon’s cameras over Canon’s.
-
People often enjoy talking shit about stuff they neither own nor use. No skin in the game —> no need to take the talk seriously.
-Dave-
-
Allow me to wish the people of good will at LL a wonderful year 2019 from a dream island in the Pacific!
Cheers,
Bernard
P.S.: I’d be able to illustrate this with a wonderful Z7 beach photo had Nikon’s braindead Snapbridge not let me down again... ;)
-
I don't know why this has to be discussed as a "war".
With respect to current "winners".....a tidbit of info that may be of interest is that the EOS R is being rented 2:1 over the Nikon Z at LensRentals.
Over time, for example, the next 3-5 years, Canon will become dominant seller, just as they have been for decades; the installed base is just too large.
Oh, and BTW, the best selling mirrorless of 2018 was the EOS M.
-
I don't know why this has to be discussed as a "war".
With respect to current "winners".....a tidbit of info that may be of interest is that the EOS R is being rented 2:1 over the Nikon Z at LensRentals.
Better to rent first when you have doubts as to whether the camera delivers value. ;)
It isn’t a war for photographers, but it is one for the manufacturers.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
With respect to current "winners".....a tidbit of info that may be of interest is that the EOS R is being rented 2:1 over the Nikon Z at LensRentals.
Which probably reflects the size of their respective user bases. I think brand loyalty and lens investment means that few user are going to cross over.
-
Oh, and BTW, the best selling mirrorless of 2018 was the EOS M.
Do you the article stating this? Is this worldwide or just Japan?
-
Better to rent first when you have doubts as to whether the camera delivers value. ;)
It isn’t a war for photographers, but it is one for the manufacturers.
Cheers,
Bernard
If it's a war for the manufactures, Canon is going to kick butt. It's huge market share is going to steam roll everyone else...just like they have done in the DSLR world.
Bernard, I originally thought you wanted to discuss the features and usability of the two mirrorless newcomers from a customers perspective rather than looking at it from a manufactures perspective.
One perspective Canon will trounce Nikon in sales...but from the other perspective, Nikon appears to be the more capable camera with their initial releases.
-
We shall see.
There are few examples of companies managing to keep business up for a long time when they keep delivering products not matching competition.
If I am not mistaken yourself have decided that Sony was providing better performance and value. Are you not a pretty typical (former) Canon shooter?
The switch to mirrorless was a unique opportunity for Canon to show a different face... and we got the R body and great show off lenses not matching the body at all... Why would Canon users think they will get something better some day when all evidence during the past 10 years point to the contrary? And why would that not hurt their business in a context where their bread and butter (low end DSLRs) is being eaten alive by smart phones?
I fully acknowledge their amazing marketing abilities but people aren’t stupid just like you weren’t stupid when you took the smart decision to bail out.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If I am not mistaken yourself have decided that Sony was providing better performance and value. Are you not a pretty typical (former) Canon shooter?
Cheers,
Bernard
I switched to Sony because it was the only model that was mirrorless and full frame. My focus with photography was changing from mainly landscape to mainly travel and I needed a lighter kit. Sony had it, CaNikon did not. I did a quick look at Nikon and it was no better, even worse at lighter travel kit. At least Canon had their M cameras and lenses, Nikon had nothing.
I have no doubts Canon will dominate mirrorless sales. The lowly M cameras sells very well already and with their R introduction, things will pick up. They have that much brand power.
You seem to imply Canon lost customers to Sony...but in truth Nikon was the big loser as Canon's market share remained quite constant as Sony became relevant...but Nikon's share of the camera market dropped quite drastically. I don't see anything changing as things move to mirrorless.
-
Do you have data demonstrating that more Sony FF camera buyers came from Nikon than from Canon?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have anecdotal evidence but not data in so far as I know a few people who waited to see what what Nikon and Canon would do with mirrorless then bought Sony. I also know a few Nikon users who bought the Z. It’s all over the place really except I don’t personally know a single person who had bought the Canon R.
-
I have anecdotal evidence but not data in so far as I know a few people who waited to see what what Nikon and Canon would do with mirrorless then bought Sony. I also know a few Nikon users who bought the Z. It’s all over the place really except I don’t personally know a single person who had bought the Canon R.
Neither do I since 100% of the Canon shooters I know had already moved to Sony, 0% of Nikon shooters...
Would you mind sharing by PM the contacts of those Nikon shooters who decided to go Sony after the Z was announced?
Thank you.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
He manages a largish camera store and away for two weeks. I will put you in contact with him when he returns. I don’t actually have his email.
-
Which probably reflects the size of their respective user bases. I think brand loyalty and lens investment means that few user are going to cross over.
I agree. And that's the conclusion Matt Granger also came to when he was at the Canon exhibit at Photokina.
-
Do you the article stating this? Is this worldwide or just Japan?
Just do a search for an article for the best selling mirrorless camera. They all direct to Amazon, where the Canon EOS M APS-C the best selling mirrorless camera of 2018. It is also the best-selling mirrorless in Japan.
-
If it's a war for the manufactures, Canon is going to kick butt. It's huge market share is going to steam roll everyone else...just like they have done in the DSLR world.
"You are correct, sir" – Sidney Greenstreet, The Maltese Falcon
-
You seem to imply Canon lost customers to Sony...but in truth Nikon was the big loser as Canon's market share remained quite constant as Sony became relevant...but Nikon's share of the camera market dropped quite drastically. I don't see anything changing as things move to mirrorless.
You are also correct about this, as you were with your previous post that the vast majority of, and very large installed base, of Canon users are not going to switch away from Canon, no matter what. These folks are simply not going to buy a Sony camera, period. Can't say that I blame them, either.
In the long run, Canon will have the dominant market share, as they alway have had, for decades; approximately 60-65% of the installed base of users for ILCs. Sony and Nikon will likely end up with about 15% each.
-
You are also correct about this, as you were with your previous post that the vast majority of, and very large installed base, of Canon users are not going to switch away from Canon, no matter what. These folks are simply not going to buy a Sony camera, period. Can't say that I blame them, either.
In the long run, Canon will have the dominant market share, as they alway have had, for decades; approximately 60-65% of the installed base of users for ILCs. Sony and Nikon will likely end up with about 15% each.
Nikon and Canon have been much closer than that over the past 10-15 years, more like 45%-35%. It only very recently that Canon’s super low margin policy has helped them sell more low end DSLRs which has resulted in a higher share of new yearly sold DSLRs.
Most of the lenses owned are not even usable on M bodies, M being a dead mount walking anyways... and are useless on R bodies.
There is simply no reason whatsoever why Canon should increase its share in the mirrorless world, and their recent increase of “market share” is useless. Logic points to a significant decrease.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You are also correct about this, as you were with your previous post that the vast majority of, and very large installed base, of Canon users are not going to switch away from Canon, no matter what. These folks are simply not going to buy a Sony camera, period. Can't say that I blame them, either.
In the long run, Canon will have the dominant market share, as they alway have had, for decades; approximately 60-65% of the installed base of users for ILCs. Sony and Nikon will likely end up with about 15% each.
I dumped all my canon gear two years ago and moved to Sony. Have used mostly Canon for 35mm for quite some time. After using 1Ds cameras of various iterations I couldn’t like the 5D. I’m not a press guy and don’t shoot sport either so the 1DX didn’t serve a real purpose.
Sony hit the spot. Perhaps Canon will introduce a better R body but the current mirrorless offering isnt my cup of tea. I really use IBIS. I know Canon claim in lens stabilization is better, which I’m not convinced of anyway, but my most commonly used lens handheld is the standards and less extreme wide angle primes which are not offered with stabilization anyway.
Canon make good kit for sure. It’s all a bit dull at the moment though. I’m not a big gear head but it’s nice to like your camera and be at least a little excited about it.
-
There is simply no reason whatsoever why Canon should increase its share in the mirrorless world, and their recent increase of “market share” is useless. Logic points to a significant decrease.
Cheers,
Bernard
Huh? What do you mean? It's commonly accepted that mirrorless is going to replace slappers to a significant degree. So, if Canon manages to gradually change over existing userbase, its marketshare for mirrorless will increase.
-
Huh? What do you mean? It's commonly accepted that mirrorless is going to replace slappers to a significant degree. So, if Canon manages to gradually change over existing userbase, its marketshare for mirrorless will increase.
Yes, but they will face a dominant Sony and a talented and agressive Nikon, plus tens of millions of superbly performing smart phones that will make their cheap offering a lot less relevant.
I’d be surprised if they had more than 30% market share in 3 years.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, but they will face a dominant Sony and a talented and agressive Nikon, plus tens of millions of superbly performing smart phones that will make their cheap offering a lot less relevant.
I’d be surprised if they had more than 30% market share in 3 years.
Cheers,
Bernard
But that doesn't change the landscape. They all suffer the smartphone problem, so for marketshare purposes it can be ignored.
Nikon may be talented, but have an extremely long trackrecord for not turning that into more marketshare.
Which leaves Sony and Panasonic, both of which might be able to eat away some marketshare on the basis of video demands. In most other respects, it is not going to replace Canon's professional market and services.
Now, admittedly, that particular marketshare may already be distributed as per your assessment of 30%. It has already been mentioned in this and other threads that we don't really know undiluted numbers...
-
I would like Nikon to give more attention to better software. Also I do not understand that they did not make work of a better wireless connection built in.
Now they seem to have wifi and bluetooth in the camera but I still cannot make a quick wireless photo and have to use Nikons or third party external devices for my needs.
The three lenses introduced with the Z's are good, lightweight and not too expensive. Exactly what they need to be. Canon seems to be puzziling what direction they want to go; but i read they also introduced some very fine lenses, but only the 35mm is lightweight.
-
Do you have data demonstrating that more Sony FF camera buyers came from Nikon than from Canon?
Cheers,
Bernard
No data other than Canon's market share remained the same, Sony went up by 15% and Nikon's went down by 15%.
Don't know if people are jumping from Nikon or just not buying Nikon...but the end result is the same.
-
But that doesn't change the landscape. They all suffer the smartphone problem, so for marketshare purposes it can be ignored.
Nikon may be talented, but have an extremely long trackrecord for not turning that into more marketshare.
Which leaves Sony and Panasonic, both of which might be able to eat away some marketshare on the basis of video demands. In most other respects, it is not going to replace Canon's professional market and services.
Now, admittedly, that particular marketshare may already be distributed as per your assessment of 30%. It has already been mentioned in this and other threads that we don't really know undiluted numbers...
The only case where the evolution we see wouldn’t result in a significant decrease of market share for Canon is if they are as well represented in the high end segment as they are in the low end.
We lack clear data on this, but we have many partial information pointing to the fact that they have been hit significantly by the faster technical progress made by Sony and Nikon these past 10 years.
If the low end were to disappear completely overnight my guess is that they would probably already be #3 in new camera sales.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The only case where the evolution we see wouldn’t result in a significant decrease of market share for Canon is if they are as well represented in the high end segment as they are in the low end.
We lack clear data on this, but we have many partial information pointing to the fact that they have been hit significantly by the faster technical progress made by Sony and Nikon these past 10 years.
If the low end were to disappear completely overnight my guess is that they would probably already be #3 in new camera sales.
Cheers,
Bernard
2017 Canon's market share in revenue was 48% and Nikon's 22%.
Do you really believe Nikon would overtake Canon's market share if the low end falls out? How much do you think Nikon's revenue is due to the low end?
-
The only case where the evolution we see wouldn’t result in a significant decrease of market share for Canon is if they are as well represented in the high end segment as they are in the low end.
We lack clear data on this, but we have many partial information pointing to the fact that they have been hit significantly by the faster technical progress made by Sony and Nikon these past 10 years.
If the low end were to disappear completely overnight my guess is that they would probably already be #3 in new camera sales.
Cheers,
Bernard
This can't be right: if they were hit in the high end, then they would have been growing in the low end against the trend. How would that fly? Either:
1. There is a low end that was growing for Canon because other manufacturers gave up?
2. Their high-end simply didn't take as much of a hit as estimated?
I think what dilutes the numbers most is the fact that photography as a business proposition has changed a lot with digital and the corresponding write off. It's easy to sell a lot of bodies if a new body is required for each little iteration, but in the long run, that is unsustainable, especially in a professional environment. In addition, most working pros probably appreciate consistency in handling more than any other factor. Sony therefore may have had a 5 year lead, but they don't particularly offer 50 year consistency.
-
2017 Canon's market share in revenue was 48% and Nikon's 22%.
Do you really believe Nikon would overtake Canon's market share if the low end falls out? How much do you think Nikon's revenue is due to the low end?
Would you mind providing a link to that info?
I only saw numbers in terms of units produced.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Would you mind providing a link to that info?
I only saw numbers in terms of units produced.
Cheers,
Bernard
Go onto the CIPA website, Canon investors website and Nikon investors website and look at their financial reports for 2017...the data is all there.
-
Go onto the CIPA website, Canon investors website and Nikon investors website and look at their financial reports for 2017...the data is all there.
I can only find unit numbers on CIPA and I am not sure how you compute value share from the Canon and Nikon reports.
I am sure you kept the numbers somewhere. Would you mind explaining how your got to your 48% value share for Canon?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I can only find unit numbers on CIPA and I am not sure how you compute value share from the Canon and Nikon reports.
I am sure you kept the numbers somewhere. Would you mind explaining how your got to your 48% value share for Canon?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Bernard
Have you looked in detail at the CaNikon investor reports?
-
This might be worth the (long) read for some (basic) insights into Canon's development path/s:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2019/01/08/wheres-canon-going-with-the-eos-r-do-they-have-a-plan
-
This might be worth the (long) read for some (basic) insights into Canon's development path/s:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2019/01/08/wheres-canon-going-with-the-eos-r-do-they-have-a-plan
Hum... just read it, I am not sure what information this really adds.
Is there something more to it than:
- The next R body will be even lower end than the initial R but higher end bodies will follow at some point,
- They acknowledge that the R body video is sub-par (crop,...) and its AF is not at the level of the 1DX II,
- They will go 8K some day,
- They will release 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 some time soon (assuming this means 2019).
The lack of clarity about the 24-70mm f2.8 is rather telling... Who will buy both a 24-70mm f2.8 and a 28-70mm f2.0? If you have to pick one, are 95% of people (especially working pros) not going to go for the 24-70mm f2.8 which is a much more useful range of focal lengths for a zoom lens, especially if it is stabilized?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I guess just that rather than rumoured or logical guesses we now have that info from the "horses's mouth" so to speak. Also the fact that DSLRs still account for 65-70% of the US market helps put the mirrorless sales numbers/share in perspective.
And just like the EF24-70 is available in f2.8 and f4 versions you'll have the choice of smaller/lighter/cheaper or big/best optically/expensive for the RF lens options.
-
@Bernard, that is most of the real news in the long article, but I think you missed one item: Canon will at last add IBIS! So finally Canon and Nikon will be caught up with what Panasonic, Konica-Minolta and Olympus pioneered. (Meaning the ingredients of IBIS, Live View and EVF.)
The order of “entry-level next” makes sense both because of the often denied fact that that is where most of the revenue is once you get past the prestige-posturing needed with the first releases in a new system, and because it seems that more time is needed to gets mirrorless AF up to “no compromises” level. The Z7 doesn’t quite need that, it not being primarily an action photography camera. It does mean that some smaller, more affordable and mainstream lenses are needed after the 28-70/2 and 50/1.2 “look what the new mount lets us do!” show pieces.
-
Man that interview was painful to read. There's a language barrier and they give it to a guy who can't get to his point in less than 2 paragraphs (if at all). How do they land an interview with a top company exec with such amateurish skills?
As for the little real info actually provided - 8K video sounds cool, if only for the "with a 10x crop, Canon?" jokes that it started to produce.
-
As for the little real info actually provided - 8K video sounds cool, if only for the "with a 10x crop, Canon?" jokes that it started to produce.
Frankly, 8K is not much more than a buzzword... just like a 28-70 f2.0. Canon has always been great at marketing, but it feels like the machine is now living its own life, very far from the real needs of photographers.
Good raw 4K is an order of magnitude more relevant.
Cheers.
Bernard
-
Frankly, 8K is not much more than a buzzword... just like a 28-70 f2.0.
Cheers.
Bernard
Sort of like the 58 0.95 from Nikon? Seems to me CaNikon is in a pissing contest.
-
Sort of like the 58 0.95 from Nikon? Seems to me CaNikon is in a pissing contest.
Fair enough. But that's pretty much the only aspect in Nikon Z's annoucements that isn't of immediate and obvious practical use.
I would argue though that. Although the 58mm f0.95 is obviously a niche product, it may enable the creation of images not easily achievable before. I don’t see what the 28-70mm f2.0 brings besides boasting rights.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Fair enough. But that's pretty much the only aspect in Nikon Z's annoucements that isn't of immediate and obvious practical use.
I would argue though that. Although the 58mm f0.95 is obviously a niche product, it may enable the creation of images not easily achievable before. I don’t see what the 28-70mm f2.0 brings besides boasting rights.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well Sigma makes 24-35 f2 which seems to be heralded by many wedding shooters. Personally I see way more use for a 28-70f2 than a $6,000 58 0.95 lens. If I was a betting man, I'd say the 28-70 will outsell the 58 by at least an order of magnitude.
-
Well Sigma makes 24-35 f2 which seems to be heralded by many wedding shooters. Personally I see way more use for a 28-70f2 than a $6,000 58 0.95 lens. If I was a betting man, I'd say the 28-70 will outsell the 58 by at least an order of magnitude.
That's very likely, the price will be much lower also.
Fortunately the Z will have a 24-70 f2.8 by end of Q3 that will be used by most wedding shooters working with the Z and is IMHO a lot more useful than a 28-70, be it f2.0.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't do video so I don't care if Canon offers usable 4K 8K or 19K. But I'd happily shoot with the 28-70 f2 zoom, it seems to be a great lens - sadly outside of my budget.
-
I don't do video so I don't care if Canon offers usable 4K 8K or 19K. But I'd happily shoot with the 28-70 f2 zoom, it seems to be a great lens - sadly outside of my budget.
Just out of curiosity, for what applications would you consider a 28-70mm f2.0 superior to a 24-70mm f2.8?
As far as I recall all the people I know who used to shoot with 28-70mm f2.8 zooms very quickly switched to the 24-70mm f2.8 after they became available because those 4mm make a huge difference for all the applications where you prefer to use a zoom over an f1.4 or f1.2 prime.
So I am a bit at a loss to understand how f2.0 changes that...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... Personally I see way more use for a 28-70f2 than a $6,000 58 0.95 lens...
Comparing apples with peares?
I see the 58mm 0,95 as a technological statement - and a liberation for Nikon engineers to leave the small F-Bajonet making this possible.
The 28-70 f2 seems already possible for the DSLR- it is a pity a lot of Canon shooters can't use it without buying a Canon-R body.
In this i agree with Bernard that 24mm is a very nice focal length to have- one of my most favourite.
-
I don't do video so I don't care if Canon offers usable 4K 8K or 19K. But I'd happily shoot with the 28-70 f2 zoom, it seems to be a great lens - sadly outside of my budget.
The Canon 28-70f2 lense is, no doupt about that, a very good lense. But the weight and size are just not comfortable at all, absolutelly no adventage over a 5D and regular 24-70f2.8. It's marginal and I tested it. After 8 hours straight shooting a weeding, a shoulder start to melt.
This fast design was maybe mendatory because Canon does not offer IS in his first R iteration.
Speaking by experience, the Z and the actual 24-70 f4 S are just extremelly efficient in all kind of reportage, the weight is present but just at the good threshold, no pain. I do not think I'm gonna buy the f2.8 version because the IS just work very good and so far, the AF never failed me; just need some practice.
I think that Canon just went a bit early with the R. It is not that small, not that light, and nowhere as efficient as a Z camera.
Side note :
I start to modifie my view on lenses. Why F4 and not F2.8 ? What does it bring to me or my clients ? The answer is roughly bokeh. For bokeh portrait I use either a50, 85 or my 180 f2.8. Landscape and f2.8 zooms ? F4 isn't imoprtant at all since we usually shoot between f5.6 and up. I think that the Z system is very good and do the job. It is not the perfect tool but it come very close to my expectations.
-
Just out of curiosity, for what applications would you consider a 28-70mm f2.0 superior to a 24-70mm f2.8?
Shooting portraits outdoors. I use primes now and often around f2 to have more of the face in focus while still having a strong background blur. A good f2 zoom would mean I don't have to swap lenses (so much). Not having 24mm is irrelevant to me - if anything I'd rather see this lens to be a 35-80mm/f2 or even 40-90mm/f2. My dream portrait zoom would be the Sigma 50-100/f1.8 but in full frame version.
As for the weight/size - I'm just a hobbyist so I don't shoot for 8 hours straight. I would also never take this lens on a hiking trip. But I mostly shoot portraits and using the Sigma Art primes for the past few years has made my arms strong ;-)
-
Shooting portraits outdoors. I use primes now and often around f2 to have more of the face in focus while still having a strong background blur. A good f2 zoom would mean I don't have to swap lenses (so much). Not having 24mm is irrelevant to me - if anything I'd rather see this lens to be a 35-80mm/f2 or even 40-90mm/f2. My dream portrait zoom would be the Sigma 50-100/f1.8 but in full frame version.
As for the weight/size - I'm just a hobbyist so I don't shoot for 8 hours straight. I would also never take this lens on a hiking trip. But I mostly shoot portraits and using the Sigma Art primes for the past few years has made my arms strong ;-)
I understand your needs :) I used to shoot portraits with fast primes, mostly 50 ish primes so I was using apperture to get subject separation. With time I found that I prefer using focal lenght for subject separation and felt in love with the 180f2.8ED. Now, with the stabilisation, it is just a joy to use (sport stab and EFCS).
Sigma primes are good and, somehow, the S line looks similar. Infact, the S line is very well build, nothing close to the "plastic fantastic kit lenses …" some naysayers forked over YouTube channels (Like the Northrup and Cie).
It is good metal, good plastics (feel like metal) and good rubber. Rings are super stiff, I only wish that "kit lenses" approach this quality ! And, cherry on the cake, the optical performances are mindblowing.
My previous camera is a D700 (I keep it, less than 50000 act since I bought it) and the weight/bulk ratio is full tilt in favor of the Z. Even the balance on my flanc is enjoyable and non intrusive as a D serie.
I love Nikon but I envy some canon lenses, the 135f2L for exemple. I hope Nikon will build Something similar in 2021.
-
I love Nikon but I envy some canon lenses, the 135f2L for exemple. I hope Nikon will build Something similar in 2021.
How about the Nikkor 105mm f1.4 ? or the 1.8 135mm Sigma ART?
I read Canon Shooters now adopt the Sigma. (... for what its worth)
-
How about the Nikkor 105mm f1.4 ? or the 1.8 135mm Sigma ART?
I read Canon Shooters now adopt the Sigma. (... for what its worth)
Those are wonderfull lenses, especially the Nikkor, but I'm not interested. If Nikon never came with the Z mount I would have bought the 105 but I will never buy a F mount lens ever. As for the Sigma, this lense is very good but weight a metric ton (and I prefer native lenses).
The Canon 135f2L is almost light, simple, rugged, exeptional at IQ level and priced below 1000 €. This lens is a gem for portraiture.
-
Those are wonderfull lenses, especially the Nikkor, but I'm not interested. If Nikon never came with the Z mount I would have bought the 105 but I will never buy a F mount lens ever. As for the Sigma, this lense is very good but weight a metric ton (and I prefer native lenses).
The Canon 135f2L is almost light, simple, rugged, exeptional at IQ level and priced below 1000 €. This lens is a gem for portraiture.
OK, but there is nothing on the Z-lens-roadmap... and the Canon 135f2 on a Z? (needs an adapter)
at least the Nikkor105 has a native adapter...
but is understand it has something special - for me 135mm is too far away...not making contact. I even find 85 too far, but that is me i guess..
I understand in a studio you need some space not to interfere with the light.
-
No data other than Canon's market share remained the same, Sony went up by 15% and Nikon's went down by 15%.
Don't know if people are jumping from Nikon or just not buying Nikon...but the end result is the same.
For what time period? Have to be careful with that. Sony released two very good and quite popular cameras in late 2017 and early 2018. They had a significant sales run before Nikon released two very good and quite popular cameras in late 2018. That surely booster Sony sales for some period. The Nikon cameras were much rumored, so that likely depressed Nikon sales for a while. Canon had fewer rumors flying around than Nikon, and with its installed base would have more inertia in sales numbers than the other two.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, actually, just that there are some additional variables that could give those numbers significantly different long-term meaning.
-
For what time period? Have to be careful with that. Sony released two very good and quite popular cameras in late 2017 and early 2018. They had a significant sales run before Nikon released two very good and quite popular cameras in late 2018. That surely booster Sony sales for some period. The Nikon cameras were much rumored, so that likely depressed Nikon sales for a while. Canon had fewer rumors flying around than Nikon, and with its installed base would have more inertia in sales numbers than the other two.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, actually, just that there are some additional variables that could give those numbers significantly different long-term meaning.
Right from Nikon's own financial reports:
Year ILC market share Lens market share
FY2014 36% 33%
FY2015 34% 31%
FY2016 34% 29%
FY2017 26% 24%
FY2018 23% 21%
FY2019est 23% 20%
So in 5 years Nikon's camera market share went down by 13% and their lens market share went down by 13%
-
OK, but there is nothing on the Z-lens-roadmap... and the Canon 135f2 on a Z? (needs an adapter)
at least the Nikkor105 has a native adapter...
but is understand it has something special - for me 135mm is too far away...not making contact. I even find 85 too far, but that is me i guess..
I understand in a studio you need some space not to interfere with the light.
Yea sadly I do not think Nikon will make it before 2 years...if they make it ! It is a long journey to transit from 50 to longer focal lenghts. Honestly it is about our own feelings, not a rational thing. My favorite lenght is 180mm, it is the way I feel it, no technical calculations behind this choice. Probably more compression ? I don't know. The Nikkor 135 DC doesn't make me vibrating, the Canon 135 does. For the humans I shoot, 180mm aren't THAT far away (1.5m) :)
Side note :
I have total faith in the excelence of the upcoming 70-200f2.8 S. Depending on the price, this zoom might end the need of my 180.
-
Right from Nikon's own financial reports:
Year ILC market share Lens market share
FY2014 36% 33%
FY2015 34% 31%
FY2016 34% 29%
FY2017 26% 24%
FY2018 23% 21%
FY2019est 23% 20%
So in 5 years Nikon's camera market share went down by 13% and their lens market share went down by 13%
As discussed several times, this data is completely useless without a view by segment.
Besides, what matters to photographers is the performance of equipment and it is on top of the situation you described above that Nikon released the Z6/Z7 and Canon the R... enough said.
Odds are that Nikon would still release much more appealing cameras with a market share at 10%.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have total faith in the excelence of the upcoming 70-200f2.8 S. Depending on the price, this zoom might end the need of my 180.
Me too. The 70-200 f2.8 E is at Otus level in terms of image quality. The S can only be better... although I have a hard imagining what that could mean.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As discussed several times, this data is completely useless without a view by segment.
Besides, what matters to photographers is the performance of equipment and it is on top of the situation you described above that Nikon released the Z6/Z7 and Canon the R... enough said.
Odds are that Nikon would still release much more appealing cameras with a market share at 10%.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'm just showing facts Bernard...not gut feels like you.
As far as the % of full frame versus crop that Nikon sells...you'd be surprised...maybe 10% full frame, 90% crop...vastly consumer level.
I know you feel it's different, but I have two separate sources that says different.
-
Right from Nikon's own financial reports:
Year ILC market share Lens market share
FY2014 36% 33%
FY2015 34% 31%
FY2016 34% 29%
FY2017 26% 24%
FY2018 23% 21%
FY2019est 23% 20%
So in 5 years Nikon's camera market share went down by 13% and their lens market share went down by 13%
Thanks. That’s a much clearer picture.
-
I'm just showing facts Bernard...not gut feels like you.
As far as the % of full frame versus crop that Nikon sells...you'd be surprised...maybe 10% full frame, 90% crop...vastly consumer level.
I know you feel it's different, but I have two separate sources that says different.
My feeling isn’t different. 90%/10% in volume is realistic. Where we differ is in our view about what this means in terms of the relative health of the high end FF segment of Canon and Nikon.
The volume ratio above probably translates in FF still being a larger absolute contributor to margin. And that is the relevant indicator for 2 reasons:
- there will soon be no more low end
- high end bodies mean high end lenses sale that generate in turn more revenue and are reusable on FF mirrorless bodies.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My feeling isn’t different. 90%/10% in volume is realistic. Where we differ is in our view about what this means in terms of the relative health of the high end FF segment of Canon and Nikon.
The volume ratio above probably translates in FF still being a larger absolute contributor to margin. And that is the relevant indicator for 2 reasons:
- there will soon be no more low end
- high end bodies mean high end lenses sale that generate in turn more revenue and are reusable on FF mirrorless bodies.
Cheers,
Bernard
Highly doubt 10% of the revenue contribute to the majority of the margin. I think CaNikon is hurting from their low priced high volume eroding.
-
Highly doubt 10% of the revenue contribute to the majority of the margin. I think CaNikon is hurting from their low priced high volume eroding.
Still not sure where you got the data that low end represents 90% of revenue.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Still not sure where you got the data that low end represents 90% of revenue.
Cheers,
Bernard
Do some research on Thon Hogan’s site.
There is also a site of Nikon serial numbers for their cameras. From those range of numbers for their different cameras you can conclude that Nikon expects their entry level cameras to sell at least 10x their high end cameras.
Do a bit of work if you really want the data...or not, your choice.
-
Do some research on Thon Hogan’s site.
There is also a site of Nikon serial numbers for their cameras. From those range of numbers for their different cameras you can conclude that Nikon expects their entry level cameras to sell at least 10x their high end cameras.
Do a bit of work if you really want the data...or not, your choice.
Agreed they sell 10 times more low end camera at about 1/4 to 1/15 the price of high end.
Which means that low end represents perhaps 60% of revenue, with much lower margins.
But what matters is the ratio of high end vs low end at Nikon vs Canon and what it means in terms of actual high segment respective market share for FF bodies and FF lenses. Empirical data point indicate that Canom and Nikon are much closer on this than the overall yearly data you provided above indicates.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Me too. The 70-200 f2.8 E is at Otus level in terms of image quality. The S can only be better... although I have a hard imagining what that could mean.
Cheers,
Bernard
I hope it will be lighter than the f. Sure, IQ will be super but my little finger tell me the emphasis will be on the OOF rendering. The 24-70S does have a very good OOF rendering for a f4 lense, kind of organic and smooth. I suppose it is related to the new optical formulas and the Z mount.
-
https://photorumors.com/2019/01/14/sony-α7-iii-vs-canon-eos-r-vs-nikon-z6-mirrorless-sales-during-the-holiday-shopping-season-in-japan/
As predicted, Sony kills it but Nikon and Canon are pretty much at the same level for FF mirrorless sales in December in Japan, although the Z6 was just introduced and was therefore not discounted at all (average selling price is 1.5 times higher). The shape of the curves indicate that Nikon should be clearly ahead by January.
Considering the huge initial market share advantage Canon was supposed to have, this appears to indicate that R sales are far below expectations.
Or... as I suspect... this simply reflects the fact that their market share in the FF segment is much closer than the global figures have us believe.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
After no cameras at all since February 2018, Sony announces their first APS-C camera since 2016...
An A6300 with a flip screen.
No IS/VR (which they know how to do because the a6500 and most of their full frame models do a nice job).
No BSI sensor (wait a minute, they make all the BSI sensors larger than phone sensors).
No weather sealing (oh, they're Sony, they don't really do that).
No new APS-C lenses (only Fuji does that...)
Where's Sony's innovative camera design team? Are they asleep? Or are they working on something great we haven't seen yet?
More broadly, when did we last see anything really new below full-frame (DSLR or mirrorless) from anyone except Fuji?
The E-M1x will be really new, but it will also be really niche as far as I can see.
Everything else below full-frame seems to be mailed in "upgrades" that are as likely to take away useful features as add them (I'm looking at you, Nikon).
-
After no cameras at all since February 2018, Sony announces their first APS-C camera since 2016...
An A6300 with a flip screen.
No IS/VR (which they know how to do because the a6500 and most of their full frame models do a nice job).
No BSI sensor (wait a minute, they make all the BSI sensors larger than phone sensors).
No weather sealing (oh, they're Sony, they don't really do that).
No new APS-C lenses (only Fuji does that...)
Where's Sony's innovative camera design team? Are they asleep? Or are they working on something great we haven't seen yet?
More broadly, when did we last see anything really new below full-frame (DSLR or mirrorless) from anyone except Fuji?
The E-M1x will be really new, but it will also be really niche as far as I can see.
Everything else below full-frame seems to be mailed in "upgrades" that are as likely to take away useful features as add them (I'm looking at you, Nikon).
Let's not forget to mention the price, under $1,000...not too shabby given it has eye focus tracking something the cameras from CaNikon costing more than twice and up to almost 4 times are struggling with. It's yet another preemptive blow to CaNikon who might be thinking about releasing a mirrorless APS-C camera...setting the bar very much like the A73 set the bar.
I'll bet dollars to donuts the a6400 has better overall focusing than anything so far from CaNikon not to mention speed.
So even at a majorly reduced price, it has features that are blantantly missing from the current flagships of CaNikon.
You might also mention the upcoming FW upgrade to the A7R3, A73 and A9 enabling animal eye focus tracking and realtime image backup to remote devices.
-
With the recent round of price cuts, the X-T3 and X-H1 are sitting not very far over $1000...
FAR better lenses (not counting much larger Sony FF lenses - if you're going to use Sony FF lenses, why not pick up an A7II body for the same price as an a6400)?
Fast focus - probably not better than the a6400, but probably not worse
Far better ergonomics (to me, also to most reviewers) than any Sony (especially APS-C Sonys)
Full weather sealing
And your choice of the big features, although not both in one camera - the X-H1 has excellent IBIS, and the X-T3 has a newer generation BSI sensor (why the heck does the a6400 not use the Sony 26 MP BSI sensor)?
-
With the recent round of price cuts, the X-T3 and X-H1 are sitting not very far over $1000...
FAR better lenses (not counting much larger Sony FF lenses - if you're going to use Sony FF lenses, why not pick up an A7II body for the same price as an a6400)?
Fast focus - probably not better than the a6400, but probably not worse
Far better ergonomics (to me, also to most reviewers) than any Sony (especially APS-C Sonys)
Full weather sealing
And your choice of the big features, although not both in one camera - the X-H1 has excellent IBIS, and the X-T3 has a newer generation BSI sensor (why the heck does the a6400 not use the Sony 26 MP BSI sensor)?
Big reason...because I also shoot full frame Sony as well and can share a lot between the two cameras. Something you can't do with Fuji as once you are in APS-C land with Fuji you are stuck there.
I love being able to use the same lenses on my full frame as well as APS-C cameras....my A6000 makes a wonderful backup camera as it uses the same batteries, Chargers, memory cards and lenses as my main camera...so for a full backup I have this tiny camera that fits into the corner of my pack and I don't even notice it's there...the perfect backup.
-
That case certainly makes sense - when an APS-C camera serves as backup (or a high pixel density telephoto option) to full-frame, it makes all the sense in the world to have a compatible system. Canon and Nikon DSLR shooters have done that for years.
What I was questioning was how Sony APS-C is compelling on its own (e.g. not as a body stuck in a case full of Sony FF gear).
-
That case certainly makes sense - when an APS-C camera serves as backup (or a high pixel density telephoto option) to full-frame, it makes all the sense in the world to have a compatible system. Canon and Nikon DSLR shooters have done that for years.
What I was questioning was how Sony APS-C is compelling on its own (e.g. not as a body stuck in a case full of Sony FF gear).
I work with exactly that scenario. Sony full frame and APSC. Can tell you why I like the system
In a previous post you speak of a 6300 with a flip screen saying it’s the first Sony APSC since 2016 and then give its specs. True what you say but misleading since the camera launched in 2016 was the 6500. Touch screen, IBIS and other upgrades on the 6300. That is the camera I own.
I love the form factor of the Sony 6500. I go places where photography isn’t exactly encouraged and no one looks up when I shoot on this little camera. It doesn’t look serious. Yet a good sensor, good auto focus, high frame rate, full silent shooting, IBIS, 24 MP. When weight and stealth is an absolute neccisity it woks way better than the Fuji and Olympus offerings which look like scaled down SLR cameras. I put the 6500, or 6300 which I also own, in a small sling bag with 4 little primes and I’m good to go. Concerts where they stop people going in with “serious cameras” I have no issue.
My apsc Sony cameras take the same lenses as my FF. A A7RII. Sometimes I even use an APSC lens on FF and the camera crops automatically. I do the same in the other direction. 90mm Sony macro gives me 135mm macro on the APSC in an easily managed configuration. Controls are all more or less the same, flash all works the same. I have been reluctant to upgrade the A7RII beacause it uses the same batteries as the APSC. I have handfuls of them and I’m fine with the 200 to 300 frames I get per battery. On a commercial shoot if I’m shooting FF the APSC is is very light second body that uses all the same lenses and batteries.
I realize this is quite specific to me. I sometimes need 40 plus MP in studio on tripod and I sometimes need a small camera in dangerous street locations. Sometimes I am shooting product for litho and sometimes for web. Sometimes I shoot video and sometimes I’m shooting on a 4 day wilderness hike in the desert or the Himalayas at over 5000 m. I shoot commercially and for pleasure. The Sony system with APSC and FF has been incredible versatile and easy to use.
-
I work with exactly that scenario. Sony full frame and APSC. Can tell you why I like the system
In a previous post you speak of a 6300 with a flip screen saying it’s the first Sony APSC since 2016 and then give its specs. True what you say but misleading since the camera launched in 2016 was the 6500. Touch screen, IBIS and other upgrades on the 6300. That is the camera I own.
I love the form factor of the Sony 6500. I go places where photography isn’t exactly encouraged and no one looks up when I shoot on this little camera. It doesn’t look serious. Yet a good sensor, good auto focus, high frame rate, full silent shooting, IBIS, 24 MP. When weight and stealth is an absolute neccisity it woks way better than the Fuji and Olympus offerings which look like scaled down SLR cameras. I put the 6500, or 6300 which I also own, in a small sling bag with 4 little primes and I’m good to go. Concerts where they stop people going in with “serious cameras” I have no issue.
My apsc Sony cameras take the same lenses as my FF. A A7RII. Sometimes I even use an APSC lens on FF and the camera crops automatically. I do the same in the other direction. 90mm Sony macro gives me 135mm macro on the APSC in an easily managed configuration. Controls are all more or less the same, flash all works the same. I have been reluctant to upgrade the A7RII beacause it uses the same batteries as the APSC. I have handfuls of them and I’m fine with the 200 to 300 frames I get per battery. On a commercial shoot if I’m shooting FF the APSC is is very light second body that uses all the same lenses and batteries.
I realize this is quite specific to me. I sometimes need 40 plus MP in studio on tripod and I sometimes need a small camera in dangerous street locations. Sometimes I am shooting product for litho and sometimes for web. Sometimes I shoot video and sometimes I’m shooting on a 4 day wilderness hike in the desert or the Himalayas at over 5000 m. I shoot commercially and for pleasure. The Sony system with APSC and FF has been incredible versatile and easy to use.
Martin, exact same reasons I use the A6000 as my backup. I just would never buy into an APS-C system which basically dead ended you if you choose or require a full frame system. When shooting Canon, I used both a full frame camera and a crop camera, but never bought crop lenses as that limits their use.
Fuji is a great crop system...but it's a dead end if you want / need more. Fine for some obviously...but I like the flexibility of being able to use both crop and full frame depending on what I'm shooting.
-
Martin, exact same reasons I use the A6000 as my backup. I just would never buy into an APS-C system which basically dead ended you if you choose or require a full frame system. When shooting Canon, I used both a full frame camera and a crop camera, but never bought crop lenses as that limits their use.
Fuji is a great crop system...but it's a dead end if you want / need more. Fine for some obviously...but I like the flexibility of being able to use both crop and full frame depending on what I'm shooting.
You get my point. Having essentially two systems that work so well together is very useful to me.
-
https://photorumors.com/2019/01/27/canon-sees-a-grim-future-for-the-camera-business-the-digital-camera-market-is-likely-to-shrink-by-half-in-the-next-two-years/
There you go... it looks like Canon themselves agree with my forecast that low end is dead... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://photorumors.com/2019/01/27/canon-sees-a-grim-future-for-the-camera-business-the-digital-camera-market-is-likely-to-shrink-by-half-in-the-next-two-years/
There you go... it looks like Canon themselves agree with my forecast that low end is dead... ;)
Little news there: we have all known for a long time that the market for "dedicated cameras" as a whole (as opposed to cameras embedded into smart phones) is shrinking, predominately but not only in the lower roughly half of that market that consists of fixed-lens so-called "compact" cameras, as opposed to the higher level sector of ILCs. But do you see in that Canon comment any hint that the mainstream ILC formats (APS-C and MFT) are part of the dying "low end", as you seem to view them? It seems that I have to keep restating that from the point of view of a company like Canon or Nikon, a substantial part of the market for digital cameras is those fixed lens models (which only recently dropped below half of all camera sales revenue, and still take the majority of camera unit sales last time I looked). Meanwhile, a lot of advanced amateurs are happily using gear in formats smaller than the 35mm film format, where also a clear majority of the ILC revenues come from: 60–70% by my reckoning. In the context of camera-that-are-not-phones as a whole, formats smaller than 35mm format probably generate about 80% of revenue; is that revenue base soon to be small enough to abandon?
-
Little news there: we have all known for a long time that the market for "dedicated cameras" as a whole (as opposed to cameras embedded into smart phones) is shrinking, predominately but not only in the lower roughly half of that market that consists of fixed-lens so-called "compact" cameras, as opposed to the higher level sector of ILCs. But do you see in that Canon comment any hint that the mainstream ILC formats (APS-C and MFT) are part of the dying "low end", as you seem to view them? It seems that I have to keep restating that from the point of view of a company like Canon or Nikon, a substantial part of the market for digital cameras is those fixed lens models (which only recently dropped below half of all camera sales revenue, and still take the majority of camera unit sales last time I looked). Meanwhile, a lot of advanced amateurs are happily using gear in formats smaller than the 35mm film format, where also a clear majority of the ILC revenues come from: 60–70% by my reckoning. In the context of camera-that-are-not-phones as a whole, formats smaller than 35mm format probably generate about 80% of revenue; is that revenue base soon to be small enough to abandon?
It's interesting that Sony just released a so called low end APS-C camera, the A6400. Bet it will sell like hot cakes!
What you are going to see in the market is the price of cameras will increase...we are already seeing this. There will still be the lower end of the ILC market and the higher end. It's just the low end will not be as low as before as far as price goes and the higher end will be even higher.
And like before the manufactures will get most of their revenues from their lower end products. Always have...always will.
-
It's interesting that Sony just released a so called low end APS-C camera, the A6400. Bet it will sell like hot cakes!
There is going to be one generation that may still be reasonably successful, that won't change the overall downwards trend.
As far as low end selling more than high end. Yes, that certainly will remain true. It seems we mostly agree when you write that the positioning of the low end will be much higher, both in price and in capabilities.
As a result the low end will sell in much lower numbers than it once did. Which basically is exactly what I have been saying. ;)
Which pretty much means that the recent market share numbers we have been seeing these past years are pretty much irrelevant. What will matter is the ability of Canon and Nikon to motivate their FF users to stay on board/attract new users. If the numbers we are seeing in Japan about Z vs R are representative, at the moment it looks like we will see a significant change of balance with Nikon gaining important market shares over Canon in a higher end FF centric market.
This could of course still change if Canon decides to become more serious about mirrorless.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm not sure the high end will get higher (unless you count weird collectibles from Leica and friends). Phase One may continue to push further and further into the stratosphere, but that's a negligible number of units per year. The mainstream manufacturers have actually abandoned their highest price point (the $8000 high-resolution FF bodies are gone).
The R&D that used to go into $500 cameras seems to be going into $1000-$3500 cameras now. Canon, Nikon and Sony continue to make $500 cameras, and to sell a lot of them, but they are getting mailed-in updates that don't add anything. Meanwhile everything from $1000 on up to $3500 is getting a lot of attention, and we're seeing real updates and new models ranging from the X-T3 to the Z7.
I strongly suspect we're going to see three new APS-C action-oriented cameras in the $1000-$2000 range in the next year or so (Canon, Nikon and Sony - very likely all mirrorless). I'm also expecting two new lower-end FF mirrorless models from Canon and Nikon - in the same price range as the action-oriented cameras, but FF and lower speed. We may well see an updated Sony high-resolution body and/or a brand-new Canon high-resolution mirrorless to go with the Panasonic high-res body we already know about. Two new speed demons, if not three, will stalk the Tokyo Olympics in a year and a half. Fuji's promising the first 100 MP camera under $30,000 - and they're likely to get it in under $10,000. At least a couple of new video-oriented cameras are coming as well.
Hardly a time of no development effort - but nothing much in the Rebel/D3x00/a5100 range. Everything listed above is going to be $1000+, and very little of it (the Canon and Nikon speed demons, and the medium format Fuji, but that's all) will be over $3500.
-
As far as low end selling more than high end. Yes, that certainly will remain true. It seems we mostly agree when you write that the positioning of the low end will be much higher, both in price and in capabilities.
As a result the low end will sell in much lower numbers than it once did. Which basically is exactly what I have been saying. ;)
Which pretty much means that the recent market share numbers we have been seeing these past years are pretty much irrelevant. What will matter is the ability of Canon and Nikon to motivate their FF users to stay on board/attract new users. If the numbers we are seeing in Japan about Z vs R are representative, at the moment it looks like we will see a significant change of balance with Nikon gaining important market shares over Canon in a higher end FF centric market.
Cheers,
Bernard
What will be interesting to see for Nikon is how much new lens sales for Z cameras adds to their bottom line. Yes, the adapter is great for those who have legacy lenses (I can even use my really old 50 & 105mm lenses on my Z 6) but it adds some bulk to the camera/lens set up. Will those who are moving to Z cameras, end up replacing their F mount lenses with the newer ones as they get rolled out. I really like the 24-70 zoom on my Z 6 and it's really tempting to purchase primes as they are issued.
-
There is going to be one generation that may still be reasonably successful, that won't change the overall downwards trend.
As far as low end selling more than high end. Yes, that certainly will remain true. It seems we mostly agree when you write that the positioning of the low end will be much higher, both in price and in capabilities.
As a result the low end will sell in much lower numbers than it once did. Which basically is exactly what I have been saying. ;)
Which pretty much means that the recent market share numbers we have been seeing these past years are pretty much irrelevant. What will matter is the ability of Canon and Nikon to motivate their FF users to stay on board/attract new users. If the numbers we are seeing in Japan about Z vs R are representative, at the moment it looks like we will see a significant change of balance with Nikon gaining important market shares over Canon in a higher end FF centric market.
This could of course still change if Canon decides to become more serious about mirrorless.
Cheers,
Bernard
The only reason we are seeing more Nikon mirrorless sales in Japan is because of the low end Z6 which is outselling the high end Z7 by a magnitude...which is exactly how it always was...low end outselling high end by bucket loads. Canon has yet to release their high end and in fact their low end. We'll see how things settle out once more Canon cameras are released.
-
We'll see how things settle out once more Canon cameras are released.
By then, things will have changed. Playing catch up is not a good strategy.
-
By then, things will have changed. Playing catch up is not a good strategy.
The full frame mirrorless market has been in swing for years now. CaNikon are both desperately playing catch up.
-
Canon has yet to release their high end and in fact their low end. We'll see how things settle out once more Canon cameras are released.
Lower than Canon R? what would you drop from its current features?.
Regards
-
It probably means lower quality components - lower spec display/EVF, the ever so popular 6D2 sensor...
-
Lower than Canon R? what would you drop from its current features?.
Regards
They will release an APS-C camera which will fall below their existing EOS-R camera.
-
Imaging Resources also had an interview in which Canon mentioned they had a lower-end EOS-R coming... I had the same question Guillermo had - it's already toward the bottom end of full-frame bodies in terms of features...
I agree with Rado that it will get the 6D2 sensor or an update to it, instead of the 5DIV-derived sensor the EOS-R has.
Drop the IBIS? It doesn't have IBIS.
Drop the weather sealing? Possible, but it would mean going from "high-end consumer" sealing to nothing at all. Unlike the Z series, the EOS-R already doesn't have full sealing.
Build quality in general? Perhaps - the EOS-R is pretty solid, and that's not cheap to do... They could go cheaper.
Mess with the viewfinder or screen? That's promising - it has a very, very nice 3.7 million pixel finder and a fully articulated screen. Those are premium components, and replacing them with the ubiquitous ~2.3 million pixel finder, lower-quality finder optics and a cheaper screen would shave some costs. Canon might even go for the first viewfinderless FF mirrorless camera other than the fixed-lens Sony RX1.
Lower speed? Possibly, but the EOS-R is already 5 FPS with focus going - acceptable, but not a lot of room to shave performance...
Less controls? I don't know of any FF camera without two main dials, and most augment that with a joystick, an extra dial or some other source of control (beyond the 4 way arrow buttons for the menus). The only extra control here is the touchscreen and the touchbar. Canon could go with a single-dial or even no-dial camera that relied much more heavily on the two touch interfaces - but that would be a huge break from all prior FF design conventions, although it's common in lower-end APS-C.
-
They will release an APS-C camera which will fall below their existing EOS-R camera.
Will that be on the M mount or R mount?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Imaging Resources also had an interview in which Canon mentioned they had a lower-end EOS-R coming... I had the same question Guillermo had - it's already toward the bottom end of full-frame bodies in terms of features...
I agree with Rado that it will get the 6D2 sensor or an update to it, instead of the 5DIV-derived sensor the EOS-R has.
Drop the IBIS? It doesn't have IBIS.
Drop the weather sealing? Possible, but it would mean going from "high-end consumer" sealing to nothing at all. Unlike the Z series, the EOS-R already doesn't have full sealing.
Build quality in general? Perhaps - the EOS-R is pretty solid, and that's not cheap to do... They could go cheaper.
Mess with the viewfinder or screen? That's promising - it has a very, very nice 3.7 million pixel finder and a fully articulated screen. Those are premium components, and replacing them with the ubiquitous ~2.3 million pixel finder, lower-quality finder optics and a cheaper screen would shave some costs. Canon might even go for the first viewfinderless FF mirrorless camera other than the fixed-lens Sony RX1.
Lower speed? Possibly, but the EOS-R is already 5 FPS with focus going - acceptable, but not a lot of room to shave performance...
Less controls? I don't know of any FF camera without two main dials, and most augment that with a joystick, an extra dial or some other source of control (beyond the 4 way arrow buttons for the menus). The only extra control here is the touchscreen and the touchbar. Canon could go with a single-dial or even no-dial camera that relied much more heavily on the two touch interfaces - but that would be a huge break from all prior FF design conventions, although it's common in lower-end APS-C.
They could:
- add a negative IBIS that generates blur on purpose - they would call is IBID with D standing for destabilization and claim nicer bokeh
- downres 4K to full HD in camera - boast about the sharper pixels
- desactivate peripheral AF points - focus on the less is more moto
- make the body larger and heavier - stress the better hand holdability
- prevent compatibility with legacy lenses - insist on the higher quality of the new cheap lens kits
Just kidding of course. Canon would never dumb down a camera to generate artificial segmentation. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Will that be on the M mount or R mount?
Cheers,
Bernard
No idea. Just read they will release an APS-C mirrorless camera to follow in the footsteps of the EOS-R. My guess is they'll use the R mount.
-
Imaging Resources also had an interview in which Canon mentioned they had a lower-end EOS-R coming... I had the same question Guillermo had - it's already toward the bottom end of full-frame bodies in terms of features...
I agree with Rado that it will get the 6D2 sensor or an update to it, instead of the 5DIV-derived sensor the EOS-R has.
Drop the IBIS? It doesn't have IBIS.
Drop the weather sealing? Possible, but it would mean going from "high-end consumer" sealing to nothing at all. Unlike the Z series, the EOS-R already doesn't have full sealing.
Build quality in general? Perhaps - the EOS-R is pretty solid, and that's not cheap to do... They could go cheaper.
Mess with the viewfinder or screen? That's promising - it has a very, very nice 3.7 million pixel finder and a fully articulated screen. Those are premium components, and replacing them with the ubiquitous ~2.3 million pixel finder, lower-quality finder optics and a cheaper screen would shave some costs. Canon might even go for the first viewfinderless FF mirrorless camera other than the fixed-lens Sony RX1.
Lower speed? Possibly, but the EOS-R is already 5 FPS with focus going - acceptable, but not a lot of room to shave performance...
Less controls? I don't know of any FF camera without two main dials, and most augment that with a joystick, an extra dial or some other source of control (beyond the 4 way arrow buttons for the menus). The only extra control here is the touchscreen and the touchbar. Canon could go with a single-dial or even no-dial camera that relied much more heavily on the two touch interfaces - but that would be a huge break from all prior FF design conventions, although it's common in lower-end APS-C.
Let's not forget the A6400 is a lower model APS-C camera that retains many of the features of its higher end cousins...in fact having some features it's bigger brother the A73 does not have.
-
I'm kinda hoping there will be no RF mount APS-C body. What/who for? Canon's lens selection for the EF crop mount isn't that great, especially at the higher end (I don't think there's any L class EF-S lens for example) so I would expect the same treatment of crop RF bodies. And if you have to buy and carry the big RF lenses anyway why not take advantage of them with a full frame sensor too? The M series seems to be good enough for people who want a smaller/cheaper body and are happy with few basic zooms.
-
I'm kinda hoping there will be no RF mount APS-C body. What/who for? Canon's lens selection for the EF crop mount isn't that great, especially at the higher end (I don't think there's any L class EF-S lens for example) so I would expect the same treatment of crop RF bodies. And if you have to buy and carry the big RF lenses anyway why not take advantage of them with a full frame sensor too? The M series seems to be good enough for people who want a smaller/cheaper body and are happy with few basic zooms.
Should Canon keep 4 different mounts when Sony has only one and Nikon 2?
Does that sound like a good idea in a situation where the market size is stretching dramatically?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm kinda hoping there will be no RF mount APS-C body. What/who for? Canon's lens selection for the EF crop mount isn't that great, especially at the higher end (I don't think there's any L class EF-S lens for example) so I would expect the same treatment of crop RF bodies. And if you have to buy and carry the big RF lenses anyway why not take advantage of them with a full frame sensor too? The M series seems to be good enough for people who want a smaller/cheaper body and are happy with few basic zooms.
I use a crop camera today with my full frame lenses for one reason...the implied reach. Well also for the fps I get from my crop.
Personally I'd never buy lenses designed for a crop sensor as that just limits their usefulness to me...can't use them on my full frame cameras.
-
I have 4 tiny primes for apsc. 16mm 19mm 30mm and 60mm. Also a 10 to 18 mm zoom. I use these when size is critical. I also have a fairly comprehensive set of FF lenses. I switch around a lot.
-
Personally I'd never buy lenses designed for a crop sensor as that just limits their usefulness to me...can't use them on my full frame cameras.
Your FF lenses on a APS sensor also have their usefulness limited since they are not optimum for APS. You are dropping a huge area of the circle you paid for, and getting mediocre results because of oversampling.
Just need to look at the poor p-Mpix performance of FF lenses on crop bodies in DxOMark.
Regards
-
Should Canon keep 4 different mounts when Sony has only one and Nikon 2?
What 4? EF(S) for mirrorslappers, RF for full frame mirrorless and M for crop mirrorless. Everyone is saying that the bottom of the market is shrinking the fastest, so what's the point of having Rebels with RF mount when you already have the M line?
-
What 4? EF(S) for mirrorslappers, RF for full frame mirrorless and M for crop mirrorless. Everyone is saying that the bottom of the market is shrinking the fastest, so what's the point of having Rebels with RF mount when you already have the M line?
4 because, if I am not mistaken, most EF-S lenses cannot be mounted on EF mount cameras, right?
So yes, EF and EF-S mounts have the same dimensions, but the cameras on which the mounts are installed are not compatible with the lenses... de facto it is equivalent to different mounts.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Your FF lenses on a APS sensor also have their usefulness limited since they are not optimum for APS. You are dropping a huge area of the circle you paid for, and getting mediocre results because of oversampling.
Just need to look at the poor p-Mpix performance of FF lenses on crop bodies in DxOMark.
Regards
Sure, but I use those same lenses on my full frame cameras...whereas if I bought strictly APS-C lenses they would be a one trick pony...no thanks.
-
What 4? EF(S) for mirrorslappers, RF for full frame mirrorless and M for crop mirrorless. Everyone is saying that the bottom of the market is shrinking the fastest, so what's the point of having Rebels with RF mount when you already have the M line?
The point of having Rebel level cameras with an RF mount is the easy transition to higher level models. If someone using an M-mount Rebel decides they want to also shoot full frame...they need to purchase a whole suite of new lenses...which could lead them to look at other camera manufactures since they basically need to start from square one anyways.
From my view, Canon really confused their market with these 4 mounts.
-
The point of having Rebel level cameras with an RF mount is the easy transition to higher level models. If someone using an M-mount Rebel decides they want to also shoot full frame...they need to purchase a whole suite of new lenses...which could lead them to look at other camera manufactures since they basically need to start from square one anyways.
From my view, Canon really confused their market with these 4 mounts.
Absolutely.
How is their installed base made mostly of EF-S mount cameras an asset relative to Sony in terms of future market positionning?
How are M mount bodies helping the R mount?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Absolutely.
How is their installed base made mostly of EF-S mount cameras an asset relative to Sony in terms of future market positionning?
How are M mount bodies helping the R mount?
Cheers,
Bernard
I can see them making an R version of the EF-S mount camera which can take the existing EF-S lenses with an adapter.
But all I see for the M mount is a dead end.
-
The EOS R with adapter can already use EF-S lenses (it will switch into crop mode) so that's possible. I don't know what to think about crop RF bodies or lenses - Canon has the market/sales data and I don't.
Why is the M a dead end? Just because you can't upgrade it to RF? I don't get that argument - is the Fuji XF mount a dead end because you can't upgrade it to GFX? I think M works fairly nicely for people who want something small and inexpensive (and you can point the "it's mirrorless so it MUST be small" crowd to it).
-
Should Canon keep 4 different mounts when Sony has only one and Nikon 2?
Does that sound like a good idea in a situation where the market size is stretching dramatically?
Some possibilities:
- Canon is finished developing lenses for EF-S mount; new lenses for its smaller sensor format will be M-mount only from now on.
- M mount lens offerings will at most expand modestly, as it is aimed at a market with modest needs, some of which are tolerably met with adaptor mounted EF-S and EF lenses which will continue on the market so long as enough people are buying them for EF-S-, EF- and M-mount cameras.
- Future EF mount development will slow too, with the current large and good selection needing only a few updates during the coming slow OVF twilight.
- On the longer, term the M lens range will be moderately expanded, but look at EF-S and DX offerings lately to get an idea of how modest the tempo of those new lens design efforts can be.
- If so, then only the R lens system will demand a lot of new lens investment, and maybe EF if demand for high end DSLR's persists.
- Canon has decided on the perhaps old-fashioned idea that different format sizes are best served by different lens mount sizes! A smaller format aimed mainly at less "gear-ambitious" photographers benefits from a smaller mount diameter that allows somewhat smaller cameras and more slender lenses, while a larger format aimed at offering state-of-the art high end performance benefits from a larger mount diameter. In the words, Canon does not see the cross-over market of people with cameras in two different formats, using the smaller format ones as backups, or for extra telephoto reach [rather than using a teleconverter] as big enough to let it impede optimal design for each format separately.
The ability to use lenses designed for a larger format on a smaller format body was far more important with the film-digital SLR transition, when the huge selection of "legacy" lenses were for the larger format, and so optically suitable for use on the smaller format.
-
Some possibilities:
- Canon is finished developing lenses for EF-S mount; new lenses for its smaller sensor format will be M-mount only from now on.
- M mount lens offerings will at most expand modestly, as it is aimed at a market with modest needs, some of which are tolerably met with adaptor mounted EF-S and EF lenses which will continue on the market so long as enough people are buying them for EF-S-, EF- and M-mount cameras.
- Future EF mount development will slow too, with the current large and good selection needing only a few updates during the coming slow OVF twilight.
- On the longer, term the M lens range will be moderately expanded, but look at EF-S and DX offerings lately to get an idea of how modest the tempo of those new lens design efforts can be.
- If so, then only the R lens system will demand a lot of new lens investment, and maybe EF if demand for high end DSLR's persists.
- Canon has decided on the perhaps old-fashioned idea that different format sizes are best served by different lens mount sizes! A smaller format aimed mainly at less "gear-ambitious" photographers benefits from a smaller mount diameter that allows somewhat smaller cameras and more slender lenses, while a larger format aimed at offering state-of-the art high end performance benefits from a larger mount diameter. In the words, Canon does not see the cross-over market of people with cameras in two different formats, using the smaller format ones as backups, or for extra telephoto reach [rather than using a teleconverter] as big enough to let it impede optimal design for each format separately.
The ability to use lenses designed for a larger format on a smaller format body was far more important with the film-digital SLR transition, when the huge selection of "legacy" lenses were for the larger format, and so optically suitable for use on the smaller format.
Unless they really update their AF and speed of the M cameras...they'll be alienating the 7D / 7D2 customers by not offering a fast APS-C system.
Also by not making their M cameras be able to use R lenses...they are basically dead ending the M customer from upgrading to full frame down the road.
I think it will be a huge mistake by Canon not to have an APS-C model in the R system.
-
“Dead end” is strong words for the fact that anyone who adds or changes to a larger format system will need different lenses for it—the same as for any 35mm system with respect to a medium format system, or indeed any change from any film format to a larger one. (Except that there is the hack of using EF lenses on both M and R)
It is to me an open question how important to what fraction of customers it is to use lenses for a new larger mirrorless format on a “consumer level” camera in a smaller format. To start with, what fraction of M customers will up their budget and weight-load to the R system?
(And to repeat, a TC looks like a cheaper, lighter way to increase the reach of a 35mm format lens than buying and carrying an extra body in a smaller format for the sake of its smaller pixels and crop.)
-
Well, looks like Canon wants to catch up with Sony lens roadmap as soon as possible, they plan to announce 5 lenses and a new camera next week: https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/first-leaked-images-of-the-five-new-canon-rf-lenses/
-
Canon seems to employing the inverse of Sony's early strategy... A new, inexpensive body and five new lenses (all but one big pro lenses) just leaked. Sony released all sorts of great bodies, then took years to get a decent line of lenses worthy of the bodies out there (they now have in FE, but still not in APS-C). Canon seems to be releasing every fast (but also big, heavy, expensive)pro lens they can think of - what are they missing now with the five new releases that just leaked? Some wide primes seem like the biggest gap (other than a camera to go with them...) - the exotic teles are just fine on an adapter...
On the other hand, their bodies don't match the lenses - the EOS-R is somewhere between the 5D and 6D lines, while the new camera seems likely to fit even below the 6D line? Of these five lenses, the 24-240 travel zoom seems to be a fit for the new camera and perhaps the EOS-R, while the other four are waiting for their body...
Best fit for $1599 body (EOS-RP?):
24-240mm
35mm macro (if it can really be said to fit ANY body - a macro that short on full frame is very questionable.)
Best fit for EOS-R:
24-105mm f4
Best fit for ???? (unreleased pro body):
28-70 f2
24-70 f2.8
15-35 f2.8
70-200 f2.8
50 f1.2
85 f1.2
-
In what way do the new Canon lenses not fit the current R body (and the rumored upcoming models)?
You can mount them on the camera and use them, can't you? Or do I need to have a $4000 "pro" body before I dare to use a f1.2 L prime with it? This specs snobbery is silly.
-
There are certainly usage patterns where people would want to mount a 800mm f5.6 on a consumer rebel, but you’ll probably agree that most photographers mount them on more pro specced bodies.
The reason lies in the usage patterns.
Other aspects include:
- physical balance impacted by body/lens
- ...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
After almost 30 years of shooting Canon I made the switch. It really doesn't matter what brand I switched to but rather why I moved away from Canon. The last time I got excited by anything Canon did was when they released their 200-400 f/4 w/1.4TC built in. That's it, there hasn't been any lens, body, or anything that they have released that has excited me to the point where I was giddy!
Not to say that others haven't been excited, for me I haven't. I switched and now I'm having a ton of fun with my new system and look forward to more as new features, bodies & lenses are released. I feel like a giddy teenager again!
... K
-
I'd also think that you might well want either more sensor performance (resolution/dynamic range), more speed, more durability, IBIS, or some combination in a body you were going to mount $2000+ lenses on. I'd imagine most big white Canon telephotos, f2.8 zooms and f1.2 or f1.4 primes end up on 5D or 1D series bodies?
There's nothing physically wrong with mounting those lenses on the EOS-R (there is an actual issue with combos like an 800mm on a Rebel, because the lens mount wasn't designed for big lenses) - but, if you're going to spend the money on several of those lenses, is the EOS-R the body you want, let alone the EOS-RP?
-
It will be really interesting to see how large the new 70-200 will be. Till now it was mainly said there is no real benefit with the new mounts for longer lenses.
The new 70-200 looks compact, which means it’s could extend, is very wide or a distorted image.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Hi,
Just a small note, if I want short DoF, I would buy a 85/1.4 or a 135/2.0 lens.
For other tasks, having 1EV better ISO capability like usable ISO being 1600 instead of 800 compensates for the lower speed.
- I would say that using a sharper lens always makes sense.
- But using a faster camera with a lower lens may also make sense.
If the camera has built in image stabilization, it tilts the playing ground even more, albeit it doesn't stop action.
Personally, I would like to see more high quality moderate aperture lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Canon seems to employing the inverse of Sony's early strategy... A new, inexpensive body and five new lenses (all but one big pro lenses) just leaked. Sony released all sorts of great bodies, then took years to get a decent line of lenses worthy of the bodies out there (they now have in FE, but still not in APS-C). Canon seems to be releasing every fast (but also big, heavy, expensive)pro lens they can think of - what are they missing now with the five new releases that just leaked? Some wide primes seem like the biggest gap (other than a camera to go with them...) - the exotic teles are just fine on an adapter...
On the other hand, their bodies don't match the lenses - the EOS-R is somewhere between the 5D and 6D lines, while the new camera seems likely to fit even below the 6D line? Of these five lenses, the 24-240 travel zoom seems to be a fit for the new camera and perhaps the EOS-R, while the other four are waiting for their body...
Best fit for $1599 body (EOS-RP?):
24-240mm
35mm macro (if it can really be said to fit ANY body - a macro that short on full frame is very questionable.)
Best fit for EOS-R:
24-105mm f4
Best fit for ???? (unreleased pro body):
28-70 f2
24-70 f2.8
15-35 f2.8
70-200 f2.8
50 f1.2
85 f1.2
-
There's nothing physically wrong with mounting those lenses on the EOS-R (there is an actual issue with combos like an 800mm on a Rebel, because the lens mount wasn't designed for big lenses) - but, if you're going to spend the money on several of those lenses, is the EOS-R the body you want, let alone the EOS-RP?
Yes the EOS R is almost perfect for me*. I'm a portrait shooter so I don't need action/speed features associated with pro bodies and I definitely don't want more resolution (I've retouched 50mpx images and it's a pain in the ass. Very few people need or want so much skin detail and I'm not one of them). It's also a question of budget - unlike some people I'm not made of money and I've been always prioritizing spending on lenses over bodies. If the RP is full frame and focuses as well as R does, I would probably be pretty happy with it and the fast primes/zoom.
*I've shot the R for about 2 months now and the only thing that really annoys me is the slow data transfer when tethered over usb (compared to DSLRs)
-
Still at the top is the Sony lineup. Nikon has a number of issues with the X camera system to provide an equivalent level of functionality for still and video shooting. Canon is a mystery as although they are very slow to respond to the market (as when it took a full 3 years to provide the 1D X as a response to the Nikon D3), they are usually more adept than is evidenced by their mirrorless offering.
I have to think that Canon was more worried about cannibalizing their camcorder product lines than in providing an alternative to the Sony mirrorless cameras.
-
Still at the top is the Sony lineup. Nikon has a number of issues with the X camera system to provide an equivalent level of functionality for still and video shooting. Canon is a mystery as although they are very slow to respond to the market (as when it took a full 3 years to provide the 1D X as a response to the Nikon D3), they are usually more adept than is evidenced by their mirrorless offering.
I have to think that Canon was more worried about cannibalizing their camcorder product lines than in providing an alternative to the Sony mirrorless cameras.
As far as video goes, I have a hard time finding any aspect where the Z6 isn’t superior to the Sonys.
What did you have in mind?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Interestingly, we just had the dynamic range results from the S1R on Photonstophotos...
So much like a Z7 that it looks like it could be a Z7 (within where I'd think measurement error is at pretty much every ISO).
Nothing at all like a Q2, which is consistently a stop or so below the Z7/S1R twins (really the Z7/S1R/A7RIII triplets).
-
As far as video goes, I have a hard time finding any aspect where the Z6 isn’t superior to the Sonys.
What did you have in mind?
Cheers,
Bernard
I've read in one review that the Nikons output looks over sharpened. Is this true?
https://www.diyphotography.net/the-nikon-z6-goes-head-to-head-with-the-sony-a7iii-with-some-surprising-results/
-
Interesting discussion.
I bought a Canon EOS R recently. I have no history with Canon. It is the first Canon camera that I have ever bought.
When the EOS R was released last year it got thrashed by a lot of people for a number of well known reasons (no IBIS, 4K crop, one card slot, etc).
But when you read between the lines the same 2 things consistently were mentioned: 1) the glass is stunning 2) the ergonomics are excellent.
That made me try it out and so far I really like it a lot. And that 50mm f1.2 is indeed beautiful. The question whether Canon is better than Nikon (or any other brand) quite honestly never entered my mind...
Canon took the number one spot in Japan last year:
https://www.43rumors.com/mirrorless-market-share-2018-olympus-now-on-second-place-in-japan/
If they as announced deliver 6 more lenses this year and if they are of the same high quality the rest of the world will IMHO follow quickly.
-
Canon got number #1 in Japan in mirrorless thanks mostly to huge discounts on the M...
You are the first person I hear of who bought an R without prior investment in Canon. :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I've read in one review that the Nikons output looks over sharpened. Is this true?
https://www.diyphotography.net/the-nikon-z6-goes-head-to-head-with-the-sony-a7iii-with-some-surprising-results/
Nope. This is another useless internet review. There’s nothing in the review that tells you how the cameras were set up, and with out that information, it’s just clickbait.
Each profile in both cameras has different settings for sharpening, noise reduction, saturation, black level and gamma curve. Any video shooter worth the name would check those things prior to shooting and adjust to serve her/his workflow. And to be sure, each of those settings are adjustable.
I can only assume that the reviewer in this case really knows nothing about video or about testing cameras.
(The review also discovers that the two cameras metering systems are a stop apart, yet continues to compare the 1-stop different exposures for noise and DR as if they were the same.)
I own a Z7, a Z6, an a7r3, and recently sold an a7s. I can tell you that the video output is very similar when set up similarly. The internal video from all the Nikon’s and Sony’s I’d 8-bit 4:2:0, so it has very little latitude for color or exposure correction. Externally, in 8-bit, both output 4:2:2, so more color grading is possible. The Nikon records 10-bit 4:2:2 externally, which is an order of magnitude better for grading than the Sonys, even given that Nikon hasn’t provided an N-log LUT.
-
You are the first person I hear of who bought an R without prior investment in Canon. :)
I don't believe I am the only one though, and I certainly won't be the last one. From a review on B&H:
One of the finest lenses that I have ever held in my hand. It is exciting to think that this is the future. I am not a Canon devotee. I shoot Nikon, Olympus, and previously Sony. I purchased the EOS R so that I could try the Canon RF lenses and I think that they are spectacular.
The glass will sell the bodies. Canon is on the right track IMO which obviously does not mean that the others aren't...
-
The R 50mm f1.2 certainly seems to he a sweet lens combining the great look of the EOS lens with modern performance.
We’ll have to see to what extend the more compact design has compromised performance compared to the upcoming Z 50mm f1.2.
I still don’t get the value of a 28-70 f2.0 in 2019. I find a 24-70 f2.8 an order of magnitude more useful for the situations when you typically use such a zoom lens. It’s a nice design statement that very few photographers with financial concerns will buy and those gas ridden buyers won’t use much.
You’ve got to wonder whether Canon hasn’t released this very niche lens early mostly to get favorable reviews from the many online reviewers who get funded thanks to affiliated links purchases and therefore are strongly incentivized to push readers towards expensive items (Diglloyd comes to mind).
A 24-70 f2.0 would a great option though but we already know that Canon won’t the company releasing one. I don’t believe that the Sony mount would make such a lens feasible with decent corner image quality, which leaves Nikon and Sigma/Pana/Leica as the only candidates. My bet is on Sigma.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
@JV I do expect that sensors are approaching fundamental limits, so that differences between brands at a given sensor size will become ever less significant in practice (even if it is 16 vs 17 stops of engineering DR, or some other marginally significant lab measurement). And then we will be back to lenses as the main point of IQ competition.
But I do not see one good fast 50mm prime being a big market driver overall! Any guesses what fraction of 35mm format users have or particularly want a fast 50 these days?
-
But I do not see one good fast 50mm prime being a big market driver overall! Any guesses what fraction of 35mm format users have or particularly want a fast 50 these days?
Particularly when it is a behemoth.
-
I still don’t get the value of a 28-70 f2.0 in 2019. I find a 24-70 f2.8 an order of magnitude more useful for the situations when you typically use such a zoom lens.
Personally I would have preferred a 24-70 as well...
The Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM has been announced and is expected to be released still this year:
https://petapixel.com/2019/02/13/canon-announces-the-development-of-6-new-rf-lenses/
I have the 28-70 on order. If all goes well I should get it tomorrow. I am curious to try it out. I am used to shooting the Leica SL with the 24-90mm lens. The Canon plus 28-70mm is about 100g heavier.
-
You plan on purchasing both the 28-70 f2 and the 24-70 f2.8?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would only buy the 24-70 f2.8 if the 28-70 f2 turns out to be not practical enough and too (front) heavy.
The also announced 15-35 f2.8 in addition to the 50 f1.2 could (in my eyes) also be a nice combination.
This all obviously provided I stick with Canon... which is not a fact of life yet...
-
If I were you I would measure your past usage with trans-standard zooms across a few thousand images.
I did that and more than 50% of my images were shot at or near 24mm...
I also vividly remember my constant frustration with the 28-70mm f2.8 lens I used to own many years ago. Since all the manufacturers moved to the 24-70 focal range I believe that this is wide spread.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Anyone unhappy with the RF 28-70 f2 is welcome to send it my way :-)
-
Apparently even the CEO of Sigma is impressed... From the interview on DPReview:
https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/7487852065/cp-2019-sigma-interview-optical-design-is-always-a-battle-with-the-design-constraints
What are the other products in the market you've been impressed by?
So far I like Canon, the 28-70mm F2 and the 50 mm F1.2. Their [RF] mount system is quite impressive.
-
I don't believe that anyone is discussing the quality of these 2 lenses, they are very good and they completely match the philosophy of the Art line (large, heavy, excellent).
And the CEO of Sigma is an absolutely great guy it appears.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The following comment was also interesting I thought:
A long time ago we produced similar lenses with much, much cheaper prices. But today we produce everything in Japan, including parts, so we can't be the cheapest product supplier. The only way to survive in the industry is to produce unique products. I think big, heavy but super performance was one of the strategies to differentiate ourselves. But today many companies have similar products so perhaps we need to find another [strategy].
Of course the Art series is our heart and we have many users all over the world, so we'll maintain this lineup. In order to differentiate ourselves we'll need to create new ideas for lenses and we're currently working on it.
I can't tell you [more] now. Maybe after several glasses of sake!
-
Interesting graph IMO. FF Mirrorless Sales Japan April 2019:
https://www.canonwatch.com/in-japan-the-sony-a7-iii-outsells-all-competitors-put-together/
-
A very close friend bought the Z6 in December and within days was diagnosed with cancer. He passed away three weeks ago. Shutter count about 50 I think. Sold the camera for less than half what he paid for it. It is hopelessly overstocked in South Africa and isn’t selling at all well. The price new has dropped by about a third and now they are throwing in a card, card reader and extra battery in an effort to get them moving. Perhaps this is a local anomaly.
I was helping him with the camera when he was trying to do some table top work with it. Honestly he was just too sick. I thought it a decent looking camera and it has a nice feel in the hand. The menus made me nuts though, and I use a Sony which I find just fine after a few years use. Go figure. Anyway it’s sold and gets collected tomorrow. Never felt tempted by it quite honestly despite its super cheap price.
-
Really sorry to hear about your loss Martin.
Regards,
Bernard
-
Thank you Bernard. It has been quite a year. We have been shooting together for 35 years. Used different cameras and had different styles. Never argued about gear. It was a fine friendship. He really liked the new Nikon.
-
Thank you Bernard. It has been quite a year. We have been shooting together for 35 years. Used different cameras and had different styles. Never argued about gear. It was a fine friendship. He really liked the new Nikon.
That must be tough indeed.
Cameras are really not that important in the grand scheme of things.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://photorumors.com/2019/05/17/the-japanese-camera-grand-prix-2019-awards-are-out/
The Panasonic S1 having been elected camera of the year while both Canon and Nikon have released their super strategic mirrorless bodies also will be perceived as the ultimate humiliation...
This is great because it means that progress will accelerate further.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The Panasonic S1 having been elected camera of the year while both Canon and Nikon have released their super strategic mirrorless bodies also will be perceived as the ultimate humiliation...
Who is really going to remember that in a year? And the Canon EOS R was never even in the running.
-
Who is really going to remember that in a year? And the Canon EOS R was never even in the running.
That’s post disaster statement. Until a few days before the R launched millions of Canon fanboys would have you believe that a revolution was about to come.
The R must be compared to what it should have been.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://photorumors.com/2019/05/17/the-japanese-camera-grand-prix-2019-awards-are-out/
The Panasonic S1 having been elected camera of the year while both Canon and Nikon have released their super strategic mirrorless bodies also will be perceived as the ultimate humiliation...
This is great because it means that progress will accelerate further.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard...does it really matter to you that Nikon was shut out of the awards? Both Nikon and Canon are trying to duplicate Sony whereas Panasonic is out on a limb with their camera. I'd rather recognize a manufacturer that goes out on a limb rather than trying just to duplicate what's already been designed, manufactured and released years ago.
-
Bernard...does it really matter to you that Nikon was shut out of the awards? Both Nikon and Canon are trying to duplicate Sony whereas Panasonic is out on a limb with their camera. I'd rather recognize a manufacturer that goes out on a limb rather than trying just to duplicate what's already been designed, manufactured and released years ago.
As written, I think it’s great.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The R must be compared to what it should have been.
No, it should be compared against the competition.
-
No, it should be compared against the competition.
Care to explain why you start by “no” instead of starting by “yes”?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thank you Bernard. It has been quite a year. We have been shooting together for 35 years. Used different cameras and had different styles. Never argued about gear. It was a fine friendship. He really liked the new Nikon.
Martin, I'm so sorry for your loss. Cherish your memories.
I recently lost a friend in a similar way. Somehow he thought I knew what I was doing in photography, while he constantly showed me he knew more with his work. Every conversation and shooting experience was valuable, and I anticipated more. He never returned from an international trip.
-
Martin, I'm so sorry for your loss. Cherish your memories.
I recently lost a friend in a similar way. Somehow he thought I knew what I was doing in photography, while he constantly showed me he knew more with his work. Every conversation and shooting experience was valuable, and I anticipated more. He never returned from an international trip.
Thanks Dave. I met Jake when I was 23 and next year I turn 60. We sure did a lot of shooting together and for a while both shot on Canon. We never hassled each other about camera brands. I used Linhof he used a Speed Graphic. I had a Cambo when he had a Sinar. He used Mamiya and I used Bronica. We had big plans to do a documentary project together and that’s why he went mirrorless and bought the Nikon. I was already using Sony. His wife is not well and taking massive strain.
-
better mirrorless?
No doubts, Sigma.
All the best,
sandro
-
Just leaving a weeklong shooting trip to California and Utah with my Z7 (the images are on the computer, but I haven't even seen them on the big monitor yet, let alone made prints) - writing on the flight back... My initial impressions are confirmed by this extensive use in a very concentrated period of time (1000 images in 8 days). Nikon has quite the camera here - while I agree with Thom Hogan's impressions that, in most ways, it's what Sony would call a Mark 2.5 or Mark 2.6 (it doesn't quite have the focus system or battery life of a Mark III Sony, and it's a long way from the lens selection unless you count the FTZ adapter), it's notably superior to even a Mark III in a few ways that happen to matter for my particular kind of shooting.
1.) It's really well built and sealed - both Roger Cicala at Lensrentals and Imaging Resource's water test show the Z7 in a class with only a couple other mirrorless cameras (the Fuji X-H1 is similar, with the Olympus E-M1 mk II and presumably the E-M1x even better). Neither Canon nor Sony has this level of ruggedness in their FF mirrorless lineup, although the Panasonic S1 line might be.
2.) I happen to like a couple of the compact zooms. The 24-70 f4 has served me very well, and I just got a 14-30 in time for this trip. The only Sony 24-70 f4 is the older "Zeiss" lens, which doesn't hold a candle to the Nikkor. Sony does have a 24-105 that seems close, although substantially bulkier - and there's, of course, the G-master - if you're willing to carry a substantially larger lens, I've always heard it to be excellent. The 14-30 is a smallish, sharp lens that takes filters and is wider than Sony's closest equivalent, although it doesn't get as wide as the somewhat bulkier and more expensive Sony 12-24.
3.) ISO 64. The sensor in a modern Sony and a modern Nikon are very similar (both A7III vs Z6 and A7rIII vs. Z7), but Nikon lets you get 2/3 of a stop lower in ISO on the Z7, reducing noise still farther. At ISO 64, noise just isn't there - not that a modern sensor has much at 100 either, but the utterly noiseless, high-DR ISO 64 setting is special.
4.) The Nikon just feels more like a camera to me - it hasa really nice interface, a great grip, etc. Fuji and Nikon, while very different, have gotten the interface to a camera right.
Of course, a Sony A7rIII will track action better (probably even than a Z with the firmware update, although I haven't used the two next to each other). The Sony has a wider selection of lenses, although Nikon is hitting a home run with pretty much every lens they release right now.
As I see the state of the mirrorless industry right now:
Nikon: Their early-generation bodies are excellent, with the Z7 using the incomparable (ISO 64) D850 sensor. They are clearly not quite as refined in some ways as a MK III Sony, but they are a lot closer than a first generation camera might be. The lens lineup isn't where Sonys is, but they are releasing sensible lenses at a good clip. To me, the biggest lack is anything longer than 70 mm - the Z system could really use a small, light 70-300 or similar (how about a 70-300 f4-5.6 PF, Nikon)? Every lens they release is excellent for what it is - they aren't terribly ambitious super-speed designs for the most part, but they are a really nice bunch of sharp, compact lenses.
If I ran Nikon, I'd keep filling out the lens lineup, working on firmware updates, and maybe making a high-speed A9 competitor (is there enough market for both a Z9 and the D6?) and/or a video-centric body. The Z7 probably gets iterated with the D850 - every time one receives a sensor advance, the other does as well. The FTZ adapter is a very stable way of extending the lens lineup. They need to decide how to feed people into the Z system - is it an APS-C Z-mount body or bodies (and lenses), a stripped down FF body, one of each?
Nikon deals with their lens mount variations relatively well. Older autofocus lenses introduced in the film era won't autofocus on many newer bodies, and a few very new (AF-P) lenses, all but one of which are inexpensive APS-C lenses likely to stay with the body they were bought with, don't work on older bodies, but those are the only meaningful incompatibilities. There are other incompatibilities, but they only affect cases where either the body or the lens is at least 30 years old - the most prominent is the case where neither body nor lens has a way of controlling aperture (only relevant to some film bodies - all digital bodies have aperture control). Even absurd combinations like an 18-55mm DX kit lens on a $3000+ Z7 using the FTZ adapter generally work (as does a 600mm f4 on a D3000). Of course that $100 DX kit lens on the Z7 is going to vignette like crazy, but it's a wonder that it will take a picture at all, much less with AF and dual VR working.
Sony (FE): Currently the folks to beat in full-frame, but they've been resting on their laurels. The A7rIII is still a great camera, but it's two years old, and uses a sensor two years older than that. The D850/Z7 sensor is a pretty good refinement of the A7rII and III sensor, mainly because of the lower ISO. An A7r IV might well regain the resolution crown while retaining superb performance in other aspects of image quality. Panasonic has set a high bar for any A7s III's video modes, especially with the S1h coming out.
Sony's lens line is relatively complete - there are a few exotics missing, and some of the early, weaker FE lenses could use updates. Sony could benefit from a tilt/shift lens or two, since the only current option is a third-party adapter and a Canon (or Nikon) lens - Sony body to Kipon, Fotodiox, etc. adapter to Canon lens isn't as reliable as Canon body to Canon adapter to Canon lens (or all Nikon). Oddly, their real need in FE now is bodies, not lenses, and updated lenses rather than expansion of the line.
While Sony doesn't have much in the way of first-party guaranteed adapters like Canon and Nikon do (old Minolta lenses is a far less useful adapter than 30 years of EF, or 60 years of Nikkors) third-party adapters will mount essentially any lens ever produced to a Sony body.
Sony (APS-C): Not much to talk about - we haven't seen a real update in a couple of years, since the a6400 was a very minor update, and the lens situation is terrible, other than FE lenses (why not use an FE body, given the low prices of some older models)? The very capable a6500 is still generally bundled with the 16-50mm powerzoom, which may be the worst interchangeable lens in current production, other than Lensbabies, etc. (despite some other honorable-mention APS-C kit lenses). The old a6000 is extremely inexpensive, and perhaps a worthy mirrorless competitor to the D3500/low-end Rebels, which Fuji really doesn't do - the primarily Asian-market Fuji X-A cameras are hard to find in the US (and Europe?), but every option above that is inferior to a comparably priced Fuji due to lenses and controls. The exception, of course. is as spare bodies for full-frame Sony owners.
Canon (EOS-R): Where are the bodies those gorgeous lenses are supposed to go on? Canon has made some absolutely beautiful (and frightfully heavy/expensive) lenses, and introduced them with bodies that look like they were designed for entirely different lenses. Even the original EOS-R isn't really the right body for a 28-70 f2.0 or an Otus-sized 50mm, and they're laughable on an EOS-RP. The only lenses really made for lower-end bodies are the 24-240 travel zoom and the 35mm (??) macro. The 24-105 is also a decent match for the R, although too expensive for the RP. The next lens out is an 85 mm f1.2 for $2700???
Canon needs at least two more bodies that match the high-end lenses - a very high resolution monster, probably well above 50 MP, and a high-performance pro body (in the 30+ MP range, but with a sensor with excellent dynamic range and AF performance). These need to be seriously weather sealed, highly controllable pro bodies at or above the 5D level. The two current bodies are more in the 6D class, with the RP coming in even below the 6D. Also, an adapted kit lens?? Canon badly needs more lower-end lenses, including something to kit with the RP.
Canon (EOS-M): A decent lower-end system, with some midrange options. Lack of R to M compatibility in either direction is a little puzzling. Canon now has four currently maintained lens mount variations - EF, EF-S, EF-M and EF-R. Full-frame DSLRs (and some cine cameras) only take EF lenses while APS-C DSLRs (and other cine cameras) take EF and EF-S lenses. The mirrorless systems confuse the situation further, as EOS-R cameras take EF-R lenses natively, and EF with an (excellent) adapter, while EOS-M cameras take EF-M and adapt both EF and EF-S (but have no way to mount an EF-R lens).
Fuji: A very well thought out pair of systems, with excellent lenses in both APS-C and small medium format. They have the best overall APS-C lens line on the market, and quite possibly the best line in any format excluding the decades-old Canon and Nikon FF lines. Their medium format lens line is growing rapidly, and is superb. Their bodies are also among the best to use...
Their one real problem is that they are dependent on sensor sizes that they are either the highest-end customer for (everybody uses APS-C, but there are very few APS-C cameras priced like an X-T or X-H camera, or with the performance expectations) or one of the few customers for (I suspect that over 80% of 33x44 mm sensors go to Fuji - Hasselblad and Pentax both use a few). If Sony updates all the sensors together, Fuji has nothing to worry about (their sizes actually make a lot of sense), but if they let APS-C stagnate because everyone except Fuji wants cheaper sensors for $400 cameras instead of better ones for $1500 cameras, or if they decide that updating medium format isn't worth it for Fuji's business, they can leave Fuji with stale sensors.
Right now, the X-T3 sensor is competitive, very close to even a 24 MP full-frame sensor (by many measures, it actually outperforms the Canon 6D sensor despite the size difference). What we've seen of the GFX 100 sensor suggests that it is very, very close to the state of the art - only the Phase One IQ4 150 can beat it, at a huge cost both in money and usability. Fuji's got great sensors right now, but they probably wish they were less at Sony's mercy. One sensor size shared mainly with <$500 cameras (as everyone except Fuji abandons high-end APS-C) and another where they're most of the volume makes things tricky.
Panasonic: They finally released the S camera that makes sense... Their expertise has long been in still/video hybrids, and the S1h looks like the most capable one yet. The S1 and S1r make sense as ecosystem partners for the S1h, but it's the h, and video, that define Panasonic's reason for being. A bigger camera with fewer lenses, expensive lenses and no special capabilities is a tough sell against the A7III and Z6, while the high resolution mode may bring some fans to the S1r, but it's limited enough that many photographers will opt for a more compact A7rIII or Z7 with more lens choices.
Their investment in Micro 43 makes relatively little sense except to support their existing customers. Their most exciting camera is the GH5 and its close relative the GH5S, which are big and expensive for Micro 43, and not all that far off the price of an S1 (especially the GH5S). The G (not GH) series has a hard time making an argument for itself against midrange DSLRs, the X-T30 and X-E3, and even the bottom end of full-frame (D610, EOS-6D, EOS-RP and older model Sonys). A Micro 43 generalist camera (neither video-focused, nor a sports/action camera, nor really tiny) should be cheaper than other generalist cameras with larger sensors.
They also have an issue with video-focused cameras using no less than three lens mounts (the third is the EVA-1, a $6000 6K camera in a more conventional camcorder shape, which uses Canon EF lenses). If the successor to the EVA-1 is L-mount, or has an L-mount version available, that would help.
Olympus: They need to come out with MK III versions of the cameras that make Olympus Olympus - the E-M5 and E-M1. The tiny low-end Pen cameras don't sell much here in the US (they may be Asian-market specials like several low-end Fujis we just don't see). The Pen-F doesn't seem to have gotten much traction against Fuji. On the other hand, there's nothing else with decent weather sealing or close to the speed that is as small and light as an E-M5, and there is nothing with the features of a pro sports camera at anything close to the price or weight of an E-M1.
They really need a new sensor - unfortunately, they don't make those. A 20 MP Exmor RS (stacked) sensor with all the modern tricks would help a lot. With the E-M1 line's focus on performance, a stacked sensor makes a ton of sense here...
The E-M1x was pretty much a diversion - it's really an E-M1 mkII with a grip and some new firmware. A true E-M1 mkIII would feature a new sensor, and it would be closer to the mkII in size and price. It might get some of the firmware from the E-M1x.
Another odd camera Olympus might consider making is a truly Tough mirrorless - something like their Tough compact line, but with interchangeable lenses. Nikon did that with the AW1, but I think Olympus could do a better job... The AW1 was viewfinderless, which is a killer for a camera that is going to be used outdoors almost all the time. The camera I have in mind would be based on either an E-M5 or E-M10, but with oversized controls to be used with gloves on, and sealed enough for snorkeling, shockproof enough for skiing. It would need a modified lens mount that could take either standard Micro 43 lenses (becoming as sealed as the lens - with some of the PRO lenses, that's quite good - although not underwater) or special lenses that maintain the full sealing.
Pentax: Are they going to play in mirrorless at all, or just keep making DSLRs for people with existing Pentax lenses?
Leica:Irrelevantly expensive for most people - I see no sign of real differentiation that would make the price worth it (a SL body and lens can easily run as much as a GFX 100, and it's 24 MP). Even if they come out with a new SL that uses the S1r sensor, how do they differentiate it from the S1r?
Hasselblad: An X1D that uses the GFX 100 sensor could be interesting (although probably too pricey for all but a very few)...
-
Indeed!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Could you not make a case for the winner is the one making the most sales? It’s a bit like claiming to have the best army with the best equipment but when the dust settles you are speaking another language. Nikon is now number three in the ILC market. That happened after the launch of Canon and Nikon’s mirrorless cameras. Of course we all know that popularity only really counts in a democracy and it’s not an indication of quality even then but what is scary is it does carry economic consequences. Sony is outselling Nikon and Canon combined in mirrorless cameras with a single model if I understand the data correctly. And they sell a lot of different models. I believe this is just in Japan though so perhaps worldwide it is different.
Has Nikon made a camera that satisfies the most needs in the best way at an attractive price point? The market clearly doesn’t seem to think so. The camera market in South Africa is too small to indicate anything relevant so I am not going to even bring up any local anecdotal experiences. I have shot a little with a Z6 and it is a fine camera. I have shot a great deal with Sony apsc and earlier Sony FF and now with the A9 and A7riii. I have never used the new Canon. I had a relatively easy opportunity to switch to Nikon but wasn’t really tempted.
If it’s a war it’s not going well for Nikon. Recall issues and fake battery sales through authorised sellers hasn’t helped confidence. If I was a Nikon fan I wouldn’t even worry about Sony. If the Canon behemoth launches a pro body R, and it might well happen, it will rapidly become a two horse race.
Anyway it’s all my personal opinion and prejudice, but the rest of this thread is of much the same flavour. The sales figures are disturbing facts. I hope to see Nikon do well and that’s not really happening at the moment
-
Could you not make a case for the winner is the one making the most sales? ...
Never been interested in camera sales... but in cameras...
I do not eat my hamburger at macDonalds because most people do...
The only economic relevance is that the companies that make the camera have sufficient funds to make what they want to make.
I only need one camera that i need/like.
-
Never been interested in camera sales... but in cameras...
I do not eat my hamburger at macDonalds because most people do...
The only economic relevance is that the companies that make the camera have sufficient funds to make what they want to make.
I only need one camera that i need/like.
That makes economics quite relevant in this case don’t you think?
-
That makes economics quite relevant in this case don’t you think?
Let us hope NOT.
An important moment will be the 2020 olympics in Japan. Nikon and Canon will have to show something better than the competition.
-
I believe that the numbers at the moment are not that relevant.
The real question is how and when Canon and Nikon DSLRs users will start to migrate in mass to mirrorless.
The one stat that strikes me is that Nikon is basically selling as many FF mirrorless bodies as Canon although they were selling only half as many DSLRs.
This tells me that the Z is twice more appealing for Nikon DSLRs users than the R is for Canon DSLR users. I believe this to be very significant.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think that is significant Bernard. I also think, we’ll i have heard this from some Canon users, that they anticipate a pro body mirrorless from Canon. Canons history with camera roll outs indicate this to be a very real possibility.
-
I think Nikon and Sony are both in decent shape - the huge effort Nikon put into the Z system will pay off (see Bernard's most recent post), and Sony has the big lead and (finally) a more or less full and generally good to superb lens line. Canon, Fuji and Panasonic all need to do one specific thing right (or have one thing go right).
I agree with Bernard that Nikon's well positioned when their FF DSLR userbase starts to migrate - the question is how many they've already lost to Sony? Canon needs to add mirrorless bodies, or their DSLR userbase may migrate to Sony (or, gasp, Nikon) instead of to Canon mirrorless. Both have great adapters for their own lenses that are much more stable than any third-party way of putting their lenses on a Sony.
Nikon just needs to keep releasing excellent Z lenses and an entry-level body (whether it's APS-C or FF at the D610 level) - a D5 type body is a "maybe for now" that they certainly need eventually. The Z6 is a D750-type body, while the Z7 is a D850 - they need a D610 first, than a D5. They also need an APS-C solution that encourages a transition to Z - the easiest way would be a couple of APS-C Z-mount bodies and a few lenses to go with them. The size of the Z mount could allow a huge amount of motion for a highly effective (Olympus-level) IBIS system in APS-C. What about an APS-C video-focused camera with a "built-in gimbal", Nikon? An incompatible mirrorless mount would put them in the pickle Canon's in with the EOS-M.
Sony needs to iterate the FE bodies (all of which are getting older, although the A7III and A7rIII are still in very decent shape), iterate a few old lenses (most notably the 24-70 f4 "Zeiss" and the 28-70 f3.5-5.6 - two widely owned lenses from the very dawn of FE, neither of which is among the high performers in the system), and figure out what they're doing with APS-C. FE is generally in good shape, while I'd call APS-C a mess.
Do they want to compete with Fuji? If so, they need both bodies and lenses. Offer an attractive step to FE? If that's their goal, they need APS-C bodies that look and work more like the FE bodies - more controls and central finders... Are they just after the very low-end market with APS-C? If so, they need to iterate the execrable pancake zoom, offer better phone connectivity (if not a camera with LTE on its own), and offer some more lenses - cheaper wide-angle? The 10-18 is excellent, but not priced for $399 bodies. Something like a 70-300 would be nice no matter what they're doing, and a decent 18-55 or the like.
Canon's also in good shape if they can get those higher-end bodies out without major image quality hitches. What they can't afford is something like the 5Ds line - a super-resolution body with a couple of stops less dynamic range than the competition. As the lens line fills out, the gaps for low-end bodies should fill in - although a non-adapted kit lens for the EOS-RP needs to be a priority.
Fuji's in great shape with bodies and lenses, and they're presently doing well on sensors. If they don't get flattened by Sony refusing to give them the sensors they want going forward (high-performance APS-C and modern small medium format), they'll be the last survivor - leaving a stills market of Sony, Canon, Nikon and Fuji, with Panasonic staying in the video world.
Panasonic is moving further and further into videoland, but that's where their advantage is - now let's get all those video cameras down to one mount (maybe two)... Still cameras make sense where they support the core video cameras.
Olympus has the best chance of all remaining players of retaining relevance... They might or might not do it - lenses are in good shape, core cameras are getting old (and are stuck with an old sensor). If they get a sensor that lets them do meaningful upgrades on their core line, and especially if they release one more really innovative camera (I suggested underwater/super-action), they're in good shape to remain a niche player, but in an important niche.
Pentax may well soldier on doing what they're doing for a while - "buy standard Sony sensors and stick them in little-changed bodies" isn't hard to do, and they may even be turning a modest profit from owners of old Pentax lenses. I'd be surprised if they had a real project up their sleeves, like a mirrorless camera and the lenses for it.
Hasselblad and Leica are mostly irrelevant - neither one is going to break into the mainstream, and Leica will probably go ever deeper into the collectibles morass while Hasselblad builds drone cameras and may or may not keep building medium format in any numbers.
-
One great thing about Fuji is that they are not competing with Sony.
Sony is obviously not that interested in APS-C, their main focus is FF, where Fuji is not playing. This ensures that Sony will keep delivering its very best sensors to Fuji who will soon account for the large majority of both APS-C and small MF sensor sales.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
One great thing about Fuji is that they are not competing with Sony.
Sony is obviously not that interested in APS-C, their main focus is FF, where Fuji is not playing. This ensures that Sony will keep delivering its very best sensors to Fuji who will soon account for the large majority of both APS-C and small MF sensor sales.
Cheers,
Bernard
How big of market share do you think Fuji has? In 2018 the top 3 camera manufactures ( Canon, Nikon and Sony ) held an 87.3% of the ICL market, up 6.2% from the previous year. The remaining share ( 12.7% ) is split between Fuji, Olympus, Richo, Leica, Panasonic etc...
-
How big of market share do you think Fuji has? In 2018 the top 3 camera manufactures ( Canon, Nikon and Sony ) held an 87.3% of the ICL market, up 6.2% from the previous year. The remaining share ( 12.7% ) is split between Fuji, Olympus, Richo, Leica, Panasonic etc...
The market share of Fuji is not large, but among cameras using Sony APS-C sensors, I see it increasing significantly moving forward.
Future will tell.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The market share of Fuji is not large, but among cameras using Sony APS-C sensors, I see it increasing significantly moving forward.
Future will tell.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well Fuji has a hill to climb. If you look at Amazon camera sales, the first Fuji in the list is at the 41st position whereas there are at least 10 Sony Aps-c camera kits selling at higher numbers. I would think even though Sony has not made much effort on its aps-c line, it still outsells Fuji by a wide margin. Fuji just better hope Sony continues its luke warm approach to the aps-c line.
-
Well Fuji has a hill to climb. If you look at Amazon camera sales, the first Fuji in the list is at the 41st position whereas there are at least 10 Sony Aps-c camera kits selling at higher numbers. I would think even though Sony has not made much effort on its aps-c line, it still outsells Fuji by a wide margin. Fuji just better hope Sony continues its luke warm approach to the aps-c line.
I think we are far too quick to work out what we would do, believe hat to be totally logical and then extend that to everyone else and predict a trend.
I owned two Fuji cameras. I loved the way they looked and was sure we would become close friends. I hated them both and got rid of them. Loved the Sony APSC cameras and ended up owning three over the years, sold them because of two many cameras and systems and lenses. So it goes.
Anyone looking for a second hand Z7 I can put you in contact with a local guy, very honest and ethical, who buys and sells second hand gear. He is flooded with people trying to get rid of them, local stores not even taking them as trade ins any longer. A few people are trying to buy back there 850s they sold to buy the Z7. I have no idea why this is happening, I haven’t bothered to ask. The local high end camera market is totally dominated by people with fantasies of becoming the next top wildlife photographer. It’s a local obsession that I have never understood. I mean how many images of lions at sunset can you actually look at before falling asleep? Perhaps the Z7 doesn’t work for these people. Who knows.
-
The Z7 would be a lousy wildlife camera - the longest truly native lens is a 70mm and the AF isn't as fast as a D850. The body weight difference is trivial compared to the lens you'd need (unless you're using a 300mm PF). It's a pretty special landscape camera when paired with its sharp, compact native lenses, but wildlife isn't its strong suit. Maybe with native PF lenses? Even then, if you're shooting from a vehicle with a jumbo lens, why not a D850... I just looked up where Martin's from (South Africa), and I'd imagine that's probably a weird market with a lot of emphasis on wildlife photography, largely from vehicles.
How many of those Sony APS-C kits are much cheaper than the cheapest Fuji? The one thing Sony is doing in APS-C is producing the only mirrorless that is close to as cheap as a D3500 or the lowest-end Rebels.
My suspicion is that Fuji has around 6-7% of the market - Olympus is known to be around 3% (Thom Hogan reports about 340,000 per year in a market around 11 million), some of the Panasonics probably get counted as video cameras, and Pentax/Ricoh plus the extreme high end (Leica/'Blad/Phase) are trivial. Many of the market statistics don't even count the high-end trio, because they're counting the market for cameras sold by Japanese companies - since all the major players are Japanese, it's not an issue unless you're trying to figure out the share of the small players. Even if some Panasonics don't go missing as video cameras, they could be the same size as Olympus, Pentax is the 0.7% (about 80,000 cameras), and the Europeans don't show up - still leaving Fuji with ~6% and well over half a million cameras and growing.
My concern for Fuji is that Sony themselves and Nikon both buy far more APS-C sensors than Fuji does (Canon does too, but they make their own - at least so far), but they mainly want them for $400 cameras. Fuji wants sensors for $1000-$1500 cameras, and maybe even for a video-centric model well above that.
-
You are on the money Dan. Wildlife photography the main thing here. Also lots of Landscape but it seems to be secondary. You can very easily do landscape with an 850 but wildlife with a Z7 a bit limited at the moment. The pros haven’t made the switch to the Z7 for obvious reasons.
-
I wouldn’t use a Z7 for wildlife either.
Not sure I would use my D850 either. More a D5 or a D500 in fact.
The D5 with the 500mm f5.6 PF is a super sweet combo.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Keith Cooper just posted some interesting reflections on the S1r here (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/using-the-panasonic-s1r/)... He's on Luminous - I got the link from another thread here - and he's a thoughtful photographer and reviewer. If I got any of this wrong, I hope he'll jump in and correct me
The high-res mode is real, but it requires some pretty specific conditions many of us may not be able to meet much of the time (it would make no difference to my photography). Specifically, it requires an exceptional lens and a very good tripod. It also requires a motionless subject to make any difference.
The camera will substitute a blown-up piece of a single image for the composite image anywhere where it detects motion, so it can handle some limited motion without artifacts. in a test in front of my local camera shop, even steady hand-holding at a shutter speed where I had no problem getting critically sharp shots every time with high-res turned off was too much for this to work, so I'm not sure how much it can handle. Even when the motion compensation works, it gets no benefit unless the subject is completely motionless.
The blown-up single image is equivalent to doing what is probably a simple nearest neighbor resize on a Z7/D850/A7rII/A7rIII image. The advantage is that it can do this to part of the frame, so a rock formation can be rendered at 187MP even if the tree in front of it is at 47MP.
Keith didn't specify exactly what an exceptional lens and a very good tripod are, but, where he lists the lens he used, it's generally a Canon TS-E on an adapter (there's one shot in his review with the Panasonic 24-105). I'm guessing that the very good tripod and head requirement might be met by something like a Gitzo or RRS Series 3 with appropriate head?
For my use, those requirements are too heavy, and too many of my images contain motion. If I lived in Utah and generally photographed in Arches or similar places where most of the subjects are rock and most of the walks are less than a mile, I would be seriously looking at it. Many of my images are from long hikes (up to 20 miles in a day, hundreds in a trip), and my heaviest tripod is a Gitzo Series 1, while I also have a little Feisol tabletop. I'm actually looking at the new Peak as a possible replacement for the Series 1, since it packs so much smaller.
In that kind of use (handheld and very light tripod landscape), the S1r offers no benefit over high-resolution Nikon and Sony offerings, and the same in places like New England and the Pacific Northwest where subject motion is inevitable. You pay a little extra, end up with a system that's much heavier, and get little benefit. The calculus is quite different for architecture, still life, or relatively close to the car in places like the Desert Southwest where the landscape can largely be taken for granite.
-
There is little doubt that multi-shot is a valuable addition.
I find puzzling that Nikon has not yet released a plan to add the feature on the Z7 although it obviously has the hardware needed to make it happen. Now, when we see how long Nikon needs to release new features though firmware upgrade, it would probably take them a year to make that actually available anyway but... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The always interesting Thom Hogan has posted an interesting conundrum for the crop sensor camera manufacturers as an aside to an article that is largely about the new Mac Pro.
He says that crop sensor cameras are trapped in a narrow window...
First, they have to significantly outperform smartphones to interest anyone - and, he argues, they have to be as easy to share images from as phones are.
The latest generation of SnapBridge has gotten pretty good in that regard, because it uses Bluetooth to automatically reconnect to the camera - it then has to switch to WiFi to actually download the images, but it does that pretty much automatically (and it switches back when it's done). The most recent version of Fuji's software I have doesn't do that - you have to manually switch the WiFi in settings. Since I own Nikons and Fujis, I don't know what other manufacturers' software does. I find texting or emailing a Z7 image immediately after taking it, while it's still on the camera, to be little different from texting or e-mailing an iPhone image (except that no iPhone has a 14mm lens or 12+ stops of dynamic range). E-mailing images from Lightroom is not bad (Nikon or Fuji doesn't matter at all there, since it's an exported JPEG in either case), but I don't have a good way to text an image from Lightroom.
From a sensor standpoint, crop sensor cameras have a huge lead over smartphones, and diffraction keeps the phones from catching up, at least without using something like Light's 16-sensor camera... The wild card is phones' computational prowess and the poor quality of some kit lenses. Casual snapshots may not need to be better than phones can do (they're comparable to good 110 film, bad 35mm film (Gold 800 in a SuperDuperZoom 35mm compact), and compact digicams from a few years ago - all of which were largely considered OK for snapshots).
For images that won't be printed or viewed on 4K or better displays, the real weakness to phones is dynamic range (which computational HDR can alleviate in some circumstances). The worst kit lenses may be able to reduce the effective resolution of a DSLR or mirrorless camera into the range of a really good phone - for whatever it's worth, DxOMark claims that some pancake kit lenses and low-end travel zooms can resolve only 4-6 of their "perceptual megapixels" - They don't do that test for phone lenses (unfortunately) - I wonder how the best of them would compare to that.
Second, crop cameras have to undercut the bottom end of full-frame - I'm not so sure I agree with him here. Obviously, full-frame is a constraint, but can't a crop camera with some distinguishing features sell for more than a stripped down FF camera? I'd pay more for an X-T3 or X-H1, with its excellent glass, durability and superb user interface, than for an EOS-RP, a D610 or an original A7.
While it's not for my style of photography, I'd say the E-M1 mkII also has a good argument to sell for more than a low-end full-frame camera. Its autofocus, speed and durability make it a "baby D5 (or baby 1Dx II if you prefer)" that can get shots that would be impossible with a camera that has very low-end features apart from the sensor. The same for the GH5 and all its video codecs.
Canon, Nikon and Sony seem to be viewing crop sensors as a value-only market, where a crop camera is almost always cheaper than full-frame, and the crop lenses are cheap zooms with a few pancake primes (and the occasional higher-end lens) thrown in. The occasional aberration (D500, 7D mkII, a6500) is rarely updated and has lens issues. Their cheap crop cameras are at direct risk from phones, too. All three of these companies are saying "full-frame is the future of serious photography".
Fuji (general photography with excellent lenses), Olympus (sports and action) and Panasonic (video) are taking a different approach. Their crop bodies can offer things full-frame doesn't, and it's there that I disagree with Thom. Who knows how big those niche markets are, but they're not trying to compete directly with either phones or the very low end of the full-frame market. They have full-frame competitors, but they're not the bottom of the FF barrel.
-
Looks like Sony just made a statement they are serious about the sports / wildlife market with their announcement of the 600 f4 lens and the 200-600 lens. Be interesting what the next version of the A9 brings to the table and the effect it will have on shooting next years Olympics. Right now the current A9 is arguably the best AF / tracking system out there and it's getting a major firmware upgrade this summer. How can the A92 up the current A9?
-
There have been persistent rumors, understandably, about the A9ii. I most likely lack imagination on this but I can’t think of anything that would tempt me to upgrade. Since I bought the A9 it has become my favorite camera. I hardly use the A7riii. The A7riii is no slouch with auto focus but the A9 is in another league.
-
Looks like Sony just made a statement they are serious about the sports / wildlife market with their announcement of the 600 f4 lens and the 200-600 lens. Be interesting what the next version of the A9 brings to the table and the effect it will have on shooting next years Olympics. Right now the current A9 is arguably the best AF / tracking system out there and it's getting a major firmware upgrade this summer. How can the A92 up the current A9?
Great news for photographers! The 600mm f4 seems very nice. But it’s quite telling they haven’t managed to make it lighter than the 3 years old Canon. We are probably near the limit of what can be done with metal based designs. The main news ends up being that Sony continues to aggressively fill the gaps in their line up, which in itself is important but I am not sure it will convince many additional photographers to lose thousands of US$ in a switch from D5 or 1DXII.
The fight btw the a9II and the D6 for best tracking AF will be interesting to watch. Right now I would still pick a D5 over the a9 for sports where eye AF isn’t that useful overall (it can be in some limited situations though), but it’s a close call. And who knows, Canon may be able to catch up in AF performance too.
The real unknown is Nikon and Canon’s move in terms of:
- mirrorless action bodies
- dedicated mirrorless super teles. I expect Nikon to start by releasing next gen 200mm f2.0 and 300mm f2.8 as mirrorless lenses since those are higher volume items that are well overdue for an upgrade anyways. A 200mm close to the 2kg limit would open some creative opportunities since it would become hand holdable.
We will see.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Great news for photographers! The 600mm f4 seems very nice. But it’s quite telling they haven’t managed to make it lighter than the 3 years old Canon. We are probably near the limit of what can be done with metal based designs. The main news ends up being that Sony continues to aggressively fill the gaps in their line up, which in itself is important but I am not sure it will convince many additional photographers to lose thousands of US$ in a switch from D5 or 1DXII.
The fight btw the a9II and the D6 for best tracking AF will be interesting to watch. Right now I would still pick a D5 over the a9 for sports where eye AF isn’t that useful overall (it can be in some limited situations though), but it’s a close call. And who knows, Canon may be able to catch up in AF performance too.
The real unknown is Nikon and Canon’s move in terms of:
- mirrorless action bodies
- dedicated mirrorless super teles. I expect Nikon to start by releasing next gen 200mm f2.0 and 300mm f2.8 as mirrorless lenses since those are higher volume items that are well overdue for an upgrade anyways. A 200mm close to the 2kg limit would open some creative opportunities since it would become hand holdable.
We will see.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, it isn’t just eye AF on the A9 that separates it from the rest, it’s the ability to consistently track the subject anywhere in the viewfinder right to the edges and to pick up the subject if it gets obscured by some foreground objects. I’ve seen enough tests with the D5 and 1DX2 to convince me that the tracking of the A9 is already superior to the D5. Time will tell how much improvements the D6 has ( is there any announcements of a D6 ) and where the A92 will take us.
-
The A9 sticks like glue to whatever it identifies when you set it up right. It’s a long way from merely eye af as chez says. Also as Chez says the edge to edge focus points are very useful. If you choose to compose and frame with a fast moving object near the edge of a frame it’s simply no problem. Eye AF is very useful but it’s jusr a part of the story with this camera. No distortion using the electronic shutter is another thing, the silent shooting is super useful.
-
Looks like Sony just made a statement they are serious about the sports / wildlife market with their announcement of the 600 f4 lens and the 200-600 lens. Be interesting what the next version of the A9 brings to the table and the effect it will have on shooting next years Olympics. Right now the current A9 is arguably the best AF / tracking system out there and it's getting a major firmware upgrade this summer. How can the A92 up the current A9?
From reviews, the 200-600 looks awesome, especially for the money. It's the one I wish Nikon would make; 600 prime I can live without - at that price!
-
The A9 sticks like glue to whatever it identifies when you set it up right. It’s a long way from merely eye af as chez says. Also as Chez says the edge to edge focus points are very useful. If you choose to compose and frame with a fast moving object near the edge of a frame it’s simply no problem. Eye AF is very useful but it’s jusr a part of the story with this camera. No distortion using the electronic shutter is another thing, the silent shooting is super useful.
The AF of the a9 is excellent, but don’t underestimate the D5. Its tracking abilities sometimes feels like black magic.
It is true though that full frame coverage is a nice bonus, but I have seen only very rare cases when the D5 AF coverage isn’t sufficient for actual applications.
Anyways, I’ll stop here.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
On Thom Hogan’s pessimism about the currently dominant smaller ILC formats—APSC and 4/3”—I disagree, and put his mistake down to a familiar elitist “very serious photographer” attitude that most people who settle for less than the midsized ILC format of 36x24mm are dilettantes, more concerned with quick, easy online sharing of images than with the huge advantages in versatility (real zoom and telephoto reach for example) and light gathering speed that any current ILC format has over the far smaller sensors and aperture sizes of phone cameras. And maybe the fallacy of comparing prices for higher level kit in the smaller ILC formats to entry level kit in the larger format, ignoring all the advantages that such gear (e.g. most Fujifilm X or Olympus EM-1 or the very video capable Panasonic models) have to balance against a larger sensor’s potential advantages in other respects.
Even if you believe that people will mostly start with lower priced gear in the smaller ILC formats (with its big price advantage over any 36x24 format gear), there will be a clear advantage to then upgrading incrementally and backward compatibly within the same system and format rather than starting over in a larger format.
BTW, to the idea of segueing from APSC to 36x24 via cross-compatible lenses, both Canon and Nikon have effectively said that it is a low priority, by in different ways offering no good path between those formats in their MILC systems. The only cross format compatibility they have ever cared about was using 35mm film format lenses on smaller format DSLRs, not migrating in the other direction
-
The AF of the a9 is excellent, but don’t underestimate the D5. Its tracking abilities sometimes feels like black magic.
It is true though that full frame coverage is a nice bonus, but I have seen only very rare cases when the D5 AF coverage isn’t sufficient for actual applications.
Anyways, I’ll stop here.
Cheers,
Bernard
I’m sure the D5 is great but this sub forum is about mirrorless cameras and this thread is about the current mirrorless war. I’m pretty sure the D5 is a mirror flapper.
-
... I’m pretty sure the D5 is a mirror flapper.
sounds very old fashion indeed ;)
-
I’m sure the D5 is great but this sub forum is about mirrorless cameras and this thread is about the current mirrorless war. I’m pretty sure the D5 is a mirror flapper.
OP priviledge? ;D
I find it reasonable to compare the performance of mirrorless cameras to DSLRs, certainly when claims are made that may not be 100% supported by the facts at hand, and certainly in a thread that is dedicated to the success factor in succeeding with mirrorless. Since let's not forget that the biggest competitors of mirrorless bodies remain DSLRs, even if we all agree that the trend is clearly towards mirrorless.
We sometimes collectively forget that today 90+% of interchangeable cameras in use are still DSLRs (and the real number may be 98%, who knows). Only a handful of very privileged photographers have had the luxury of migrating to mirrorless with the high costs associated. LL is totally unrepresentative of the world out there.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
OP priviledge? ;D
I find it reasonable to compare the performance of mirrorless cameras to DSLRs, certainly when claims are made that may not be 100% supported by the facts at hand, and certainly in a thread that is dedicated to the success factor in succeeding with mirrorless. Since let's not forget that the biggest competitors of mirrorless bodies remain DSLRs, even if we all agree that the trend is clearly towards mirrorless.
We sometimes collectively forget that today 90+% of interchangeable cameras in use are still DSLRs (and the real number may be 98%, who knows). Only a handful of very privileged photographers have had the luxury of migrating to mirrorless with the high costs associated. LL is totally unrepresentative of the world out there.
Cheers,
Bernard
Sure...but the title of this thread is "Mirrorless war", not "Interchangable lens camera war". If we stick to mirrorless cameras...the A9's AF is heads and shoulders above anything else out there and with the introduction of the 600 f4 and 400 2.8...you can see Sony is very serious taking their systems into the professional sports photography market. They need to add a 300 2.8 to this mix before the Tokyo Olympics and they'll be set.
-
Sure...but the title of this thread is "Mirrorless war", not "Interchangable lens camera war". If we stick to mirrorless cameras...the A9's AF is heads and shoulders above anything else out there and with the introduction of the 600 f4 and 400 2.8...you can see Sony is very serious taking their systems into the professional sports photography market. They need to add a 300 2.8 to this mix before the Tokyo Olympics and they'll be set.
Yes, this is very clear indeed. I would do the same if I were them and I am very happy to see them pushing then enveloppe. As I said, it's a great time to be a photographer.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
you can see Sony is very serious taking their systems into the professional sports photography market.
^ This.
it is probably the only market left where a photographer can actually earn back his/her investment, and thus for Sony (or any camera manufacturer for that matter) to make moneys. If it were to come from the proverbial well heeled birdphotographers...
With the exception of celebrity birds, of course, but I'm sure that market isn't exactly cupcakes either.
-
it is probably the only market left where a photographer can actually earn back his/her investment, and thus for Sony (or any camera manufacturer for that matter) to make moneys. If it were to come from the proverbial well heeled birdphotographers...
I’d be really surprised if pro photographers had much to do with the business success or failure of camera companies. To me it is 90% driven by amateurs.
But this is just a perception, I could be wrong obviously.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I’d be really surprised if pro photographers had much to do with the business success or failure of camera companies. To me it is 90% driven by amateurs.
But this is just a perception, I could be wrong obviously.
Cheers,
Bernard
No, you're probably right, but I don't think that applies to a $13k lens with an A9 beast attached to it.
-
^ This.
it is probably the only market left where a photographer can actually earn back his/her investment, and thus for Sony (or any camera manufacturer for that matter) to make moneys. If it were to come from the proverbial well heeled birdphotographers...
With the exception of celebrity birds, of course, but I'm sure that market isn't exactly cupcakes either.
Not sure about that. I am able to keep body and soul together and in my market a sports photographer will get paid about $200 to shoot an international sporting event. How many of those would they have to shoot to pay for the Sony glass? I can’t shoot at those rates. I’m sure people shooting for the olympics get more than that but how big is that market?
-
Yes, this is very clear indeed. I would do the same if I were them and I am very happy to see them pushing then enveloppe. As I said, it's a great time to be a photographer.
Cheers,
Bernard
+1
-
Not sure about that. I am able to keep body and soul together and in my market a sports photographer will get paid about $200 to shoot an international sporting event. How many of those would they have to shoot to pay for the Sony glass? I can’t shoot at those rates. I’m sure people shooting for the olympics get more than that but how big is that market?
Purely from depreciation you should probably count on $200 per month, which should come from fairly specific pictures. Doable for dedicated photographers. I imagine most photographers are better served renting one. There may be specific magazines or e-zines that purchase one and send it to whomever they hire as clicker.
-
I believe (but am not sure) that major magazines and newspapers still have staff sports photographers who have access to the publication's library of equipment, especially big lenses. I can see three ways of dealing with bodies - the photographer may own them, the publication may issue them to a particular photographer long-term, or the publication may keep them in the equipment room - but big lenses make a lot of sense to keep in the equipment room. Every photographer wants their bodies set up a little bit differently - exposure mode, AF mode, custom button assignments, etc., so they make sense to keep with an individual photographer. On the other hand, one 600mm f4 is much the same of another of the same brand - the only customization is half a dozen switches that can be set in seconds. A given photographer may need a 300mm one day, a 400mm the next, and occasionally an 800mm, so it might make sense for those lenses to be a central resource, with Lensrentals as a backup when everybody needs the same lens on the same day.
-
https://m.dpreview.com/news/4317544813/video-canon-explains-how-its-new-rf-lens-mount-is-better-than-smaller-older-mouns
More of Canon doing Nikon’s marketing much better than Nikon themselves... ;)
CA is indeed basically absent from the Z lenses I have used, in particular the 50mm f1.8 and 24-70mm f2.8 while they have not attempted to fully correct distorsion and light fall off that are easy to correct with software when needed.
Will Sony talented lens designers be able to compensate for their inherent mount limitation? Will Canon and Nikon’s AF teams be able to fully catch up in terms of eye AF/mirrorless AF tracking technology?
These maybe the relevant questions when picking a mirrorless mount moving forward if money isn’t part of the equation.
When money is parf of the story a majority of DSLR owners stick to their own brand due to better adaptability of legacy lenses and this is why the number of R bodies sold vs Z ones is a worrying sign for Canon...
In the meantime I sold my D850 last week on an auction site after 21 months of usage for only... 40 US$ less than the price of a new body in Tokyo... the DSLR days are far from over it seems. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://m.dpreview.com/news/4317544813/video-canon-explains-how-its-new-rf-lens-mount-is-better-than-smaller-older-mouns
More of Canon doing Nikon’s marketing much better than Nikon themselves... ;)
CA is indeed basically absent from the Z lenses I have used, in particular the 50mm f1.8 and 24-70mm f2.8 while they have not attempted to fully correct distorsion and light fall off that are easy to correct with software when needed.
Cheers,
Bernard
It's very obviously the other way around: CA is very easy to correct in processing, not so with distortion. Correcting distortion would reduce any resolution and sharpness advantages that a larger mount with more parallel projection may provide.
The only issue is that CA needs to be corrected prior to debayering, and most converters don't do that.
-
It's very obviously the other way around: CA is very easy to correct in processing, not so with distortion. Correcting distortion would reduce any resolution and sharpness advantages that a larger mount with more parallel projection may provide.
The only issue is that CA needs to be corrected prior to debayering, and most converters don't do that.
You are talking about lateral CA, I am talking about both lateral and longitudinal CA that is impossible to correct by software.
Besides the correction of distorsion only has a tiny impact on sharpness.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You are talking about lateral CA, I am talking about both lateral and longitudinal CA that is impossible to correct by software.
Besides the correction of distorsion only has a tiny impact on sharpness.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, why don't you walk us thru how a larger mount impacts longitudinal CA?
-
Well, why don't you walk us thru how a larger mount impacts longitudinal CA?
Who is “us”? :D I hope you realize that your wording is not pleasant because the usage of “us” instead of “me” is designed to imply a us against you that is both based on nothing but thin air and discriminative in essence.
Canon has done the job in the video I linked to.
Besides just look at Diglloyd’s assessment of the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 S regarding it’s CA behavior if you don’t believe my views on this.
But what exactly are you reacting against?
- the optical advantage of the R/Z mounts over Sony’s FE mount?
- the actual impact on lenses performance?
- the different design choices made by Canon/Nikon on how to leverage these inherent mount advantages?
- ...
Let’s not forget that Canon has been telling us about the importance of the mount since the early days of EOS. The better mount was the reason to move away from Nikon... we haven’t forgotten that have we?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bottom line, if you cannot take amazing photos with today’s lenses...no matter which brand including so called 3rd party.. i’d start looking at the person pressing that shutter than the equipment. I’d bet big bucks anyone here claiming superiority of any lenses could not accurately tell which lens was used to take the images of prints hanging in a high end gallery.
All this chest beating claiming one lens is so much better than another or one mount is so much better than another is nothing more than fanboyism gone wild.
-
All this chest beating claiming one lens is so much better than another or one mount is so much better than another is nothing more than fanboyism gone wild.
Some lenses are better than others, this is a fact of life. Whether that matters to this or that photographic application is a different story. I personally feel that the aspects that are most visible in final photographs are color purity (lack of CA), look of bokeh and micro contrast but other may have different preferences.
Whether I could identify with what lens a given image was taken is an interesting question. I may be able to for some lenses, not for others. Among my own lenses I am pretty much able to tell, but I may have vague memories of what I was using also, so it's hard to tell for sure.
Some eye AF systems work better than others and I personally think that this can make a difference, but also that anyone unable to make the AF of most current camera work for actual photographic applications is lacking skills. Yet, I don't call fanboys those claiming that there are differences... because I know there are differences.
The same applies to many other aspects of camera equipment: auto ISO, ergonomics, weather sealing, flash synchro speed, flash duration, quality of EVF,... and there are factual differences one way or another along all these dimensions. Some matter, some don't, some matter to some people, some to others.
Isn't the ultimate fanboyism the categorization of what matters and what doesn't based on the perceived strong points of one's own system?... :D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ultimately the larger mount may work out for Nikon. At the moment it’s all quite theoretical since we have what, three lenses? Are many third party lens manufacturers making glass for the Z mount?
How long will it be before the z6 7 cameras are a part of a system that could stand on its own? I realize these things take time and it took Sony a long time to develop the A series into a proper system. Sony was pilloried for a long time due to lack of glass, bad batteries and single card slots. In some of these areas Nikon finds itself in the same position.
It took a leap of faith and made me a bit nervous to go with mirrorless three years ago and with Sony in particular. My appetite for that type of risk is now much reduced and at the moment neither Nikon nor Canon have a mirrorless offering that is even close to standing alone without support from a back up of a traditional DSLR body and lots of adapted glass.
-
Indeed, they currently have 5 lenses only: 35 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 14-30 f4, 24-70 f4 and 24-70 f2.8 with the 70-200 f2.8 and 85mm f1.8 expected around summer time frame.
The adapted Nikon F glass through FTS works pretty well too. I shot moving kids the whole Sunday with my 200 f2.0 using eye AF with decent results. Hit ratio not as high as I would like, but got some great images. It’s such a sweet lens btw.
Besides Sony FE glass will soon be usable with AF through an adapter while the reverse never will...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I have a friend who is a high end wedding photographer. I think the 200mm f2 is his favourite lens. He produces incredible results with it. I asked him if he was going to buy a Z7 and his answer was “why should I”. It’s been a few months now I am curious to see if he has changed his mind. End of last year he made a considerable investment in Fuji M4/3. He jumps between the systems depending on what he is shooting. D5 for sport and weddings I know. Not sure when he is using the Fuji.
-
Fuji is APS-C but yes, nice cameras and lenses.
For the kind of paused images wedding pros typically use the 200mm f2.0 for, where critical eye focus is of essence, I find the Z7 superior to the D850/D5.
It’s for action where great approximate focus is the goal that the D850/D5 is still a bit ahead.
But I am sure he knows what works for him.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That’s odd because in all the tests I have seen, and I have seen many, the A7Riii is ahead of the Z7 in auto focus and I know that the A9 is miles ahead of the A7Riii. The A9 with its latest firmware upgrade seems at least the equal of the D5 when it comes to tracking and obviously the eye AF puts it ahead in those applications.
-
That’s odd because in all the tests I have seen, and I have seen many, the A7Riii is ahead of the Z7 in auto focus and I know that the A9 is miles ahead of the A7Riii. The A9 with its latest firmware upgrade seems at least the equal of the D5 when it comes to tracking and obviously the eye AF puts it ahead in those applications.
Yes, tracking indeed.
Does your friend use the 200 f2.0 for tracking running couples? The bride trying to escape? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, tracking indeed.
Does your friend use the 200 f2.0 for tracking running couples? The bride trying to escape? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
The altar is usually the place where they allow the groom to catch them, you just need to point your camera there :)
Edmund
-
Jeez, 21 pages and counting...
-
The altar is usually the place where they allow the groom to catch them, you just need to point your camera there :)
:D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Again with the mount discussion.
Does it really matter? Really and honestly and truly?
For aperture didn't Sony state that their theoretical limit is f0.6 something?
-
Again with the mount discussion.
Does it really matter? Really and honestly and truly?
For aperture didn't Sony state that their theoretical limit is f0.6 something?
Which is completely irrelevant since the topic isn't the max theoretical aperture but the image quality achievable in corners.
I understand that some don't find this topic very interesting (in particular Sony users it would seem :))), I just thought the Canon video did a good job at explaining why the mount does matter. Shouldn't this be celebrated? I am writing something extremely positive about Canon! 8)
This may be relevant for some photographers trying to figure out what platform to invest in.
I must say I have a hard time understanding why this topic is so emotional. Sony has a great system although the mount is not the best. Why the urge to question the facts?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, tracking indeed.
Does your friend use the 200 f2.0 for tracking running couples? The bride trying to escape? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Ever shot a wedding? Ever tried to track a bride walking through a crowd of people throwing confetti? Or how about the first dance? Tracking not useful?
-
Ever shot a wedding? Ever tried to track a bride walking through a crowd of people throwing confetti? Or how about the first dance? Tracking not useful?
Yes, I have shot a couple of weddings in fact (three as far as I recall). Still don't know why I accepted these requests since I am not qualified, but my friends seemed to like the results for some strange reasons. ;)
Tracking a person walking is not an issue at all for the Z7 and its eye AF capability will in fact help in some cases.
My point though was that the Z7, thanks to its EVF, offers significant advantage for some shooting scenarios over the OVF of the D850 and D5. I believe I specifically mentioned paused scenes where perfect eye focus is important and the EVF is superior for those. I believe that you should be able to relate to this as an a7rIII/a9 user, right?
But anyway, no point in discussing your friend's preferences obviously. Again, I fully trust him to know what's good for him.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Read this evening that Nikon are planning on launching what they described as a mirrorless equivalent of the D5. It was on Petapixel I read it I think and was confirmed by Nikons President
I have to admit being so far disappointed in what Nikon and Canon have released in terms of mirrorless. You have to do a lot of talking to make a case for either company doing anything to alarm Sony at the moment. I firmly believe competition will be good for all of us no matter what platform we are on. At the moment I’m simply not seeing it. I hope Nikon and Canon have something on the way.
-
Yet if you compare a Z6 to an a7III, what are the aspects for which the Sony is superior (same question for Z7 vs a7rIII)?
If you look at facts you’ll see that
- AF is a bit better on the Sony in good hands
- it has two memory card slots
- it manages a bit better continuous shooting (EVF blackout)
But, from what I have experienced, for the rest it’s either a draw or the Nikon is ahead. That is for stills since on video the Nikon is pretty much ahead on all aspects even before raw firmware is released.
So I’d be interested in the actual aspects where you are impressed by the Sony and not by the Nikon?
Canon is indeed far behind.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So I’d be interested in the actual aspects where you are impressed by the Sony and not by the Nikon?
The sales figures.
The report (BCN) states that the top three models throughout April were the Sony A7 III (38.9%), followed by the Canon EOS RP (16.5%), with the current Canon EOS R flagship model (12.3%) in third place. Nikon's Z6 and Z7 are in fourth and seventh places respectively, with all remaining positions in the top 10 occupied by Sony's models.
-
Yet if you compare a Z6 to an a7III, what are the aspects for which the Sony is superior (same question for Z7 vs a7rIII)?
If you look at facts you’ll see that
- AF is a bit better on the Sony in good hands
- it has two memory card slots
- it manages a bit better continuous shooting (EVF blackout)
But, from what I have experienced, for the rest it’s either a draw or the Nikon is ahead. That is for stills since on video the Nikon is pretty much ahead on all aspects even before raw firmware is released.
So I’d be interested in the actual aspects where you are impressed by the Sony and not by the Nikon?
Canon is indeed far behind.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well Some would consider dual card slots, better continuous shooting and better auto focus not inconsiderable issues. I wouldn’t agree that the Sony is marginally ahead at AF in the hands of a skilled user as being anywhere near the truth of it by the way. Sony AF is faster and easier to use. But here we go getting into the arena of subjective issues. I remember the howls of derision when Sony was producing cameras with one card slot. Amazing how quiet that little story has become. Suddenly it seems to be OK.
When you say for the rest of it it’s a draw or Nikon is ahead what exactly are you talking about? Ergonomics and menus perhaps? Again subjective, I prefer the Sony. Video I am not sure. Weirdly about half my turnover this month is going to be video. I have not looked at Nikons video. Some reviewers claim it looks over sharpened but I have no evidence for that. Sony video is pretty good. Easy to sell anyway. Ton of lenses available for Sony video of course, hardly anything for the Nikon.
I would also like to draw attention to the fact that you are comparing the top Nikon mirrorless to the second best Sony mirrorless.
Short story is I was hoping for a Nikon that would compete with the A9, not something that tries to compete with the A7Riii and I would have hoped for more useful lenses from the start. The lens line up seems to be aimed at the enthusiast and that is how I see myself I also need to make a living at this and the Nikon mirrorless is not even on the map for commercial work at the moment. Give it another 18 months and let’s hope it all looks better. I am sure the threat posed by Nikon and Canon has already lead to improvements in Sony cameras. Such as the latest brilliant firmware.
I was kind of hedging my bets before making a solid move to Sony, buying second hand gear a generation back before committing. In honesty I was slanted a bit towards Sony but since Nikons and Canons efforts I have bought an A9 and an A7riii. I have committed to mirrorless as I did to digital in 1996. Do you think I could tackle the varieties of work needed to survive in this weird market with what Canon or Nikon has available in mirrorless?
It’s all personal isn’t it. We all have different needs. To say a camera is better without saying for what is meaningless. Best camera when I was in the Air Force was an RMK. Amazing camera. Shot rolls of film 10 inches wide and 500 ft long. Not great for street photography you could say. Took two strong men to pick the thing up.
-
- yes, there is no a9 competitor, correct and I agree that this is an issue if you only shoot Nikon with mirrorless bodies
- the discussion around the lack of dual slot on the Nikon has internet still shaking, it was discussed at nauseum, probably more than any other spec aspect in a camera before. This is a problem and I would far prefer them to have 2 slots even if XQD is indeed the most reliable memory card format ever
- the Sony a7riii AF is superior, but the Z7 AF is no slouch either, in particular since firmware 2.0
- the aspects I find superior on the Nikon are: the mount and its long time promise in terms of lenses, the colors I find more pleasant (call it subjective it you like), the EVF experience, ergonomics (including but not only menus), weather sealing, possibility to adapt any lens (including Sony FE lenses), thinner sensor glass (good for glass adaption), ISO 64, auto-ISO implementation
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What is special about Nikon’s auto iso implementation? Not being difficult. I am a unaware of this issue? Sony does go to 50 ISO but this is an expanded ISO. I generally shoot around 200 iso so not an issue for me. Is Nikon’s 64 iso that important? Personally I really dislike Nikon’s menus. I find the way things are grouped totally counter intuitive. Different strokes and all that.
-
What is special about Nikon’s auto iso implementation? Not being difficult. I am a unaware of this issue? Sony does go to 50 ISO but this is an expanded ISO. I generally shoot around 200 iso so not an issue for me. Is Nikon’s 64 iso that important? Personally I really dislike Nikon’s menus. I find the way things are grouped totally counter intuitive. Different strokes and all that.
- Auto ISO: two aspects that I like. 1. the ability to use it in M mode with A and S fixed and ISO moving up freely to ensure correct exposure, 2. the ability to link the minimal shutter speed to the actual focal lengths when using a zoom lens with a +/- n stop built-in compensation
- ISO 64: super clean files without any noise
- Menus: I agree that this is a matter of getting used to. I personally dislike the menus of my RX100 MkV. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sony also does that with auto iso. I use it in manual quite often. You can also link it to focal length with normal fast and faster. Normal won’t allow SS to go below focal length. Faster puts it above focal
Length and faster at twice focal length. Obviously you can also set maximum and minimum ranges for iso when set to auto and also a minimum shutter speed.
-
Sony also does that with auto iso. I use it in manual quite often. You can also link it to focal length with normal fast and faster. Normal won’t allow SS to go below focal length. Faster puts it above focal
Length and faster at twice focal length. Obviously you can also set maximum and minimum ranges for iso when set to auto and also a minimum shutter speed.
Great, they have improved it then. That's good to know.
It appears that other brands have not yet adopted this level of advancement.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I really like that Sony licenses its lens / camera interface which allows third party lenses such as Zeiss Batis and Sigma to release lenses with native like autofocus. I remember when I shot Canon, third party lenses were always not as good with AF as the native Canon lenses. This is a huge benefit with the Sony system...no reverse engineered third party lenses.
-
Very good point indeed! I fully agree.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nikons mount being so much larger means you will be able to mount Sony lenses onto the Nikon but you won’t be able to go the other way. That’s good for Nikon users but not good for Nikon. Any might sell more glass. Personally I don’t know if that will happen. I’m not fond of adapters for my main working glass. It’s OK for a few old exotics like my collection of Minolta Rokkor lenses. Perhaps others see it differently.
-
Nikons mount being so much larger means you will be able to mount Sony lenses onto the Nikon but you won’t be able to go the other way. That’s good for Nikon users but not good for Nikon. Any might sell more glass. Personally I don’t know if that will happen. I’m not fond of adapters for my main working glass. It’s OK for a few old exotics like my collection of Minolta Rokkor lenses. Perhaps others see it differently.
When I moved from Canon to Sony, I kept my Canon lenses and adapted them. I still use my Canon mount Zeiss lenses for my landscape photography and really see no reason to get anything else. For my travel lenses, I've moved mainly to native Sony mount mainly for the better AF and reduced size and weight.
-
For landscape I would also not change. But if I moved from Sony to Nikon, unlikely now, I would want native lenses and would use adapted lenses begrudgingly.
-
For landscape I would also not change. But if I moved from Sony to Nikon, unlikely now, I would want native lenses and would use adapted lenses begrudgingly.
The thing is that one manufacturer never offers the best lenses for every focal length.
It was true in the DSLR days when many Canon shooters were happy to be able to adapt the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 that had no equivalent in Canon line up for 8 or 9 years.
I would not attempt to adapt lenses needed fast AF such as a 400mm f2.8, but I will be very happy to be able to use the remarkable Sony 135mm f1.8 on my Z7.
Nikon probably think that this is bad for them, but I feel just the opposite. The name of the game today is to attract as many photographers as possible to each mirrorless mount. And Nikon is scoring points by having the option to use more lenses from other manufacturers thanks to adapters, especially now that the portfolio of native lenses is still very limited.
I personnally find that it is completely stupid of Nikon not to open, or at least license, the specs of their mount to others. But I am not surprised. Nikon is a brilliant engineering company, but it completely lacks any sense of business innovation... even when it's about replicating what Sony did 6 years ago. :D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The thing is that one manufacturer never offers the best lenses for every focal length.
It was true in the DSLR days when many Canon shooters were happy to be able to adapt the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 that had no equivalent in Canon line up for 8 or 9 years.
I would not attempt to adapt lenses needed fast AF such as a 400mm f2.8, but I will be very happy to be able to use the remarkable Sony 135mm f1.8 on my Z7.
Nikon probably think that this is bad for them, but I feel just the opposite. The name of the game today is to attract as many photographers as possible to each mirrorless mount. And Nikon is scoring points by having the option to use more lenses from other manufacturers thanks to adapters, especially now that the portfolio of native lenses is still very limited.
I personnally find that it is completely stupid of Nikon not to open, or at least license, the specs of their mount to others. But I am not surprised. Nikon is a brilliant engineering company, but it completely lacks any sense of business innovation... even when it's about replicating what Sony did 6 years ago. :D
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, keeping their lens interface specs closed will limit how well both adapted and even native 3rd party lenses will work with the Nikon cameras. Can you imagine the complexities for an adapter to reverse engineer the Canon mount and then convert the signals to a reversed engineered Nikon mount.
Even with Sony's open mount specs, adapted lenses don't AF nearly as well as adapted lenses. Having to kludge your way through the mount interface will just impact the AF more.
It's one thing to be able to use many different manual focus lenses on your camera...but to use 3rd party lenses with AF will just limit you. I'd definitely recommend using native lenses if you want quick reliable AF in all sorts of light.
-
These past days have seen major progress from Canon and Sony on the mirrorless front. Canon in particular with 2 of the 3 f2.8 zooms close to availability.
I am still in love with my Z7 and Z6, but I feel that Nikon is messing up big time in terms of execution of their roadmap. Yes the 85mm f1.8 will be one of the best 85mm ever designed and will offer incredible performance per US$, yes the 24mm f1.8 also. But we already had 3 lenses covering 24mm and excellent ones at that.
Any way you look at it, it’s a major failure of Nikon not to have a native top class 70-200mm f2.8 for Z mount one year in the life of the Z platform.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think Nikon needs to bring something special for the Olympic games and have not enough manpower to do it all.
yes i agree an open lensmount would serve Nikon well, eventually.
But at the moment they have so few lenses out for the Z that people would buy too many third party lenses, cannibalizing upcoming Nikon Z lenses.
-
No doubt as to the equality of the lenses Nikon is releasing but I am surprised at what is being launched. Commercially at least I have to have a 70 to 200, it’s my bread and butter lens along with the 90mm macro. Two things bother me with the Nikon Z lens roll out. The choice of focal lengths and the slow pace.
-
For shooting low light situations the SonyA7RM3 beats the Nikon Z by far. For me this is a dealbreaker.
-
Apart from the 85mm on order and perhaps a couple of fast and extremely compact manual focus primes - think Leica M - to use with that superb Z EVF but optimised for the Z mount, which admittedly are more likely to come from third party manufacturers, Nikon has delivered everything I'm ever going to need of the system.
My needs are simple, as is my work.
-
I'll give Nikon until Sony launches the A7iv. If Sony continues the improvements from the A7Riv and Nikon didn't change I will likely switch.
What irks me the most is that they closed the mount, and for what? It's not like their focus is better than Sony. And you lose all the third party which currently add a lot to Sony. The other thing is that I still get banding when I try to push the files to the limit of their theoretical dynamic range, which practically reduces it.
On the flipside I got many keepers lately with the Z7 24-70 F4 combo, more than my average; still not sure it's the camera though.
-
I would certainly be more comfortable buying into the Z system if Nikon had either opened up the Z mount, or licensed it to a few other companies. I would love to put Zeiss lenses on a Nikon Z, but I am not going to futz around with adapters with sketchy QC and firmware.
OTOH, Sony hasn't shut the door yet. The fact that they still haven't implemented lossless compression (a technique taught in into CS classes) or focus stacking/bracketing is astonishing to me. Compared to the software they have developed for subject and eye tracking, these would seem trivial.
And there is still the big slow gorilla in the corner. Let's see what the dynamic range improvements are on the new Canon 90D/M6. Assuming the same pixel technology, that would yield a 76MB FF sensor.
It's been one year since the Z was announced. Sony has leapfrogged the Z7 in MP and Canon will no doubt do the same in the near future. So beyond Nikon's ability to get lenses out the door, we need to see if they can keep up on the camera/sensor end. Seems like they have about a year to advance the Z7. More than that and they will get lapped by the field.
-
It's been one year since the Z was announced. Sony has leapfrogged the Z7 in MP and Canon will no doubt do the same in the near future. So beyond Nikon's ability to get lenses out the door, we need to see if they can keep up on the camera/sensor end. Seems like they have about a year to advance the Z7. More than that and they will get lapped by the field.
The question is when will Sony sell the 61MP sensor to Nikon. Sony is in the drivers seat on that.
-
Sony semiconductor has had public data sheets on 61MP sensors since last fall... at least implying that they are for sale. Some sources say the semiconductor and consumer camera divisions are completely separate or even in competition, but of course it is hard to know the reality without being on the inside. Certainly Sony has allowed Fuji to use a newer 26 MP APSC sensor than they are themselves using in the A6xxx line.
-
At this point, more pixels don't impress me, unless they come with three digits, and I certainly wouldn't change camera systems to get them. I've been working my Z6 fairly hard, but I *really* need that 70-200 -- and I would prefer it in a compact f4, but I'll take what I can get at this point, as long as it is more compact than my F-mount f2.8 plus the FTZ. I'll get the 85 as soon as it's available. The two zooms with the 85 would pretty much make the system for me. Everything else I can wait for. I like the Z6 enough that I'd buy the Z7 as a companion, but right now people are talking about the possible announcement of a more advanced high-pixel Z, so I may wait a while. (I might not get it, but I might be able to pick up a new Z7 cheaply. 8-))
Gotta say, as I've said before, I don't understand why Nikon's lens roadmap is being filled out so slowly. I'm a longtime Nikon guy, but if I weren't...I might not jump into the Z system simply because of the lack of native lenses. If Nikon doesn't know that people are thinking that, they need to get a new consumer research team.
-
At this point, more pixels don't impress me, unless they come with three digits, and I certainly wouldn't change camera systems to get them. I've been working my Z6 fairly hard, but I *really* need that 70-200 -- and I would prefer it in a compact f4, but I'll take what I can get at this point, as long as it is more compact than my F-mount f2.8 plus the FTZ. I'll get the 85 as soon as it's available. The two zooms with the 85 would pretty much make the system for me. Everything else I can wait for. I like the Z6 enough that I'd buy the Z7 as a companion, but right now people are talking about the possible announcement of a more advanced high-pixel Z, so I may wait a while. (I might not get it, but I might be able to pick up a new Z7 cheaply. 8-))
Gotta say, as I've said before, I don't understand why Nikon's lens roadmap is being filled out so slowly. I'm a longtime Nikon guy, but if I weren't...I might not jump into the Z system simply because of the lack of native lenses. If Nikon doesn't know that people are thinking that, they need to get a new consumer research team.
Nikon is a super conservative company, at least on higher mgt side.
They still live in a old slow changing world.
They probably have the best engineers in the business, but they don't have the business ambition to invest at the height of the stakes IMHO.
I believe that they are not looking at this move to mirrorless as opportunity to grow, but as a risk they have to mitigate.
The Z lenses will be the best when they hit the market... regardless of whether Nikon still has some customers to use them.
The Z platform has been selling well, so they have obvisouly hit the best possible positioning and the lens roadmap is great, but the pace of release is way too slow.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
At this point, more pixels don't impress me, unless they come with three digits, and I certainly wouldn't change camera systems to get them. I've been working my Z6 fairly hard, but I *really* need that 70-200 -- and I would prefer it in a compact f4, but I'll take what I can get at this point, as long as it is more compact than my F-mount f2.8 plus the FTZ. I'll get the 85 as soon as it's available. The two zooms with the 85 would pretty much make the system for me. Everything else I can wait for. I like the Z6 enough that I'd buy the Z7 as a companion, but right now people are talking about the possible announcement of a more advanced high-pixel Z, so I may wait a while. (I might not get it, but I might be able to pick up a new Z7 cheaply. 8-))
Gotta say, as I've said before, I don't understand why Nikon's lens roadmap is being filled out so slowly. I'm a longtime Nikon guy, but if I weren't...I might not jump into the Z system simply because of the lack of native lenses. If Nikon doesn't know that people are thinking that, they need to get a new consumer research team.
Since the bulk of the advantages of the Z mount accrue to wide angle lenses, and Nikon has excellent f-mount telephotos, I think Nikon assumes that they have 70-200 covered with the excellent f/4.0 and class-leading f/2.8. I’m not sure they’re right, but I think that’s influencing their strategy.
-
Nikon is a super conservative company, at least on higher mgt side.
They still live in a old slow changing world.
They probably have the best engineers in the business, but they don't have the business ambition to invest at the height of the stakes IMHO.
I believe that they are not looking at this move to mirrorless as opportunity to grow, but as a risk they have to mitigate.
The Z lenses will be the best when they hit the market... regardless of whether Nikon still has some customers to use them.
The Z platform has been selling well, so they have obvisouly hit the best possible positioning and the lens roadmap is great, but the pace of release is way too slow.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well since the DSLR market is shrinking, I sure hope Nikon is looking at mirrorless as a growth opportunity.
-
Well since the DSLR market is shrinking, I sure hope Nikon is looking at mirrorless as a growth opportunity.
If they did they would have invested to increase their ability to design and deliver products to the market at a faster pace.
The facts at hand obviously tell us that they haven’t.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If they did they would have invested to increase their ability to design and deliver products to the market at a faster pace.
The facts at hand obviously tell us that they haven’t.
Cheers,
Bernard
But their roadmap show them being delivered at a faster rate...or at least suggested a faster delivery rate. I wonder if they had production problems? The 85 will be out in a week, that will help. I agree with Bernard's assessment of their engineering talent -- once you become familiar with Nikon, it seems like you can use anything they make because the ergonomics are so good. It didn't even feel like a huge switch from a D800 to a Z. I may have to take a look at the F mount f4 if I don't hear something soon...
-
If they did they would have invested to increase their ability to design and deliver products to the market at a faster pace.
The facts at hand obviously tell us that they haven’t.
Cheers,
Bernard
The fact at hand maybe show reality within Nikon and shrinking camera revenues. They just are not delivering anything lately at any pace be it mirrorless or DSLR. Canon appears to be picking up the pace with both DSLR releases as well as mirrorless. Sony just keeps on plowing ahead.
-
The fact at hand maybe show reality within Nikon and shrinking camera revenues. They just are not delivering anything lately at any pace be it mirrorless or DSLR. Canon appears to be picking up the pace with both DSLR releases as well as mirrorless. Sony just keeps on plowing ahead.
In a declining market the winner wins by gaining market share over its competitors, which results from investment.
In better differentiated products, in smart marketing, in sales,...
In other words in making the company look better.
My view is that a very easy move for Nikon would be to publish an updated roadmap with 5 top lenses the market is expecting.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Certainly Sony has allowed Fuji to use a newer 26 MP APSC sensor than they are themselves using in the A6xxx line.
Sony Imaging is not using 26mp sensor ... they use 24mp sensor.
-
That's what I meant... Sony allows Fuji to use the new 26 MP sensor while they (surprisingly) still use an older 24 MP sensor themselves.
-
In a declining market the winner wins by gaining market share over its competitors, which results from investment.
In better differentiated products, in smart marketing, in sales,...
In other words in making the company look better.
My view is that a very easy move for Nikon would be to publish an updated roadmap with 5 top lenses the market is expecting.
Cheers,
Bernard
Only if they can deliver. They already published a list which they are having a hard time delivering. Cry wolf too many times and people will ignore.
-
That's what I meant... Sony allows Fuji to use the new 26 MP sensor while they (surprisingly) still use an older 24 MP sensor themselves.
Business decision to keep development costs on their APS-C line to a minimum. How much will 2mp really matter? Their 24mpix cameras were selling very well.
-
Business decision to keep development costs on their APS-C line to a minimum. How much will 2mp really matter? Their 24mpix cameras were selling very well.
It's not the 2 extra MP that I care about... it's the other improvements that 3+ years of sensor development bring. The A6600 seems to me to be a stopgap camera. I find it odd that Sony would develop a $1400 G zoom lens for APSC and not have a flagship body that matches... new sensor, better EVF, UHS-II, etc. I think the numbering of the A6100 and A6600 tell us that they are just updates to the A6000 and A6500... but leaves room for an A6700 or A6800. Time will tell.
-
It's not the 2 extra MP that I care about... it's the other improvements that 3+ years of sensor development bring. The A6600 seems to me to be a stopgap camera. I find it odd that Sony would develop a $1400 G zoom lens for APSC and not have a flagship body that matches... new sensor, better EVF, UHS-II, etc. I think the numbering of the A6100 and A6600 tell us that they are just updates to the A6000 and A6500... but leaves room for an A6700 or A6800. Time will tell.
A6700 has been out for months but I get your meaning.
Pointless trying to predict what Sony is going to do. Many try. Predictions of A7000, new A9, A73S and they release an A7r4 that no one saw coming. It must make the competition crazy. Leaves me scratching my head.
-
Sony just keeps on plowing ahead.
They do but I wonder if it's always a good thing? I can imagine that owners of the 6400 6500 6600 group might be a bit pissed off about the hotch potch of features and omissions. Why didn't Sony slow down a bit and deliver one good camera?
-
Why didn't Sony slow down a bit and deliver one good camera?
Because they sell more cameras that way? Some photographers just have to have the latest model.
-
A6700 has been out for months but I get your meaning.
Huh? Not in my universe. Sony has (currently) the A6100, A6400 and A6600. There were lots of rumors that the new camera would be the A6700, which is why A6600 seems to me to be a stop gap.
-
Huh? Not in my universe. Sony has (currently) the A6100, A6400 and A6600. There were lots of rumors that the new camera would be the A6700, which is why A6600 seems to me to be a stop gap.
Oops my mistake. You are quite correct. Got all these numbers confused. Please accept my apologies.
-
Oops my mistake. You are quite correct. Got all these numbers confused. Please accept my apologies.
No need to apologize... not sure why we need 4 digit numbering of camera bodies anyway
-
They do but I wonder if it's always a good thing? I can imagine that owners of the 6400 6500 6600 group might be a bit pissed off about the hotch potch of features and omissions. Why didn't Sony slow down a bit and deliver one good camera?
Well what's wrong with the 6400 or 6600? What is this hotch potch of features you talk about?
-
Well what's wrong with the 6400 or 6600? What is this hotch potch of features you talk about?
As a former a5100 user, there was a lot to like about the camera, except the lenses that were very average and basically no primes.
At the time Fujifilm’s lens line up was in a totally different league for serious shooters .
How is it today?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sony have loads of cameras available. It doesn’t have to make sense in terms of a logical progression of features. Just find one that suits you. There is bound to be one that does if you are comfortable with Sony ergonomics and interface. Also a ton of lenses from a variety of manufacturers and widely varying price points.
If you want the best rated camera that can do anything and everything better than any other camera life can get complicated. If you come at it from the point of what you want to shoot things get much simpler.
-
Sony have loads of cameras available. It doesn’t have to make sense in terms of a logical progression of features. Just find one that suits you. There is bound to be one that does if you are comfortable with Sony ergonomics and interface. Also a ton of lenses from a variety of manufacturers and widely varying price points.
If you want the best rated camera that can do anything and everything better than any other camera life can get complicated. If you come at it from the point of what you want to shoot things get much simpler.
Never a truer word.
My choices - and there have been very few over more years than I care to remember - have always revolved around which camera/system it is I'm most comfortable using and therefore more likely to use. Everything else pales into insignificance.
Works for me.
-
That's what I meant... Sony allows Fuji to use the new 26 MP sensor while they (surprisingly) still use an older 24 MP sensor themselves.
Sony Imaging knows that they can't make a really good camera body and price it properly (as Fuji's shameful debacle with X-H1 price shows and how Fuji was right with X-T3 when it was properly priced $100 less when released vs X-T2 release price) as FF dSLMs kick a$$ of APS-C dSLMs price-wise ... so they simply decided to stick with a cheaper 24mp to make better margins... this is simply about margins and nothing else...
-
It's not the 2 extra MP that I care about... it's the other improvements that 3+ years of sensor development bring. The A6600 seems to me to be a stopgap camera. I find it odd that Sony would develop a $1400 G zoom lens for APSC and not have a flagship body that matches... new sensor, better EVF, UHS-II, etc. I think the numbering of the A6100 and A6600 tell us that they are just updates to the A6000 and A6500... but leaves room for an A6700 or A6800. Time will tell.
you can sell lens today, year later, 2 years later and still have proper price ... you can't do the same with camera bodies ... Sony knows that they can't make X-H1 like APS-C camera body and sell it in quantities enough too justify the design, tooling, production... and as noted unlike with bodies prices for lenses are more stable
-
As a former a5100 user, there was a lot to like about the camera, except the lenses that were very average and basically no primes.
At the time Fujifilm’s lens line up was in a totally different league for serious shooters .
A5100 was released in 2014... at the time only M43 was in different league lens-wise... Fuji was not even close.
-
Well what's wrong with the 6400 or 6600? What is this hotch potch of features you talk about?
let us start with AF joystick ?
-
As a former a5100 user, there was a lot to like about the camera, except the lenses that were very average and basically no primes.
At the time Fujifilm’s lens line up was in a totally different league for serious shooters .
How is it today?
Cheers,
Bernard
No idea, don't use APS lenses. I use my full frame lenses as I use my A6000 as a backup camera. I know Sony just released two lenses that appear to be making noise in the industry.
-
let us start with AF joystick ?
Yeh...how the hell can I ever use my joystickless A7R2 and A7R.
What do you think about the advanced AF detection, eye AF and tracking...making the need to select a focus point and trying to keep that point on the subject a thing of the past.
-
I never use the joystick anymore. I have set the touchscreen to use the the bottom right section as a track pad instead but to be honest even that doesn’t get much use anymore with the advanced tracking functionality.
-
Nikon is a super conservative company, at least on higher mgt side.
They still live in a old slow changing world.
Cheers,
Bernard
Unfortunately, camera companies don't "live" long in that world... they die (particularly if they don't sell copiers and televisions or run movie studios). By the start of 2020, both Sony and Canon will have higher resolution mirrorless bodies with more lenses than Nikon. The Z6 has some legs... it still has great video, solid autofocus and a better EVF than the A7III. But the Z7 will have lost the resolution/dynamic range crown that it inherited from the D800-810-850 dynasty that Nikon had built. In Jobsian terms, the Z7 skated to where the puck was, not where the puck was going to be. It barely (or not quite, depending on your viewpoint) caught up with the D850 and A7RIII. One hopes that Nikon engineers knew that and planned for a relatively quick refresh swapping in an upgraded sensor and EVF. Whether the bean-counters will allow that to happen remains to be seen, but if the Z7 isn't updated in the next year, Nikon will have lost the lead they had built with the D8xx series, perhaps for good. This possibility saddens me.
Glenn
-
Unfortunately, camera companies don't "live" long in that world... they die (particularly if they don't sell copiers and televisions or run movie studios). By the start of 2020, both Sony and Canon will have higher resolution mirrorless bodies with more lenses than Nikon. The Z6 has some legs... it still has great video, solid autofocus and a better EVF than the A7III. But the Z7 will have lost the resolution/dynamic range crown that it inherited from the D800-810-850 dynasty that Nikon had built. In Jobsian terms, the Z7 skated to where the puck was, not where the puck was going to be. It barely (or not quite, depending on your viewpoint) caught up with the D850 and A7RIII. One hopes that Nikon engineers knew that and planned for a relatively quick refresh swapping in an upgraded sensor and EVF. Whether the bean-counters will allow that to happen remains to be seen, but if the Z7 isn't updated in the next year, Nikon will have lost the lead they had built with the D8xx series, perhaps for good. This possibility saddens me.
I guess that the only good news for Nikon is that one of their 2 competitors is Canon.
Great lenses, poor bodies for 10 years or more... and things have gotten worse since the start of the mirrorless days. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I guess that the only good news for Nikon is that one of their 2 competitors is Canon.
Great lenses, poor bodies for 10 years or more... and things have gotten worse since the start of the mirrorless days. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Yet they are outselling Nikon by big margins.
-
Although I'm unhappy about the Z lens situation, I think the body is terrific -- in fact, I see little need to upgrade anything in terms of ergonomics or menu usability. IMHO (I'm not an engineer) I suspect that Nikon could slip an upgraded sensor into the body without a great deal of fuss. (There would be some fuss, of course.) Quite a few people think they're going to do that, as soon as they have access to the sensor. They won't have to build a new camera around it. And, again, a Canon 61mp sensor wouldn't be a great advance over the current Z7 -- certainly nothing most professionals would spend much time worrying about. You'd need a magnifying glass and a very large print to find the difference, if you could do it at all.
-
Although I'm unhappy about the Z lens situation, I think the body is terrific -- in fact, I see little need to upgrade anything in terms of ergonomics or menu usability. IMHO (I'm not an engineer) I suspect that Nikon could slip an upgraded sensor into the body without a great deal of fuss. (There would be some fuss, of course.) Quite a few people think they're going to do that, as soon as they have access to the sensor. They won't have to build a new camera around it. And, again, a Canon 61mp sensor wouldn't be a great advance over the current Z7 -- certainly nothing most professionals would spend much time worrying about. You'd need a magnifying glass and a very large print to find the difference, if you could do it at all.
That's my feeling as well. I've had the Z 6 since January and find it just the right size with the 24-70 zoom. I don't need to go down to f2.8 for my needs and of course that lens is heavier and more bulky. I still have my 'old' Nikkor primes but I've really not had any need to put them on and the FTZ adapter has yet to be used. Since I don't print any bigger than 17x25, the Z 6 works out just fine. I was amazed by the detail of some of the landscapes I took when we were up in Banff; the wooden ties on the Canadian Pacific railroad tracks were all distinct and clear even from the distance the image was shot. There are still some features I need to get up to speed on but that will come.
-
Yet they are outselling Nikon by big margins.
We don’t have the full data, but several data points indicate that Canon is mostly outselling Nikon thanks to 400 US$ rebels and M class mirrorless bodies.
On the high end Nikon has most probably been ahead for some time.
And why would it not be the case with Nikon cameras being ahead technically by a clear margin for more than 10 years?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
We don’t have the full data, but several data points indicate that Canon is mostly outselling Nikon thanks to 400 US$ rebels and M class mirrorless bodies.
On the high end Nikon has most probably been ahead for some time.
And why would it not be the case with Nikon cameras being ahead technically by a clear margin for more than 10 years?
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes we don't have full data so what data are you using to guess that Nikon has been ahead of Canon on the high end for some time? Personally I see way more professional Canon gear at events I attend or shoot. You keep saying Nikon is outselling Canon at the high end...but do you have any actual data as I know you really pull for Nikon so without data I just can't believe it.
-
On the high end Nikon has most probably been ahead for some time.
And why would it not be the case with Nikon cameras being ahead technically by a clear margin for more than 10 years?
Cheers,
Bernard
I think this depends on how you define "high end". Certainly at wedding venues, press conferences and sporting events in the U.S., Canon still seems to dominate. Seems that for most of these purposes, the 5DMkx series is good enough to hold court. Canon also jumped out in video. Sony, and now Nikon have recently eaten into those realms, but to assume that Canon can't fight back is to underestimate a dangerous competitor. If you scale their sensor technology from the new 90D you will have an 82 MP sensor with DR, according to early reports, catching up to Sony/Nikon. Point is, nobody can rest on their laurels. Sony seriously needs to redo some of their early Sony/Zeiss lenses which already have marginal reputations and are going to look really bad on an A7RIV. Sony get's a little cushion by licensing their lens mount so that Sigma, Zeiss and Tamron can fill in gaps. Nikon has a good lens roadmap, but they need to execute on both quality and timing. If, as Canon is predicting, the ILC market shrinks another 40% in the next two years, only the big or nimble will make it.
-
Yes we don't have full data so what data are you using to guess that Nikon has been ahead of Canon on the high end for some time? Personally I see way more professional Canon gear at events I attend or shoot. You keep saying Nikon is outselling Canon at the high end...but do you have any actual data as I know you really pull for Nikon so without data I just can't believe it.
I see just the opposite in Japan and recent sales figures from leading camera stores in Japan confirm this impression.
This may be Japan only, I am not sure. It would make sense since Japanese photographers appear to be highly equipment aware and willing to switch rather easily to the best there is.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I see just the opposite in Japan and recent sales figures from leading camera stores in Japan confirm this impression.
This may be Japan only, I am not sure. It would make sense since Japanese photographers appear to be highly equipment aware and willing to switch rather easily to the best there is.
Cheers,
Bernard
I guess that explains why Sony is gaining market share...even in Japan. :D
-
I guess that explains why Sony is gaining market share...even in Japan. :D
Yes, indeed.
I don’t know any former Canon user not having moved to Sony.
On the other hand I don’t know any Nikon user having moved to Sony. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I know of a Nikon user who moved to Fuji, also one who moved to Sony and one who moved to Olympus. Not all of them where I live either. However I don’t take this as proof of anything.
When I watch newscasts it seems the vast majority of cameras on display are still Canon. When I am out shooting I get remarks from young photographers that are surprised to see someone of my generation using Sony. If I were to make an observation on who uses what I would say it seems to be older people using Nikon and youngsters using Sony. It’s a generalization of course. I also know young photographers using Nikon.
YouTube gives a very weird view of it all. Quite frankly I don’t regard the YouTubers as professional photographers even though they describe themselves as such. You are professional if someone contacts you and pays you to take photographs, not if you stand up and talk crap about your latest professional landscape shoot that sold one print to your aunty. Never really understood all fuss about being professional anyway. Funny way to make a loving. Sorry my mind is wondering this morning.
-
Yes, indeed.
I don’t know any former Canon user not having moved to Sony.
On the other hand I don’t know any Nikon user having moved to Sony. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Well given there are a magnitude if not more Canon users than Nikon users, this seems right. I visit Sony forums and you'd actually be surprised how many Nikon folk moved to Sony.
-
Well given there are a magnitude if not more Canon users than Nikon users, this seems right. I visit Sony forums and you'd actually be surprised how many Nikon folk moved to Sony.
Yes, I’d be surprised.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, I’d be surprised.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well you should broaden your horizons so you don't have such a narrow view of things.
-
I was offered a Sony A7R4 today second hand. Didn’t even know they were available yet. $2000. Taken a few hundred photos. The photographer selling it had sold an 810 and bought the Sony. He hates it and now wants to buy an 850. He tried the Z7 and didn’t like that. I am a bit tempted but have only had my A7R3 for a few months and couldn’t really be bothered right now.
Anyway people jump around in hope that the prefect camera will appear and they will take the perfect photo with it. I’m all for finding a good camera that works for me but I’m under no illusions as to where the bottleneck to my success lies. I don’t think Nikon have some magic stuff that if you use one you would never switch Sony or Canon. I know people who have. It’s works for some but not for others.
The way we carry on you would think we believe that old story about “You take good photos, you must have a good camera.” that annoys us all so much.
-
It’s obviously possible to take great images with any modern camera.
But Sony has done more to push the envelope that any other manufacturer, Fuji is second, Nikon 3rd and Canon has been very far behind on the body front for more than 10 years.
Besides Canon lenses have been easy to adapt to Sony bodies.
It’s real easy to understand why many more Canon photographers have gone the Sony route.
Canon should focus on their key strength which is lens design and manufacturing. They are killing themselves by letting their incompetent camera team lock them into only designing R mount lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It’s obviously possible to take great images with any modern camera.
But Sony has done more to push the envelope that any other manufacturer, Fuji is second, Nikon 3rd and Canon has been very far behind on the body front for more than 10 years.
Besides Canon lenses have been easy to adapt to Sony bodies.
It’s real easy to understand why many more Canon photographers have gone the Sony route.
Canon should focus on their key strength which is lens design and manufacturing. They are killing themselves by letting their incompetent camera team lock them into only designing R mount lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
Killing...but taking market share from Nikon that has slumped to under 20%. In a shrinking market, market share is huge. Slipping year after year is not a good trend.
Even though you think their mirrorless release is weak, they still outsell Nikon.
-
Killing...but taking market share from Nikon that has slumped to under 20%. In a shrinking market, market share is huge. Slipping year after year is not a good trend.
Even though you think their mirrorless release is weak, they still outsell Nikon.
Canons new M6MK2 looks like a tidy camera don’t you think? Canon make stuff I would buy. I have confidence in Sony because of their innovation and the rapid improvements they continue to make. I also feel that Canon will make something very useful and have the resources to do so. Canon lags pretty much only with a bit of DR and think DR is so large these days it’s actually not as important as we all think. For me the pixel wars are over and so is the DR wars. I’m not sure about Nikon. Great cameras but their strategy confuses me. Perhaps because I think that mirrorless is the future and the present and Nikon seems unconvinced and slow on the uptake. They are starting to remind me of Kodak.
-
The future of the M mount is highly questionable IMHO, even if the M sales are largely responsible for the mirrorless sales of Canon.
Tests will tell, but I have doubts about the 30+ mp res on a Canon APS-C sensor.
Finally there have been very few reports of dual AF standing a chance of being competitive vs the Sony and Nikon AF solutions.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The future of the M mount is highly questionable IMHO, even if the M sales are largely responsible for the mirrorless sales of Canon.
Tests will tell, but I have doubts about the 30+ mp res on a Canon APS-C sensor.
Finally there have been very few reports of dual AF standing a chance of being competitive vs the Sony and Nikon AF solutions.
Cheers,
Bernard
Canon is big enough to keep multiple mounts going as long as they are making profits with each mount. I guess we'll see what rabbit Canon pulls out of the hat with respect to the 30mpux APS sensor. Let's not forget the huge majority of photographers are not bit heads that measure noise at high ISO nor dynamic range...but just take photos. We can always point at technical deficiencies in the Canon lineup...but it's the market leader by a long shot...and from the glass they are releasing, I have my suspicions they'll surprise many with their pro level cameras.
Now Nikon releasing a D6...are they serious about mirrorless at the professional level? Where is the mirrorless version of the D6?
-
Canon is big enough to keep multiple mounts going as long as they are making profits with each mount. I guess we'll see what rabbit Canon pulls out of the hat with respect to the 30mpux APS sensor. Let's not forget the huge majority of photographers are not bit heads that measure noise at high ISO nor dynamic range...but just take photos. We can always point at technical deficiencies in the Canon lineup...but it's the market leader by a long shot...and from the glass they are releasing, I have my suspicions they'll surprise many with their pro level cameras.
They have always had great glass, that hasn't prevented them from releasing a long stream of lukewarm bodies.
The issue with Canon is their mindset. They aren't serving their customers, they are milking them.
They are by far the most arrogant company I have ever been in touch with.
Now Nikon releasing a D6...are they serious about mirrorless at the professional level? Where is the mirrorless version of the D6?
The release of the D6 is completely normal. What isn't is the lack of 1Dx mkIII, but it is 100% certain it is going to come very soon.
Are you going to question whether Canon is serious about mirrorless when it does?
The reality today is that 99% of sports pro still shoot with DSLRs. Addressing this market is simply listening to the photographers.
I am fully aware that mirrorless is the future and as of now the H6D-100c remains my only digital camera with a mirror, but this doesn't mean that we are already there.
I guess you also believe that most people drive a Tesla?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am fully aware that mirrorless is the future and as of now the H6D-100c remains my only digital camera with a mirror, but this doesn't mean that we are already there.
Much as I love my Z7 I can't quite bring myself to sell my D850. Maybe I will do so to fund a Z10 :-)
-
Much as I love my Z7 I can't quite bring myself to sell my D850. Maybe I will do so to fund a Z10 :-)
+1 love the camera, although the Z's are better for some purposes like video.
-
Much as I love my Z7 I can't quite bring myself to sell my D850. Maybe I will do so to fund a Z10 :-)
The D850 is indeed a super nice camera and I sometimes regret selling it, but I was hardly ever using it and felt a need to simplify... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Looks like we'll be seeing an 83MP FF Canon RF body coming soon, which makes sense, since the latest APS Canon sensor is 32.5MP. It will go nicely with those RF f/1.2L lenses.
https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-83mp-full-frame-image-sensor-from-canon
-
It was just highlighted that Nikon hasn't announced a single ILC in nearly 13 months.
We know they have been working on a D6, no big surprise here, but the real question is what they have been working on in the mirrorless world.
Here is my guess:
- APS-C mirrorless range
- Z5 low end FF body
- Z9 sports camera and Z8 high res body
What's yours?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It was just highlighted that Nikon hasn't announced a single ILC in nearly 13 months.
We know they have been working on a D6, no big surprise here, but the real question is what they have been working on in the mirrorless world.
Here is my guess:
- APS-C mirrorless range
- Z5 low end FF body
- Z9 sports camera and Z8 high res body
I just hope Nikon doesn't wait 2 years to release something new. There's a chance they haven't been working on anything in the mirrorless world, because they see the Z7 as their "flagship" so it must be good enough for a very long time, right? I hope that's NOT what they're thinking, LOL.
-
It was just highlighted that Nikon hasn't announced a single ILC in nearly 13 months.
We know they have been working on a D6, no big surprise here, but the real question is what they have been working on in the mirrorless world.
Here is my guess:
- APS-C mirrorless range
- Z5 low end FF body
- Z9 sports camera and Z8 high res body
What's yours?
I guess that Nikon will announce at least #1 on your list in time for the holidays — but you knew I would say that, didn't you?!
-
I guess that Nikon will announce at least #1 on your list in time for the holidays — but you knew I would say that, didn't you?!
Yes, and me forecasting that they will doesn't mean I think it's a good idea... unless they focus on the higher end segment of APS-C mirrorless where real photographers without the cash or looking for super compact may be interested.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
... unless they focus on the higher end segment of APS-C mirrorless where real photographers without the cash or looking for super compact may be interested.
You just blind-sided me by saying something I completely agree with!
-
You just blind-sided me by saying something I completely agree with!
Perhaps we’ve agreed all along! :)
To me APS-C isn’t necessarily dead as a sensor size. Fuji X will continue to be successful for example.
The segment I see dying is the 300-400 US$ low end bodies that make up 90% of APS-C volume.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Perhaps we’ve agreed all along! :)
To me APS-C isn’t necessarily dead as a sensor size. Fuji X will continue to be successful for example.
The segment I see dying is the 300-400 US$ low end bodies that make up 90% of APS-C volume.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yeh, they'll raise the price to $700 and continue selling them. ;D
-
Yeh, they'll raise the price to $700 and continue selling them. ;D
As strange as it may seem, I know at least 2 guys making in excess of 200,000 US$ a year who were very reluctant to spend more than 400 US$ on a DSLR kit... so no, they won't sell many at 700 US$.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As strange as it may seem, I know at least 2 guys making in excess of 200,000 US$ a year who were very reluctant to spend more than 400 US$ on a DSLR kit... so no, they won't sell many at 700 US$.
Cheers,
Bernard
I can tell you this much...there are at least 10x the number of people buying a $400 camera than a $2,000 camera...even with the fall of camera sales.
-
I can tell you this much...there are at least 10x the number of people buying a $400 camera than a $2,000 camera...even with the fall of camera sales.
But this is about to end.
The number of people buying 400 US$ DSLRs will slowly but surely decrease towards not much while the number of people buying 2,000 US$ cameras will stay pretty much stable.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
But this is about to end.
The number of people buying 400 US$ DSLRs will slowly but surely decrease towards not much while the number of people buying 2,000 US$ cameras will stay pretty much stable.
Cheers,
Bernard
I believe that is your own cognitive bias speaking Bernard as you cannot possible have any evidence to support this point of view. And no, two people you know that do something to support your bias doesn’t constitute data.
Phone companies are in all sorts of trouble with declining sales and are running out of features to attract new sales and encourage people to upgrade their phones. I keep a phone 3 to 4 years now compared to 18 months back in the day. Cameras are a thing they can point to as a new feature so that’s what is happening. Sony with their sensor division are the obvious winner here.
I think it just as likely people will be introduced to photography with their phones and then decide to take it more seriously and buy an actual camera. I cant say my scenario is any more likely that your scenario but I do know people that have gone this route just as you know people that have stopped using cameras in favor of a phone. People like shiny stuff and a camera is more shiny stuff.
-
We will see...
But considering that Canon and Nikon basically already sell only ILC (they sell very little in value related to digital compact cameras), the current sharp drop mostly already results from APS-C DSLRs not selling much any more. Even if Canon has some modern mirrorless APS-C bodies (that Nikon doesn’t have).
This can only speed up as phones continue to improve and get closer to/go beyond the absolute level of quality and functional people need.
I am not deriving this from my 2 friends, I only used them as a hint about the price sensitivity of people for cameras “when they have a very good camera phone already”.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Phone companies are in all sorts of trouble with declining sales and are running out of features to attract new sales and encourage people to upgrade their phones. I keep a phone 3 to 4 years now compared to 18 months back in the day. Cameras are a thing they can point to as a new feature so that’s what is happening. Sony with their sensor division are the obvious winner here.
I'm not sure this is true (disclosure: I have owned stock in Verizon for a lot of years). My carrier has been charging for phone upgrades for several years now and the feature packed phones whether Android or IPhones cost about $700. They may give you some token trade in for the old phone but that's it. You can also get unlimited data plans for a reasonable price. Even though they are rolling out 5G it's not apparent that for me, a casual user, that this something that will make me upgrade.
-
I am using an iPhone 4S and have no desire to upgrade. Not sure why anyone upgrades.
-
I am using an iPhone 4S and have no desire to upgrade. Not sure why anyone upgrades.
You upgrade when the battery dies, unless battery replacement is inexpensive. 'Simple' user replacement of batteries is a thing of the past.
-
You upgrade when the battery dies, unless battery replacement is inexpensive. 'Simple' user replacement of batteries is a thing of the past.
Replace the battery or spend $1000 on a new phone.? Let’s see...
-
Replace the battery or spend $1000 on a new phone.? Let’s see...
My Google Pixel phone battery was failing and I looked into DIY replacement which is pretty complicated. You also don't have to spend $1K on a cell phone these days. Perfectly acceptable phones are available for much less. I ended up getting a discounted Pixel phone as the new models are slated for this fall and prices were dropping on the older ones.
-
A high-end camera that I'd like to see is a Leica Q2 with the ~47mp sensor and an exceptional ~24-105 fixed f2.8 (or larger) lens (like some available on other cameras, but better than those) and at about half the price of the current Q. Dream on.
I don't think Fuji should be considered in any debate about APS-C, because Fuji is its own ecosystem. It's like Panasonic/Olympus and m4/3. They're outside the mainstream, which is fine, but they're not quite in the same competition as Nikon, Canon and Sony.
All the major camera makers have to find some way to compete outside the sensor/mp race, because it's pretty clear that for the jobs these cameras do, 99 percent of the users don't really need more resolution. We're there. Amateur enthusiasts for whom pixel counts are used as status markers might continue going after higher and higher resolutions, but I doubt serious people (pros and enthusiasts) will keep buying cameras based on pixel count. Why would they throw money after something that will make no human-perceptible difference to the output? I have an 80-inch 8K Samsung TV hanging on my wall which will be more than covered by a 40+ mp camera. You really want more than that?
-
I am using an iPhone 4S and have no desire to upgrade. Not sure why anyone upgrades.
One very large category of upgraders is corporate phone users whose phone gets replaced every
couple of years.
They are a key target of the iPhone 8, Xr and now 11 btw.
I am one of them.
Other than that many private owners replace their phones for the exact same reason you are replacing your camera(s). Meaning a want more than a need. And I would argue that, if you use your phone as a camera, it makes a lot more objective sense to upgrade a phone than it does to upgrade a camera in terms of ability relative to actual needs.
Most of our caméras have been good enough for 10 years with zero actual reason to upgrade, while phones are only getting there (and many here seem to think they are not there yet).
If you think phones aren’t suitable cameras (yet) you should understand right there one of the key reasons why people upgrade their phones. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Another consideration is that once phones are no longer supported they no longer get software updates making them more susceptible to exploits.
Neither Android nor iOS are bulletproof.
jim
-
Another consideration is that once phones are no longer supported they no longer get software updates making them more susceptible to exploits. Neither Android nor iOS are bulletproof.
The iOS updated on my 4S last night. It still makes calls, runs apps, and takes pictures. I skipped the 5, 6, 7, 8, X, and I’ll skip the 11 too.
-
I still have the 5C. I never use my phone for anything, to be honest. There's nothing on it. No pictures, videos, email, text messages, apps, nothing. Nada.
I never really got into using mobile devices for the web/pictures/videos/social media, even though I'm a millenial who loves technology, and I enjoy building my own computers (Windows PCs).
But everything I do is on a desktop. When I'm at social gatherings, I'm the only person not staring down at their phone, because not only do I NOT use it, but half the time, I don't even have it with me.
-
The iOS updated on my 4S last night. It still makes calls, runs apps, and takes pictures. I skipped the 5, 6, 7, 8, X, and I’ll skip the 11 too.
Won't run iOS13 due out next week.
jim
-
Won't run iOS13 due out next week.
None of my apps require iOS13.
-
I never suggested your apps wouldn't run. I said you would be increasingly exposed to exploits.
Unlike Microsoft who provides updates on old operating systems (e.g. Win7 for a few more months) Apple only provides functional and security updates for their current version of iOS, soon iOS13.
As of next week you are on your own.
Good luck.
Jim
-
I never suggested your apps wouldn't run. I said you would be increasingly exposed to exploits.
Unlike Microsoft who provides updates on old operating systems (e.g. Win7 for a few more months) Apple only provides functional and security updates for their current version of iOS, soon iOS13.
As of next week you are on your own.
Good luck.
Jim
That is not entirely true, security updates are put out for several OS versions back.
-
Delivered how?
jim
-
Delivered how?
jim
For example: https://www.macrumors.com/2019/07/22/apple-releases-gps-bug-fix-older-iphones-ipads/amp/
Meanwhile, this thread sets a record for drifting off-topic
-
Back on topic: Nikon 60MP mirrorless or DSLR is coming soon, with 16 bit NEF available: https://nikonrumors.com/2019/09/19/first-indications-of-the-rumored-nikon-camera-with-60mp-and-16-bit-nef-files.aspx
I'm ready to skip the A7R4 and just go with the 60MP Nikon. Just need adapters for my Sony FE Voigtlander APO lenses.