Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon, where are you?!  (Read 11794 times)

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: Canon, where are you?!
« Reply #40 on: February 13, 2014, 09:10:55 pm »

BJL,

Quote from the latest article by Thom Hogan about the state of mirrorless:

Price — If you want to know what's holding mirrorless back from gaining significant market share against DSLRs, this is the item, with maybe one exception. Canon and Nikon just dominate the US$500-800 price range with DSLRs. Plenty of DSLRs. Highly competent DSLRs. DSLRs that use lenses that people may already have in their closets, and for which almost any lens you'd ever desire has been made. Meanwhile, the best of the mirrorless bunch, like the E-M1 and X-T1, sell for more than the Nikon D7100, which is a supremely competent DSLR. Basically, you pay a lot of money for smaller size and weight. Meanwhile, for less money than mirrorless you can get more and better pixels generally (24mp in crop sensor DSLRs at reasonable prices, for example). Mirrorless hasn't cracked the DSLR defenses yet. The exception might be the Sony A7 and A7r. These are lower-than-DSLR price full frame mirrorless cameras. They have a size and weight advantage over the full frame DSLRs with no image quality penalties. Where they fail at equalling the DSLRs is in focus and frame rate performance, particularly with moving subjects. And where Sony is particularly vulnerable for the time being is in lens choice.

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-new-state-of-mirrorless.html

It seems that the most competent camera market analysis I know of agrees with me on that one...  ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

The part of Thom's argument I agree with is really the argument for why Canon and Nikon dominate the market for interchangeable lens cameras, irrespective of whether the have OVFs, EVF's, or just far LCDs: those two have dominated this sector for many years, which give them advantage in economies of scale, retail presence, lens ownership by potential customers, and name recognition/prestige, and one consequence of this is that they have a volume-related cost advantage.  To echo something I said before, this cost advantage or C&N already existed when Olympus, Panasonic, Fujifilm and Sony were trying to compete against C&N with SLR's too.  This is of course exacerbated (albeit temporarily) by the fact that the newer CSC systems have more R&D costs to defray compared with the incremental development that Canon and Nikon are making in their APS-C format SLRs and lens for them.

That leaves one part of the argument that is more specifically about CSCs
Quote
... for less money than mirrorless you can get more and better pixels generally (24mp in crop sensor DSLRs at reasonable prices, for example).
And here, Thom Hogan does a similar thing as you: to argue pixel counts are a decisive advantage for DSLRs over CSCs, he compares only Nikon's 24MP to Olympus' and Fujifilm's 16MP, somehow overlooking both Sony which offers CSC's at up to 24MP and the fact that the great proportion of Canon's DSLR sales are cameras of 20MP our less. That is: Canon's EF-S system's big lead over Sony's E-mount models cannot be based on a pixel count advantage (Indeed I do not see much case for any claim of sensor superiority for Canon over Sony in this sector!)

Anyway, I am more interested in what is to come, and the recent trend of somewhat less expensive EVF camera models like the Sony A6000 and Olympus E-M10 seems promising. Especially if the A6000's PDAF lives up to the promise of specs like subject tracking AF at 11fps with 196 AF points, which hints that on-sensor AF is on its way to surpassing mirror-based PDAF, to go with EVFs that are overall superior to the OVF's in their price range.
Logged

RichDesmond

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: Canon, where are you?!
« Reply #41 on: February 13, 2014, 09:13:07 pm »

Erik,

Yes, this is now. Prices do change with time.

But it is not easy to just lower prices for the mirrorless guys. Most of them appear to be losing money at the present time.

Canon and Nikon have put in place at great cost a very efficient machine from design to production that enables them to release extremely high performance DSLRs at extremely low prices.

This discussion is not about technology, it is about excellence in execution and the impact thereof on the ability of companies to release products at the right price point relative to their competition.

Cheers,
Bernard


Very good points. The critical one is this:
"Canon and Nikon have put in place at great cost a very efficient machine from design to production that enables them to release extremely high performance DSLRs at extremely low prices."

This is both their short term strength and their long term weakness. They are very wedded to their current profit lines and are loath to disrupt their cash flow. But in the long run, it will end. The question is will they be the dominate players in the post-DSLR world, or will it be someone else.

The camera line Canon needs to make:

A mirror-less body with a brand new, 24x24mm 24mp sensor. The 24mm is chosen because a: it's big enough, and b: the current EF lenses are internally baffled so that they can't use a 36x36 sensor.
A new line of lenses to take full advantage of the sensor.
EF and EF-S fully supported via an adapter.
Selectable format with native and EF lenses, 16:9, 3:2, 4:3, 1:1, 3:4, 2:3. EF-S lens only in 3:2, the camera will auto-crop the sensor output to the current APS-C size.
State of the art EVF.

This wouldn't be and shouldn't be a cheap camera. About 7D price. This should be Canon stating "This is the future, get on board or be left behind". Most of the native lenses, at least in the beginning, should be in the wides to normal range, the EF legacy lenses can handle the longer stuff.
Logged

peterottaway

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 91
Re: Canon, where are you?!
« Reply #42 on: February 13, 2014, 10:55:19 pm »

Both Canon and Nikon have really been pushing their low to medium DSLR ranges for the last couple of years. Whether this was a deliberate ploy to get as many people committed to their lens systems or just to keep the money flowing in the door,doesn't really matter. They have a somewhat committed audience for the next few years. Plus what ever incentives provides to sales staff and magazine advertising. Their names are still out there in bright lights.

It is more likely the dedicated photographer whether paid or not, who is currently interested in the Sony Nex ( don't care if Sony doesn't like me using the name ) and A7 and still  mostly using their previous lens system. And pwho will robably doing more mix and matching into the future. These photographers will be more likely to decide to shift their purchasing decisions in the future. The Sony product won't have to be better and cheaper but suitable.

This is not the mass market dollars but it does eat into money that Canon and Nikon have received in the past. And as has been pointed out these support networks and camera systems are expensive to maintain. Every RX, Nex and A7 camera ( apart from old guard Minolta and Sony buyers ) is money that the current duopoly are not getting. A likely knock out soon, no. But I don't think Canon and Nikon are enjoying things right now. And all Sony and of course Olympus etc have to do is stay in the fight.



 




 
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13614
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Canon, where are you?!
« Reply #43 on: February 14, 2014, 12:11:21 am »

Anyway, I am more interested in what is to come, and the recent trend of somewhat less expensive EVF camera models like the Sony A6000 and Olympus E-M10 seems promising. Especially if the A6000's PDAF lives up to the promise of specs like subject tracking AF at 11fps with 196 AF points, which hints that on-sensor AF is on its way to surpassing mirror-based PDAF, to go with EVFs that are overall superior to the OVF's in their price range.

Yep, the A6000 is a very interesting camera. It seem to be getting many things right.

The one thing I don't know about is the look of the lenses. I am sure that they are OK technically, but how nicely do their render?

Cheers,
Bernard

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051
Re: Canon, where are you?!
« Reply #44 on: February 14, 2014, 03:02:16 am »

The camera line Canon needs to make:

A mirror-less body with a brand new, 24x24mm 24mp sensor. The 24mm is chosen because a: it's big enough, and b: the current EF lenses are internally baffled so that they can't use a 36x36 sensor.
The response of 90% of enthusiasts might be: "is it FF? Nah, then I don't want it". A good 9% more might say "can it deliver 16:9 images for my 4k tv without cropping?".

I fail to see why Canon should not make a 24x36mm mirrorless when Sony clearly can, and the Canon catalog of lenses is optimized for this format. The only valid reason would be if 24x24mm sensors are significantly cheaper to manufacture than 24x36mm, but that is the line of thought that brought us 1.6x and 1.3x crop systems in the first place. Users and manufacturers seems to be moving away from that idea.
Quote
A new line of lenses to take full advantage of the sensor.
Easy to say, apparently costly to do.
Quote
EF and EF-S fully supported via an adapter.
Selectable format with native and EF lenses, 16:9, 3:2, 4:3, 1:1, 3:4, 2:3. EF-S lens only in 3:2, the camera will auto-crop the sensor output to the current APS-C size.
State of the art EVF.
You seem to be asking for some sort of EOS-M pro done right. It is hard to disagree that a Canon competitor to the Sony A7/r with optimal EF lens and flash compability, tailor-made lenses (wherever the geometry allows significant advantages over EF), the kind of ergonomy/ui that Canon users are comfortable with, good video etc would have been nice. With the on-sensor PDAF technology of the the 70D it might even be better for moving targets.

One problem is that you would get a level playing field. Canon would have to have sensors that matched Sony to be able to compete in such a product. At high ISO they do (I believe). If you are pitching this as some low-ISO wide-angle color-critical highly portable landscape camera, I don't think that Canon have (so far) delivered the sensors.

-h
« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 03:12:45 am by hjulenissen »
Logged

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6236
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: Canon, where are you?!
« Reply #45 on: February 14, 2014, 04:05:15 am »

Indeed the old Canikon fort is still holding strong, and I also agree with the fact that today, ANY entry to mid level DSLR is a tremendous picture taking machine, and serves the majority of people. I am always surprised when I go abroad, and see the majority of tourists with such DSLRs.

Also, lets not forget that, for example, you can build a fantastic and light FF kit say, with a Canon 6D, and cheap trio of lenses like 24, 50, and 100mm. Say you want to build a similar kit with Olympus or Fuji, and the whole thing is very expensive.

RichDesmond

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: Canon, where are you?!
« Reply #46 on: February 14, 2014, 09:55:01 am »

The response of 90% of enthusiasts might be: "is it FF? Nah, then I don't want it". A good 9% more might say "can it deliver 16:9 images for my 4k tv without cropping?".

I fail to see why Canon should not make a 24x36mm mirrorless when Sony clearly can, and the Canon catalog of lenses is optimized for this format. The only valid reason would be if 24x24mm sensors are significantly cheaper to manufacture than 24x36mm, but that is the line of thought that brought us 1.6x and 1.3x crop systems in the first place. Users and manufacturers seems to be moving away from that idea.

Well, my thinking is that the 3:2 format being so dominant is really just an accident of history. If you were designing a camera system from scratch would you pick that format? I wouldn't either. :) Canon (or Nikon) has a window of time right now where they can try and dictate the future direction of mass market photography, and install themselves as the leader.
The 24x24 is a compromise, but one that I think makes some sense. It's certainly large enough to produce really good images and it lets Canon leverage much of their existing lens base. Also think that a lot of casual photographers would love being able to change formats on the fly. And it would give Canon a great marketing angle, offering something that no one else has.
Quote

...You seem to be asking for some sort of EOS-M pro done right. It is hard to disagree that a Canon competitor to the Sony A7/r with optimal EF lens and flash compability, tailor-made lenses (wherever the geometry allows significant advantages over EF), the kind of ergonomy/ui that Canon users are comfortable with, good video etc would have been nice. With the on-sensor PDAF technology of the the 70D it might even be better for moving targets.

Exactly.

Quote
One problem is that you would get a level playing field. Canon would have to have sensors that matched Sony to be able to compete in such a product. At high ISO they do (I believe). If you are pitching this as some low-ISO wide-angle color-critical highly portable landscape camera, I don't think that Canon have (so far) delivered the sensors.

It would have to check all the boxes, sensor-wise, for sure.

Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
square formats area dead; get over it!
« Reply #47 on: February 14, 2014, 10:32:33 am »

The camera line Canon needs to make:

A mirror-less body with a brand new, 24x24mm 24mp sensor.

Why do so many people keep hoping for square format sensors when the photographic industry has solidly moved away from square formats ever since eye-level viewfinders took over from the top-down viewfinders of earlier medium format cameras?  The vast majority of photographs are in oblong shapes ranging from 5:4 to 3:2, and in fact this is also true of the vast majority of artistic still images made over the last millennium, be they paintings, drawing or photographs.  Thus a square format mostly just imposes more cropping, so that a 24x24mm sensor would mostly give usable image sizes in the range 24x16m (3:2) to 24x18mm (4:3).  Against this there is the idea of some huge advantage to not having to rotate the camera for verticals. Clearly that has not been enough of an argument so far, but let me throw up the speculation that an "EVF camera" could have a rotating sensor, or a vertical grip option that includes a second EVF for use in vertical mode, or the EVF could be separate and usable on either "top" or "side" mounting points.

The roughly 29x19mm format that Canon used in the 1D Mark II was based on being the largest sensor that it could make without the extra expense of on-wafer stitching, and yet it was eventually abandoned, I think in part because Canon never saw enough reason to provide lenses adapted to that format, so those cameras suffered from cramped wide-angle coverage. (Also, it its price range, 36x24mm sensors became adequately affordable)  Likewise, I see very little hope that Canon would develop new lenses for yet another format which would in most case produce images (after cropping almost every one) that are just slightly different in size than its current 22x15mm "EF-S" system gives.

I fail to see why Canon should not make a 24x36mm mirrorless when Sony clearly can, and the Canon catalog of lenses is optimized for this format. The only valid reason would be if 24x24mm sensors are significantly cheaper to manufacture than 24x36mm, but that is the line of thought that brought us 1.6x and 1.3x crop systems in the first place. Users and manufacturers seems to be moving away from that idea.
I can see Canon and Nikon moving to mirrorless in their current format of 36x24 and "APS-C", particularly if on-sensor PDAF fulfills its promise of enabling full AF functionality with their existing lens systems. However, the idea that user and manufacturers are moving away from the smaller ILC formats is bizarre: the sub-35mm (no stitching required) formats continue to account for the vast majority of interchangeable lens camera [ILC] sales. The predominantly high-end enthusiast and professional participants of this forum need to note that even the cheapest 36x24mm digital camera models cost far more than most ILC buyers have ever payed, and far more than most current DSLRs and CSCs sell for.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Canon and Nikon, where are you going?!
« Reply #48 on: February 14, 2014, 10:43:56 am »

Bernard, we seem to have converged!
Canon and Nikon have put in place at great cost a very efficient machine from design to production that enables them to release extremely high performance DSLRs at extremely low prices.

This discussion is not about technology, it is about excellence in execution and the impact thereof on the ability of companies to release products at the right price point relative to their competition.
Also,
Yep, the A6000 … The one thing I don't know about is the look of the lenses.
As far as I can tell, the latest on-sensor AF technology should be highly compatible with adaptor-mounted SLR lenses as a transitional measure, so that helps the lens selection and quality a lot. But it seems that in the longer run, CDAF- and video-friendly linear stepper motors will take over: Canon has even put such AF motors (under the name STM) in most of its recent SLR lenses. (Pioneered in still cameras by Olympus AFAIK, but Canon's recent moves testify to the big two's ability to come from behind when they see a need to.)
Logged

Misirlou

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
    • http://
Re: square formats area dead; get over it!
« Reply #49 on: February 14, 2014, 12:00:03 pm »

Why do so many people keep hoping for square format sensors when the photographic industry has solidly moved away from square formats ever since eye-level viewfinders took over from the top-down viewfinders of earlier medium format cameras?  The vast majority of photographs are in oblong shapes ranging from 5:4 to 3:2, and in fact this is also true of the vast majority of artistic still images made over the last millennium, be they paintings, drawing or photographs.  Thus a square format mostly just imposes more cropping, so that a 24x24mm sensor would mostly give usable image sizes in the range 24x16m (3:2) to 24x18mm (4:3).  Against this there is the idea of some huge advantage to not having to rotate the camera for verticals. Clearly that has not been enough of an argument so far, but let me throw up the speculation that an "EVF camera" could have a rotating sensor, or a vertical grip option that includes a second EVF for use in vertical mode, or the EVF could be separate and usable on either "top" or "side" mounting points.

The roughly 29x19mm format that Canon used in the 1D Mark II was based on being the largest sensor that it could make without the extra expense of on-wafer stitching, and yet it was eventually abandoned, I think in part because Canon never saw enough reason to provide lenses adapted to that format, so those cameras suffered from cramped wide-angle coverage. (Also, it its price range, 36x24mm sensors became adequately affordable)  Likewise, I see very little hope that Canon would develop new lenses for yet another format which would in most case produce images (after cropping almost every one) that are just slightly different in size than its current 22x15mm "EF-S" system gives.
I can see Canon and Nikon moving to mirrorless in their current format of 36x24 and "APS-C", particularly if on-sensor PDAF fulfills its promise of enabling full AF functionality with their existing lens systems. However, the idea that user and manufacturers are moving away from the smaller ILC formats is bizarre: the sub-35mm (no stitching required) formats continue to account for the vast majority of interchangeable lens camera [ILC] sales. The predominantly high-end enthusiast and professional participants of this forum need to note that even the cheapest 36x24mm digital camera models cost far more than most ILC buyers have ever payed, and far more than most current DSLRs and CSCs sell for.

I actually quite like square photos. I crop a lot of my DSLR shots to square, and I really wish I had a set of square guidelines in my 6D finder.

But one of the best things about a square frame is that the camera never has to change orientation. You hold it the same way for portraits that you do for landscapes, meaning only one tripod foot, one shutter release, etc., etc.
Logged

RichDesmond

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
Re: square formats area dead; get over it!
« Reply #50 on: February 14, 2014, 01:07:42 pm »

Why do so many people keep hoping for square format sensors when the photographic industry has solidly moved away from square formats ever since eye-level viewfinders took over from the top-down viewfinders of earlier medium format cameras?  The vast majority of photographs are in oblong shapes ranging from 5:4 to 3:2, and in fact this is also true of the vast majority of artistic still images made over the last millennium, be they paintings, drawing or photographs.  Thus a square format mostly just imposes more cropping, so that a 24x24mm sensor would mostly give usable image sizes in the range 24x16m (3:2) to 24x18mm (4:3).  Against this there is the idea of some huge advantage to not having to rotate the camera for verticals. Clearly that has not been enough of an argument so far, but let me throw up the speculation that an "EVF camera" could have a rotating sensor, or a vertical grip option that includes a second EVF for use in vertical mode, or the EVF could be separate and usable on either "top" or "side" mounting points...

On a non-square format something is always cropped or wasted, either the lenses image circle or the sensor. It's not that I'd shoot a square image all that often, but the ability to change formats on the fly would certainly be a convenience. And sensors are much cheaper than a collection of lenses, so to me it makes more sense to waste that area.
Again, I think the average APS-C DSLR buyer would love to have that ability, and more savvy users could either use it or just crop in post, whatever was easier for them.

But there's no way Canon is going to build anything like this anyway. :)
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: square formats area dead; get over it!
« Reply #51 on: February 14, 2014, 01:16:49 pm »

I actually quite like square photos.
I also like them in a few cases (and also prefer 5:4 and 4:3 over 3:2 for the majority of my images.)  My point was that a square format camera is extremely unlikely, and certainly not what Canon "needs to do"; not that there is no one who would want one.  The evidence I already mentioned shows that "square picture fans" are and always have been vastly outnumbered by "oblong picture fans", so it does not make much sense for a company like Canon to develop a new cameras format that is better for that tiny fraction of potential customers but worse for most.
But one of the best things about a square frame is that the camera never has to change orientation.
Which I already mentioned; I even proposed some partial alternative solutions. But again, if the question is "will it happen?" as opposed to "would a few people like it to happen because for them the advantages outweigh the disadvantages that would drive most customers away?", the answer seems clear.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: square formats area dead; get over it!
« Reply #52 on: February 14, 2014, 01:31:06 pm »

On a non-square format something is always cropped or wasted, either the lenses image circle or the sensor.
Nonsense: with a format like 4:3 or 3:2, many photographs need little or no cropping and even the ones that do need cropping usually need far less than would be required with a square sensor.

As to "lens image circle" cropping:
1) This issue is vastly over-rated: most lenses at most focal lengths have an optical design that produces an image circle larger than necessary, which is then cut down to the format in use by a combination of internal baffles in the lens and by the sensor itself. It is mostly only wide to normal lenses and zoom lenses at their shortest, wide-angle end that are "tight" for image circle coverage.  The niche for square wide-angle images is even tinier, and even less likely to dictate the choice of sensor shape.

2)  Comparing square and oblong sensors that fit the same image circle, an oblong sensor is wider (and less high), and so when composing for any shape other than square, it is the square sensor that records a smaller part of the image delivered by the lens. (Alternatively, the square sensor could be as wide as the oblong one by going beyond the image circle, but that just raises the cost even more: a fairer comparison is between sensors of equal size and thus of roughly equal cost.)

3) What is that point of recording more of the image circle by recording a square (or circle; don't forget the lobby for circular sensors!) if it is then cropped in almost all cases because the desired composition is oblong, not square?


One more point about those internal baffles: they are there to reduce flare, and if the baffles are widened to admit a square image, they let more unwanted light in, degrading some images. The extreme case is where a bright light source like the sun is just outside the desired (non-square) framing, but within the square covered by the sensor.  So once again, the benefits for the relatively rare square images come at the cost of potentially degrading the vast majority of images.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2014, 06:29:07 pm by BJL »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13614
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Canon, where are you?!
« Reply #53 on: February 15, 2014, 12:37:21 am »

I personally like the square format as one option, especially because, probably thanks to its rarity, it seems to bring coherence for a series of images in a portfolio. The value would be lost in a split second if we had square sensors. ;)

Now, do we need square sensors? Not sure we do because IMHO more images end up working better in a non square aspect ratio. We would end up wasting more pixels overall with square sensors.

Besides, cropping a 36mp image to square still keeps 24mp, which is sufficient for very large prints when everything is done right.

When more is needed it is often possible to perform a 2 shot stitch to reach a 48mp square image. It would be very easy for landscape shooters interested in square images to shoot everything using a pano head. Which is what I have been doing for a few years in fact.

Now, I would be more in favor of circular sensors using the full potential of the image circle, but that would be a poor usage of wafers, wouldn't it?

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 12:44:00 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: Canon, where are you?!
« Reply #54 on: February 15, 2014, 12:08:18 pm »

Erik,

Yes, this is now. Prices do change with time.

But it is not easy to just lower prices for the mirrorless guys. Most of them appear to be losing money at the present time.

Canon and Nikon have put in place at great cost a very efficient machine from design to production that enables them to release extremely high performance DSLRs at extremely low prices.

This discussion is not about technology, it is about excellence in execution and the impact thereof on the ability of companies to release products at the right price point relative to their competition.

Cheers,
Bernard



It's a margin grab from ILC makers from what I can see, and I can't blame people for carrying on buying DSLR's.
Why pay more for less?

ILC's have been out for quite some time and they are not cheaper or as competitive as DSLR's. Due to less parts and quicker assembly there is every reason to expect ILC's to be cheaper to buy. Even more so the ones without a viewfinder.

Until mirror less makers start to share some of the saved costs, they'll be fighting an uphill battle against DSLR's
People complain about Canon being slow and using old sensors, chanting death to the mirror, calling old tech for dinosaurs etc etc. Reality is Canon are doing just fine sitting on what is a vast system. That's the reason Thom Hogans article strikes a cord with many. It's a little late in the day for ILC makers to try to take on the top dog. Where were they 7-8 years ago when they might have had a chance?
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 12:10:14 pm by barryfitzgerald »
Logged

scooby70

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
Re: Canon, where are you?!
« Reply #55 on: February 15, 2014, 04:30:28 pm »

It's a little late in the day for ILC makers to try to take on the top dog. Where were they 7-8 years ago when they might have had a chance?

This makes me think back to the days when Kodak was top dog. Where's Kodak now?

My point is... you never know what the future may bring :D
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: Canon, where are you?!
« Reply #56 on: February 15, 2014, 07:03:46 pm »

ILC's have been out for quite some time and they are not cheaper or as competitive as DSLR's. Due to less parts and quicker assembly there is every reason to expect ILC's to be cheaper to buy. Even more so the ones without a viewfinder.
Perhaps you missed the part of this discussion were I pointed out that the CSC's(*) without EVFs do start at distinctly lower prices than DSLRs and that Bernard's list consisted only of "EVF cameras", and Bernard then explained that he was thinking only of them in his price comments, as being more direct competitors to DSLRs.

In fact the Sony A3000 is an EVF camera priced below recent models of DSLRs (and even matching price with older end-of-life entry level DSLR models with previous generation sensors.)


(*) "CSC" or "mirrorless" or "EVIL", but not ILC, since "interchangeable lens camera" includes both SLR and CSC.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2014, 07:13:24 pm by BJL »
Logged

barryfitzgerald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
Re: Canon, where are you?!
« Reply #57 on: February 16, 2014, 07:16:08 am »

Perhaps you missed the part of this discussion were I pointed out that the CSC's(*) without EVFs do start at distinctly lower prices than DSLRs and that Bernard's list consisted only of "EVF cameras", and Bernard then explained that he was thinking only of them in his price comments, as being more direct competitors to DSLRs.

In fact the Sony A3000 is an EVF camera priced below recent models of DSLRs (and even matching price with older end-of-life entry level DSLR models with previous generation sensors.)


(*) "CSC" or "mirrorless" or "EVIL", but not ILC, since "interchangeable lens camera" includes both SLR and CSC.

Have you tried the A3000? I have and it's an embarrassingly poor camera with a fairly good sensor trapped in there.
The EVF is bridge cam small and poor resolution, E mount has far fewer lenses than A Mount let alone Canikon which both have huge systems, the body has a low res rear LCD and fairly leisurely AF at that.

For the sake of saving £50 (v super budget DSLR's) I think it's a waste of time myself unless you have a bunch of e mount bodies and want a super cheap body.
If you fall into the might buy a compact premium model and want a sensor then like the Nikon one on blowout discounts it might be worth a shot.

As a system camera though it doesn't stand a chance
Logged

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
Re: Canon, where are you?!
« Reply #58 on: February 18, 2014, 04:31:06 am »

I'm not sure where any camera maker will be  in the future. The masses shoot with phones, heck even I these days when I'm out and about just use me iPhone. My everyday camera once was a Makina 67. A phone covers the day to day things really well.
It looks like an over saturated market that is probably diminishing in support. I just wonder wether enough people will be around willing to invest in dedicated picture computers to support the number of companies and the huge variety of products they produce.
The typical smart phone out shoots most of the consumer cameras of a few years ago. There will always be some that are enthusiastic about the "art" and willing to pay, not as many as there once was. I can only see room for the upper end surviving long term and I bet Canon will be one of them….probably.
Today Canon make top notch cameras as do Nikon, Sony etc. the differences are small even if the DXO numbers are big. The cover story on the Fuji X made me smile. He shot jpg in Velvia style, there goes your DR and income your jpg limitations, all things that get evaluated to death to decide which is the best camera. Shooting like that would more than level the field amongst any pick of cameras. But it worked so you can't knock it. Seriously stop reading the pointless lab data to decide if a camera is any good.
Logged
Kevin.
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up