Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge(eoshd.com)
eoshd.com
Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge
https://www.eoshd.com/2019/07/canon-rush-to-reassure-investors-as-camera-profits-plunge-64/
131 comments
Most of the stuff you wrote can be done with modern cameras.
Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji et al have mobile apps with a variety of functionality depending on model. But all basically allow you to connect via bluetooth to GPS tag pictures and download them via Wifi to your phone, where you can 'directly post them to Instagram'. You can charge most modern cameras (Canon EOS R, Sony A7(R)III, Nikon Z6/Z7, Fuji XT-3(0) etc) with USB-C.
Canon and Nikon have great touch screen support, Fuji so-so, Sony horrible.
I am not saying everything is perfect. But it seems you haven't done research on modern cameras.
Trying to put a whole phone stack in there isn't the core competency of any of those manufacturers (except barely Sony, though a different division). It's not just "slap a SIM and a beefier CPU" in there. Camera CPUs are highly specialised. So you'd have to essentially put another phone in there. That adds BOM cost plus reasearch and development of folks without core competency. Issues with software updates, compatibility, let alone battery life. All so you can edit a picture on a tiny 3" screen to post a 4megapixel version of a 24-45Megapixel original image directly to instagram?
Zeiss is coming out with a phone just with everything you've described. They're late. It will be huge. It will be incredibly expensive. Not sure I'd want to go that route.
I am not saying everything is perfect. But it seems you haven't done research on modern cameras.
Trying to put a whole phone stack in there isn't the core competency of any of those manufacturers (except barely Sony, though a different division). It's not just "slap a SIM and a beefier CPU" in there. Camera CPUs are highly specialised. So you'd have to essentially put another phone in there. That adds BOM cost plus reasearch and development of folks without core competency. Issues with software updates, compatibility, let alone battery life. All so you can edit a picture on a tiny 3" screen to post a 4megapixel version of a 24-45Megapixel original image directly to instagram?
Zeiss is coming out with a phone just with everything you've described. They're late. It will be huge. It will be incredibly expensive. Not sure I'd want to go that route.
> Why can't download the photos directly to a phone?
I have Canon and Leica cameras, mid and high end, that do this.
> Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable?
There are cameras that will.
> how much more could adding a touch screen
Notably Sony stands alone in being the only major manufacturer _without_ touch.
> a simple auto-mode (which disables most buttons and hides advanced menus)
Not sure about other manufacturers, but this would be Canon's "creative" mode, available on (at least) entry levels) to the $3,000 body only 5D IV.
> and upload to instagram feature
> It's ridiculous that the most expensive cameras in the world can't connect to the number one place in the world where pictures are posted.
Agreed. And it's Instagram's fault. You can't upload to IG from your computer (without your browser pretending to be mobile). APIs for third party app-based uploads are near non-existent, and the people who _do_ try to maintain plugins to export to IG from Lightroom, etc., are constantly playing cat and mouse.
Not sure how this correlates to a "lack of vision from DSLR companies" - IG is actively hostile to uploading to IG from anywhere but its own apps.
I have Canon and Leica cameras, mid and high end, that do this.
> Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable?
There are cameras that will.
> how much more could adding a touch screen
Notably Sony stands alone in being the only major manufacturer _without_ touch.
> a simple auto-mode (which disables most buttons and hides advanced menus)
Not sure about other manufacturers, but this would be Canon's "creative" mode, available on (at least) entry levels) to the $3,000 body only 5D IV.
> and upload to instagram feature
> It's ridiculous that the most expensive cameras in the world can't connect to the number one place in the world where pictures are posted.
Agreed. And it's Instagram's fault. You can't upload to IG from your computer (without your browser pretending to be mobile). APIs for third party app-based uploads are near non-existent, and the people who _do_ try to maintain plugins to export to IG from Lightroom, etc., are constantly playing cat and mouse.
Not sure how this correlates to a "lack of vision from DSLR companies" - IG is actively hostile to uploading to IG from anywhere but its own apps.
> Notably Sony stands alone in being the only major manufacturer _without_ touch.
Sony has touch screens on their cameras. It's of limited usefulness though, mainly limited to focus points.
Sony has touch screens on their cameras. It's of limited usefulness though, mainly limited to focus points.
> Not sure how this correlates to a "lack of vision from DSLR companies"
Where there is a will, there is a way. Just turn the camera into an android phone.
https://www.thephoblographer.com/2019/03/10/the-new-yongnuo-...
Where there is a will, there is a way. Just turn the camera into an android phone.
https://www.thephoblographer.com/2019/03/10/the-new-yongnuo-...
It's a huge investment in software and hardware for an almost non-existent user base. Most current DSLRs already have Wifi or a Wifi option; those that don't can be fitted with a Wifi SD card. It turns out that hardly anyone actually uses that feature, because Wifi transfer rates are generally a more problematic bottleneck than the inconvenience of pulling the SD card and putting it into a card reader. The main users of Wifi tethering appear to be sports and news photographers, who do sometimes need to upload a photo right now.
Adding what amounts to an entire smartphone to every DSLR is simply madness - the kind of person who spends >$1000 on a bulky and complex camera is almost certainly the kind of person who has an Adobe Creative Cloud account; they're not going to post-process an image on the back of their camera through choice.
Adding what amounts to an entire smartphone to every DSLR is simply madness - the kind of person who spends >$1000 on a bulky and complex camera is almost certainly the kind of person who has an Adobe Creative Cloud account; they're not going to post-process an image on the back of their camera through choice.
> for an almost non-existent user base
> the kind of person who spends >$1000 on a bulky and complex camera
I'm talking about opening up a new market - instagrammers, who already spend money on ring lights, tripods for their phones, but who don't want to learn all the intricacies of using a DSLR camera + adapters + laptop.
The DSLR camera makers focus on a constant/shrinking market of pros, while totally ignoring a booming Instagram market.
> the kind of person who spends >$1000 on a bulky and complex camera
I'm talking about opening up a new market - instagrammers, who already spend money on ring lights, tripods for their phones, but who don't want to learn all the intricacies of using a DSLR camera + adapters + laptop.
The DSLR camera makers focus on a constant/shrinking market of pros, while totally ignoring a booming Instagram market.
>I'm talking about opening up a new market - instagrammers, who already spend money on ring lights, tripods for their phones, but who don't want to learn all the intricacies of using a DSLR camera + adapters + laptop.
The people who don't want to learn the intricacies of photography just use their phone. Unless you learn those intricacies, your phone will reliably take better images, because Apple have spent stupid amounts of R&D money on optimising their image post-processing.
The better lens and sensor on a DSLR is essentially irrelevant to Instagrammers, because the limitations of phone camera hardware are barely visible on a 6" phone screen in typical shooting scenarios. The point of using a DSLR-type camera is to gain more control over the imagemaking process. Unless you actually learn something about photography, that extra control is just an array of footguns. Faffing about with cables and cards is utterly trivial compared to pretty much any aspect of serious photography.
The people who don't want to learn the intricacies of photography just use their phone. Unless you learn those intricacies, your phone will reliably take better images, because Apple have spent stupid amounts of R&D money on optimising their image post-processing.
The better lens and sensor on a DSLR is essentially irrelevant to Instagrammers, because the limitations of phone camera hardware are barely visible on a 6" phone screen in typical shooting scenarios. The point of using a DSLR-type camera is to gain more control over the imagemaking process. Unless you actually learn something about photography, that extra control is just an array of footguns. Faffing about with cables and cards is utterly trivial compared to pretty much any aspect of serious photography.
>The people who don't want to learn the intricacies of photography just use their phone. Unless you learn those intricacies, your phone will reliably take better images, because Apple have spent stupid amounts of R&D money on optimising their image post-processing.
Every SLR I've seen has an Auto mode. You don't need to know intricacies to put it in that mode and leave it there forever.
I don't know why people keep parroting that an iphone is capable of comparable images to an SLR, it's just not true.
Even on Auto everything and with the result shrunk down to 2 Megapixels, an SLR will take much more pleasing images. The short depth of field will be very noticeable. In anything close to lower light the difference will be astronomical. Like a nice image instead of a blurry mess that you immediately delete.
Yes, the differences will be noticeable on a phone screen. DOF makes a massive difference to the overall image.
You can't get around physics and the weight and size of those lenses are tolerated for a good reason. If it was only about control then you there would definitely be camera phones with all the functionality of SLRs.
When the lens is so hopelessly tiny there's no point trying to control anything else because you will hit the limits of the lens/sensor in basically any situation. You can't open the aperture wide enough to get a pleasing DOF, and you don't have enough leeway to control shutter speed. And forget about zooming. All of those things are advantages because of the larger lenses, and are the difference between nice photos and, well, cameraphone images.
I would definitely think Instagrammers, with their endless vanity, would be interested in anything that makes their photos more appealing.
Every SLR I've seen has an Auto mode. You don't need to know intricacies to put it in that mode and leave it there forever.
I don't know why people keep parroting that an iphone is capable of comparable images to an SLR, it's just not true.
Even on Auto everything and with the result shrunk down to 2 Megapixels, an SLR will take much more pleasing images. The short depth of field will be very noticeable. In anything close to lower light the difference will be astronomical. Like a nice image instead of a blurry mess that you immediately delete.
Yes, the differences will be noticeable on a phone screen. DOF makes a massive difference to the overall image.
You can't get around physics and the weight and size of those lenses are tolerated for a good reason. If it was only about control then you there would definitely be camera phones with all the functionality of SLRs.
When the lens is so hopelessly tiny there's no point trying to control anything else because you will hit the limits of the lens/sensor in basically any situation. You can't open the aperture wide enough to get a pleasing DOF, and you don't have enough leeway to control shutter speed. And forget about zooming. All of those things are advantages because of the larger lenses, and are the difference between nice photos and, well, cameraphone images.
I would definitely think Instagrammers, with their endless vanity, would be interested in anything that makes their photos more appealing.
After all the resizing, compression, and filtering artifacts are applied, I imagine the high price and inconvenience of the additional gadget would be a difficult obstacle to overcome for almost negligible difference in picture quality. DSLRs, even those from the mid 2000s take gorgeous pictures compared to even the best smartphones today, but that difference barely shows on an Instagram feed.
[deleted]
This is akin to people who said "why would you want computer-like features on your phone? Everyone who's willing to pay $500+ for a phone already has a laptop!"
A very large number of would-be content creators (not just Instagram, either - YouTubers also) want the higher image quality, dynamic range, optical zoom, interchangeable lenses, etc. of a full-body camera, but don't want to deal with the clunky interfaces and multi-step processes just to get your images/videos to a format, style, and place you want them. Yes, that's a subset of the market, but it's probably a bigger potential userbase than traditional "pure" photographers.
A very large number of would-be content creators (not just Instagram, either - YouTubers also) want the higher image quality, dynamic range, optical zoom, interchangeable lenses, etc. of a full-body camera, but don't want to deal with the clunky interfaces and multi-step processes just to get your images/videos to a format, style, and place you want them. Yes, that's a subset of the market, but it's probably a bigger potential userbase than traditional "pure" photographers.
I think any video editing on a ~3in, sub HD screen on the back of a camera is going to be a horrible experience because of sheer logistics (UI, controls), rather than "vision-less manufacturers". Not to mention issues like slow media access speeds, horrible upload speeds, etc. I really don't think video editing on your camera is anywhere the market you think it is. Especially for people wanting "higher IQ, interchangeable lenses", etc. Apart from anything else, most of those people are dealing with B roll, intros, etc., or should the camera have to deal with that? And audio editing, or background music? I don't think this seems like much of an area where you can blame cameras. And it's certainly not a bigger market than "people who want to use a camera to take pictures".
> A very large number of would-be content creators (not just Instagram, either - YouTubers also) want the higher image quality, dynamic range, optical zoom, interchangeable lenses,
I also agree with you.
It seems that the most appealing features of modern DSLRs, except fast autofocus, are hidden behind 90s interfaces with multi-button setups and so on.
Additionally, modern DSLRs must have appstore-like capabilities built into the camera (rather than into a phone device that attaches to camera).
This is where Nikon/Sony/Cannon/Panasonic/Olympus/Pentax(or whoever their new owners are) -- really need to come together with some standard API/interfaces.
I am somewhat disappointing that Samsung with their NX line exited the market, they had some interesting features that I would like to see licensed-for-free to other makers -- like lens based controls.
There is so much of unexplored UI real-state on the cameras, and opportunity for standardization -- that's is so sad to see complete lack of innovation from the dSLR makers.
I do not think vanilla mobile OSes are right platform for the camera... (because of the UIs).
If anything, I suspect these companies have the people (or could get them), but they have to change their culture across marketing/support/software engineering areas. Not just how they do business, but how they hire.
A somewhat separate example: companies like Panasonic, while excelling at device engineering and manufacturing seem to be completely and utterly incompetent when building phone apps that control their own devices (in this example talking about home security products).
I also agree with you.
It seems that the most appealing features of modern DSLRs, except fast autofocus, are hidden behind 90s interfaces with multi-button setups and so on.
Additionally, modern DSLRs must have appstore-like capabilities built into the camera (rather than into a phone device that attaches to camera).
This is where Nikon/Sony/Cannon/Panasonic/Olympus/Pentax(or whoever their new owners are) -- really need to come together with some standard API/interfaces.
I am somewhat disappointing that Samsung with their NX line exited the market, they had some interesting features that I would like to see licensed-for-free to other makers -- like lens based controls.
There is so much of unexplored UI real-state on the cameras, and opportunity for standardization -- that's is so sad to see complete lack of innovation from the dSLR makers.
I do not think vanilla mobile OSes are right platform for the camera... (because of the UIs).
If anything, I suspect these companies have the people (or could get them), but they have to change their culture across marketing/support/software engineering areas. Not just how they do business, but how they hire.
A somewhat separate example: companies like Panasonic, while excelling at device engineering and manufacturing seem to be completely and utterly incompetent when building phone apps that control their own devices (in this example talking about home security products).
>It seems that the most appealing features of modern >DSLRs, except fast autofocus, are hidden behind 90s >interfaces with multi-button setups and so on.
What features are you referring to? Personally as someone who likes to take photos, I find the tactile multi-button/dial interface ideal and don't want a menu driven touch UI. It seems like some people want to co-opt a camera type made primarily for photography and turn it into a social media focused camcorder. I know the companies are trying to tap into that market but it feels like it is turning cameras into jacks of all trades and masters of none. I find the pricing obscene, but some current Leica models are stills only and have very elegant and simple interfaces designed purely for taking photographs. There are high quality cinema cameras all over to choose from. It seems people are pulling the DLSR/interchangeable lens mirrorless camera market in two different directions with opposing goals...photography vs social media/video production.
What features are you referring to? Personally as someone who likes to take photos, I find the tactile multi-button/dial interface ideal and don't want a menu driven touch UI. It seems like some people want to co-opt a camera type made primarily for photography and turn it into a social media focused camcorder. I know the companies are trying to tap into that market but it feels like it is turning cameras into jacks of all trades and masters of none. I find the pricing obscene, but some current Leica models are stills only and have very elegant and simple interfaces designed purely for taking photographs. There are high quality cinema cameras all over to choose from. It seems people are pulling the DLSR/interchangeable lens mirrorless camera market in two different directions with opposing goals...photography vs social media/video production.
> What features are you referring to?
Multiple exposure bracketing
Rear curtain flash sync
Exposure compensation
Overall -- the 'preview experience is not great, at all
I do not do much video, because I could not really figure out how to control auto focus selectively (when I want certain things in focus, and certain things out of focus as I pan)
Multiple exposure bracketing
Rear curtain flash sync
Exposure compensation
Overall -- the 'preview experience is not great, at all
-- this should be picture-in-picture kind of view.I do not do much video, because I could not really figure out how to control auto focus selectively (when I want certain things in focus, and certain things out of focus as I pan)
My 14yo Lumix bridge camera can do Bracketing and Exposure compensation with a button press. Every DLSR I have used can with no look buttons and dials as well. I don't know about the flash sync as I never used that. What cameras are you using that the above things require menu hunting?
The multiple settings preview thing sounds interesting but isn't something I can see using myself. The video autofocus stuff is another example of why I don't like photography cameras being repurposed as camcorders, although I read dual-pixel AF and its equivalents are quite good. No personal experience though as I have no video interest really.
The multiple settings preview thing sounds interesting but isn't something I can see using myself. The video autofocus stuff is another example of why I don't like photography cameras being repurposed as camcorders, although I read dual-pixel AF and its equivalents are quite good. No personal experience though as I have no video interest really.
Most of the YouTubers to whom I subscribe, who produce video and mention or show the equipment they use to do so, turn out to be using Canon DSLRs. If you're already doing video production, the single additional step of pulling an SD card out of a camera and sticking it in a computer to pull your raw takes off isn't a high bar to clear.
With regard to Instagram, sure, you have a point. A DSLR-to-social-media flow doesn't have anything like the same ease of use as one involving a phone camera. But I'm willing to argue that the production values involved in being a serious Instagram influencer, and the degree of artifice that's necessary to that sector's pretense of an artlessly beautiful life, means the bar for switching to an interchangeable-lens system isn't as high as you think it is. Indeed, I'd be astonished if a significant segment of that crowd has not already done so.
With regard to Instagram, sure, you have a point. A DSLR-to-social-media flow doesn't have anything like the same ease of use as one involving a phone camera. But I'm willing to argue that the production values involved in being a serious Instagram influencer, and the degree of artifice that's necessary to that sector's pretense of an artlessly beautiful life, means the bar for switching to an interchangeable-lens system isn't as high as you think it is. Indeed, I'd be astonished if a significant segment of that crowd has not already done so.
All the serious guys are already using pro equipment - DSLRs with interchangeable lenses.
And they all have to cut and edit their video, because thats what they do.
So being able to edit on a 2" screen when you care about quality to the point where you're getting a DSLR doesn't make any sense, so it isn't implemented.
And they all have to cut and edit their video, because thats what they do.
So being able to edit on a 2" screen when you care about quality to the point where you're getting a DSLR doesn't make any sense, so it isn't implemented.
How many Instagrammers and YouTubers do you personally know? How many conversations have you had with them about their needs, preferences and workflow? Have you ever done a direct image quality comparison between an iPhone X and a mid-range DSLR?
I think that huge investment is going to pay off several times over for whichever company is willing to make it. Canon and Nikon each share almost 50% of this market because their offerings aren't much different from one another. A DSLR that has the same functionalities, software magic and ease of use as a phone would be a game-changing product. Right now phone cameras are so far ahead technologically but permanently held back by physical form-factor. The only thing preventing camera companies from matching them is making massive investments in their software divisions.
The user base would be everyone who buys <$1000 crop sensor cameras, which is already significant. This includes parents taking photos of their kids playing sports from across the field, (un)official school photographers, Instagram boyfriends, all non-pro photographers who need separate telephoto lenses. Improving ease of use would expand this market greatly since the main barrier to entry is learning how to use a DSLR.
The user base would be everyone who buys <$1000 crop sensor cameras, which is already significant. This includes parents taking photos of their kids playing sports from across the field, (un)official school photographers, Instagram boyfriends, all non-pro photographers who need separate telephoto lenses. Improving ease of use would expand this market greatly since the main barrier to entry is learning how to use a DSLR.
Wifi tethering is cumbersome to set up and is a janky experience.
I want to take a picture of someone at a party and share it with them in a few seconds like I can do on my phone.
It is the main reason I don't use a DSLR much at all anymore.
I want to take a picture of someone at a party and share it with them in a few seconds like I can do on my phone.
It is the main reason I don't use a DSLR much at all anymore.
Completely agree. Why don't they provide APIs so people can customize the behavior and processing? Take a look at this:
https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/04/experimental-nighttime-pho...
Using a relatively crappy camera on a phone, they were able to get great results merely because they can program it.
As a simple example: I want to reduce high ISO noise by taking N photos and taking the median. This is an established technique in photo editing. Why do I have to manually tell the camera to take those N photos (and make sure autofocus and autoexposure is not enabled), and then transfer N images, and then load a program to do the median calculation for me? Why can't I create a plugin/app for my camera where I just input the number of photos and it does it all for me?
I think any camera manufacturer that makes an API available for their cameras could see a serious boost. People no longer have to rely on the company deciding what cool features to add.
There's really not been any serious innovation in DSLRs in over a decade. Pentax occasionally comes up with something neat, but that's about it.
https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/04/experimental-nighttime-pho...
Using a relatively crappy camera on a phone, they were able to get great results merely because they can program it.
As a simple example: I want to reduce high ISO noise by taking N photos and taking the median. This is an established technique in photo editing. Why do I have to manually tell the camera to take those N photos (and make sure autofocus and autoexposure is not enabled), and then transfer N images, and then load a program to do the median calculation for me? Why can't I create a plugin/app for my camera where I just input the number of photos and it does it all for me?
I think any camera manufacturer that makes an API available for their cameras could see a serious boost. People no longer have to rely on the company deciding what cool features to add.
There's really not been any serious innovation in DSLRs in over a decade. Pentax occasionally comes up with something neat, but that's about it.
You can already customise the behaviour of a Canon DSLR, because there's an open-source third-party firmware option with a Lua API.
https://magiclantern.fm/
https://magiclantern.fm/
Casio had some cool features on their "High Speed" cameras. eg the EX-100 and before it the FH-100. It can buffer photos at 40fps while you half-hold the shutter, and then when you fully press the shutter, it will save a certain number of those frames from even before you fully depressed it. Great for catching, eg a bird taking off, or a sporting event.
It was an amazing feature but Casio has sadly exited the camera market now, and I haven't seen another camera with the same kind of feature.
It was an amazing feature but Casio has sadly exited the camera market now, and I haven't seen another camera with the same kind of feature.
You can't do that because no one is building general-purpose computers into DSLRs - or, for that matter, MILCs - because no one cares about that use case, and the resources wasted on making it possible are better spent on supporting the things that photographers expect cameras to do.
That said, you probably could do something like that with sufficient effort invested in CHDK or Magic Lantern or whatever the current homebrew Canon firmware project is lately. I'll be fascinated to see what you come up with!
That said, you probably could do something like that with sufficient effort invested in CHDK or Magic Lantern or whatever the current homebrew Canon firmware project is lately. I'll be fascinated to see what you come up with!
>because no one cares about that use case, and the resources wasted on making it possible are better spent on supporting the things that photographers expect cameras to do.
No one except all the people who are using smartphones instead of DSLR's, causing a decline in sales?
And what do you mean "no one cares"? The use case I've provided are precisely ones that "real" photographers care about. The amateur non-hobbyist photographer isn't going to want to do stacking on photos. The serious hobbyist/professional is.
CHDK and Magic Lantern are great. My problem is that I don't use a Canon :-) But even if I did, I assume these are all unofficial? The idea is for the manufacturer to have official APIs. Now of course, it does make it more likely one will reduce the lifetime of a camera with a poorly written plugin (e.g. one that wildly keeps using the focusing motors), but they can simply say the warranty is voided if you install custom firmware/plugins.
No one except all the people who are using smartphones instead of DSLR's, causing a decline in sales?
And what do you mean "no one cares"? The use case I've provided are precisely ones that "real" photographers care about. The amateur non-hobbyist photographer isn't going to want to do stacking on photos. The serious hobbyist/professional is.
CHDK and Magic Lantern are great. My problem is that I don't use a Canon :-) But even if I did, I assume these are all unofficial? The idea is for the manufacturer to have official APIs. Now of course, it does make it more likely one will reduce the lifetime of a camera with a poorly written plugin (e.g. one that wildly keeps using the focusing motors), but they can simply say the warranty is voided if you install custom firmware/plugins.
Yeah, I mean, I do exposure stacking sometimes too, when I'm goofing around trying and failing to get good at landscape photography, for example. Sure, it's a bit of extra work to produce a finished shot. But it's not so much extra work that I've ever wanted to write code against an API built into my camera to do it for me, especially not when software tools already exist that let you load a set of images and then more or less automatically stack them for you. The same is true of macro focus stacking, which is a lot more work when done by hand. And I'm a lot happier with the idea of paying $50 or $100 for an application I run on the general-purpose computer I already own to do this kind of work, than I am with the idea of cramming a general-purpose computer into a camera that will not be a better camera, and may well be a worse one, for the addition.
(I don't shoot Canon either, and yes, the homebrew firmwares are homebrew and thus not officially supported. I don't really know what effect they have on the warranty, but based on things I've heard, I think people just reflash bodies with stock firmware before shipping to the service center and it's basically fine.)
It's also worth noting that smartphones and ILCs don't compete directly any more. They never really did; once smartphones with good enough cameras to take casual snapshots and family photos started happening, ILCs were done in that market. Since then, they've been specializing toward those markets where they don't have to compete against smartphones. You're more or less suggesting that they do the opposite, and I don't know if you realize that the reason they're not already doing that is because they got murdered the last time they tried it and they're not in a hurry to get murdered again.
(I don't shoot Canon either, and yes, the homebrew firmwares are homebrew and thus not officially supported. I don't really know what effect they have on the warranty, but based on things I've heard, I think people just reflash bodies with stock firmware before shipping to the service center and it's basically fine.)
It's also worth noting that smartphones and ILCs don't compete directly any more. They never really did; once smartphones with good enough cameras to take casual snapshots and family photos started happening, ILCs were done in that market. Since then, they've been specializing toward those markets where they don't have to compete against smartphones. You're more or less suggesting that they do the opposite, and I don't know if you realize that the reason they're not already doing that is because they got murdered the last time they tried it and they're not in a hurry to get murdered again.
> Why can't download the photos directly to a phone?
You can on some cameras (e.g. Canon 80D), but it’s somewhat cumbersome and eats batteries at a fantastic rate because the camera hosts its own WiFi access point.
You can on some cameras (e.g. Canon 80D), but it’s somewhat cumbersome and eats batteries at a fantastic rate because the camera hosts its own WiFi access point.
[deleted]
Z6/7 does this with ease. Also, it has a touchscreen and can edit files on the camera but I don't know of anyone who bothers.
My D500 also has no problem doing this via SnapBridge. It was total crap when it launched (the app, the D500 was stellar from the offset) but has been gradually improving.
It’s amazing how many replies are poo-pooing your thoughts yet the financial reports demonstrate they are wrong.
I have a good expensive DSLR that I haven’t touched in more than a year. Why? Cause the workflow stinks compared to my phones camera.
- I have to remove the SD card - I have to bring out my computer and pop in the card - I have to sync it into Lightroom, which keeps all the photos in a totally different bin than all my smartphone pictures. - once I’m done dinking with the photos, I have to export the ones I like and import them back into the Photos app, which ensures it shows up on my TV - I’ve got to post it to FB/instagram. - I’ve got to nuke the card to free up the space - put it back into the camera
That is just enough of a hurdle that it keeps me from lugging the damn thing with me on trips.
Seriously. I’d love to use my DSLR more. It takes way better pictures. It just doesn’t integrate worth a damn into my computing infrastructure anymore.
I think there is a untapped market for some higher end camera with interchangeable lenses that can seamlessly integrate with a modern workflow.
I have a good expensive DSLR that I haven’t touched in more than a year. Why? Cause the workflow stinks compared to my phones camera.
- I have to remove the SD card - I have to bring out my computer and pop in the card - I have to sync it into Lightroom, which keeps all the photos in a totally different bin than all my smartphone pictures. - once I’m done dinking with the photos, I have to export the ones I like and import them back into the Photos app, which ensures it shows up on my TV - I’ve got to post it to FB/instagram. - I’ve got to nuke the card to free up the space - put it back into the camera
That is just enough of a hurdle that it keeps me from lugging the damn thing with me on trips.
Seriously. I’d love to use my DSLR more. It takes way better pictures. It just doesn’t integrate worth a damn into my computing infrastructure anymore.
I think there is a untapped market for some higher end camera with interchangeable lenses that can seamlessly integrate with a modern workflow.
The workflow you describe is not as unavoidable as you make it seem. I can plug my phone into my almost-decade-old DSLR, copy the photos over (and use the phone or even nicer a tablet as a larger extended screen), edit them in an app and directly share them through other apps if I want. If I didn't want the cable, I could get a WLAN-enabled SD card - or if I were to buy a current model camera, pick one with WLAN integrated, all major manufacturers have those now.
I would not want to edit photos on the camera, a phone or tablet is way more comfortable to hold for that.
I would not want to edit photos on the camera, a phone or tablet is way more comfortable to hold for that.
Financial reports don't demonstrate anything. You're providing an explanation without actually demonstrating that the provided explanation is the real reason. A shrinking DSLR market has been predicted by analysts (and manufacturers too) for ages now. The primary reason that keeps coming up is that people simply don't want to carry yet another device when their smartphone does more than an adequate job for general purpose photography. More and more the advantage of a larger sensor and better optics is only realized in a small range of professional usecases - Sports/action/wildlife photography, low-light events/astro photography, printing massive billboards, etc, etc.
>I think there is a untapped market for some higher end camera with interchangeable lenses that can seamlessly integrate with a modern workflow.
Sure, maybe there is. The real question is.. is it a tiny $1-2 million market or a larger 100+ million dollar market.
>I think there is a untapped market for some higher end camera with interchangeable lenses that can seamlessly integrate with a modern workflow.
Sure, maybe there is. The real question is.. is it a tiny $1-2 million market or a larger 100+ million dollar market.
You forgot one qualifier, the most expensive -professional- cameras. Different professionals have different needs. Every camera is designed with a usecase in mind. Off the top of my head professionals photographers need:
* rugged tank-like construction - 1D, 5D series mag-alloy bodies check, weather sealing - check
* reliable AF - check
* awesome battery life - check
* professional support services that can service/repair/loan products with a super-fast turnaround time for when you have a gig.. - check
* high quality optics - Canon L glass, check
* high res sensor for billboards - 5DSR check
* huge library of lenses - check, check and check
In all of those things Canon and Nikon (and even Sony to some extent) excel. I don't think the features you want are useless or provide no value, but you have to look at the bigger picture and take the entire market into consideration. People are using smartphones not just because DSLRs don't have certain features, its that they don't want to carry yet another device when their smartphone does an adequate job.
* rugged tank-like construction - 1D, 5D series mag-alloy bodies check, weather sealing - check
* reliable AF - check
* awesome battery life - check
* professional support services that can service/repair/loan products with a super-fast turnaround time for when you have a gig.. - check
* high quality optics - Canon L glass, check
* high res sensor for billboards - 5DSR check
* huge library of lenses - check, check and check
In all of those things Canon and Nikon (and even Sony to some extent) excel. I don't think the features you want are useless or provide no value, but you have to look at the bigger picture and take the entire market into consideration. People are using smartphones not just because DSLRs don't have certain features, its that they don't want to carry yet another device when their smartphone does an adequate job.
"Why can't I do light editing and post to Instagram directly from the camera?"
Because the computing resource, battery power, and physical volume spent on hardware Instagram integration detracts from what can be devoted to making the camera as good as possible at being a camera. You'd have to cram a smartphone in there, and everyone already has smartphones anyway.
And you can do light editing in-camera, if you want.
"Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable?"
You can. Modern bodies have touchscreens, too.
And I don't want Nikon and Canon worrying about marketing to influencers, because influencers are a terrible market! I want them worrying about making and selling excellent cameras for the use of people who do need more than a phone camera or maybe a cheap camcorder can provide.
Because the computing resource, battery power, and physical volume spent on hardware Instagram integration detracts from what can be devoted to making the camera as good as possible at being a camera. You'd have to cram a smartphone in there, and everyone already has smartphones anyway.
And you can do light editing in-camera, if you want.
"Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable?"
You can. Modern bodies have touchscreens, too.
And I don't want Nikon and Canon worrying about marketing to influencers, because influencers are a terrible market! I want them worrying about making and selling excellent cameras for the use of people who do need more than a phone camera or maybe a cheap camcorder can provide.
By catering to influencers in SOME models, they would be in a much better financial shape to continue R&D for the pros.
They already do, with their prosumer lines. Mommy bloggers, for example, have a surprising amount to say about how to get the most out of a Nikon D3300 or similar; I actually got some useful tips from them back when I was just starting out with my first D5300.
Granted, the camera makers haven't gone to the extent of just building a smartphone into a DSLR so you can post to Instagram with two taps, or whatever. IMO that's because they know where their strengths lie, and also understand that such a hybrid device would need a few generations to evolve into really solid usability - generations which it would not receive, because the same market at which it'd be aimed would consider the v1.0 difficulties a deal breaker for exactly the ease-of-use reasons you're arguing it would be a good idea for the camera makers to do this in the first place.
Granted, the camera makers haven't gone to the extent of just building a smartphone into a DSLR so you can post to Instagram with two taps, or whatever. IMO that's because they know where their strengths lie, and also understand that such a hybrid device would need a few generations to evolve into really solid usability - generations which it would not receive, because the same market at which it'd be aimed would consider the v1.0 difficulties a deal breaker for exactly the ease-of-use reasons you're arguing it would be a good idea for the camera makers to do this in the first place.
There is lack of vision/innovation in the actual photo-taking too.
All high-end phones take tens or sometimes hundreds of raw frames for every photograph, and then combine them to reduce noise and get more dynamic range than the tiny lens and sensor would otherwise provide. The combining process involves using a gyro to remove camera shake and optical-flow to undo the effect of anything moving in the scene.
As far as I know, no DSLR camera does this. You need to be able to take ~100 frames at 120fps or more, and either store it as RAW (ie. 10's of gigabytes of data), or process it realtime. Phones process it realtime on the GPU or with dedicated silicon.
All high-end phones take tens or sometimes hundreds of raw frames for every photograph, and then combine them to reduce noise and get more dynamic range than the tiny lens and sensor would otherwise provide. The combining process involves using a gyro to remove camera shake and optical-flow to undo the effect of anything moving in the scene.
As far as I know, no DSLR camera does this. You need to be able to take ~100 frames at 120fps or more, and either store it as RAW (ie. 10's of gigabytes of data), or process it realtime. Phones process it realtime on the GPU or with dedicated silicon.
An artmaking tool like the DSLR will still outlive Instagram. There will be a reaction against oversharing, ad-adjacency and other social media that leads to its demise, but nobody will oppose the mechanical, mirror viewfinder for any political reason.
I don't know...reading around it seems the mirrorless fans that dominate photography discussions REALLY hate mechanical shutters and optical viewfinders with some passionate fury. I feel like an old man shouting at clouds when saying I prefer DSLR.
When was the last time you bought a DSLR? My 2 year old low end camera (Canon T7i) has touch, HDR and send to phone. I shoot and send the photo to my camera then upload to Instagram all the time. Photos no longer collect dust on SD cards.
I agree, they aren’t innovating fast enough.
I would love getting rid of the mini USB charger. Why can’t cameras use micro usb like every other non-Apple usb accessory? Different power specs?
The HDR feature is so aggressive that it’s not really usable compared to my phone’s HDR. There should be a slider to pick how much HDR you want for each picture.
I agree, they aren’t innovating fast enough.
I would love getting rid of the mini USB charger. Why can’t cameras use micro usb like every other non-Apple usb accessory? Different power specs?
The HDR feature is so aggressive that it’s not really usable compared to my phone’s HDR. There should be a slider to pick how much HDR you want for each picture.
Most DSLR/Mirrorless cameras have functionality to send photos directly to an iOS or Android device. They've had features like that going back a couple of years tbh.
annd pretty much every camera has an Auto-mode...
annd pretty much every camera has an Auto-mode...
If people just want auto upload to instagram, they'll use a phone. The advantage of a proper mirrorless/DSLR is the insane power you get with RAW file editing in post.
[deleted]
I'd say very high quality optics (bigger sensor and better lenses) is an even better reason.
I would like that "simple auto-mode" to be enabled with the power switch. When I turn the camera on, I might not have time to mess with settings.
That mode should turn off bit by bit as I make manual adjustments. If I adjust ISO and exposure, then the camera is left with aperture and shutter speed under auto control. If I turn the focus ring, then the camera stops doing autofocus.
That mode should turn off bit by bit as I make manual adjustments. If I adjust ISO and exposure, then the camera is left with aperture and shutter speed under auto control. If I turn the focus ring, then the camera stops doing autofocus.
Unless I am misunderstanding your wants you can already do that. Leave the camera's main control dial on Auto for the instant shot or P(rogram)...with appropriate auto ISO settings if so desired...to meet the requirements of your second sentence. When you power on you will be in the chosen mode. Some cameras/lenses do allow AF override but its a simple flick of a switch to turn MF on if not. This stuff is where buttons, switches, and dials outshine menus any day.
I don't want to have a main control dial or equivalent menu. It could be in the wrong position at power-on when I am in a hurry. I want the camera to always be fully auto at power-on, and I don't want to have to touch a main control dial to go into manual mode. Moving the settings should be enough.
Aside from focus, there are 4 user settings (ISO,shutter,exposure,aperture) to control 3 physical settings (ISO,shutter,aperture). It is thus overspecified. On power-on, the camera should control all of that. As soon as I have changed 3 user settings, the 4th is also determined and there is nothing left for automatic control.
If I change less than 3 user settings, the camera should automatically adjust the remaining settings. If I change 3 user settings, then the camera is in manual mode and the 4th user setting is determined by the other 3. If I then change a 4th user setting, there is a conflict which might be resolved by using the most recently adjusted 3 user settings.
Going back to auto mode is rare enough that it can be done by flipping the power switch twice, off then on. A menu item is also fine for this, but not needed.
Aside from focus, there are 4 user settings (ISO,shutter,exposure,aperture) to control 3 physical settings (ISO,shutter,aperture). It is thus overspecified. On power-on, the camera should control all of that. As soon as I have changed 3 user settings, the 4th is also determined and there is nothing left for automatic control.
If I change less than 3 user settings, the camera should automatically adjust the remaining settings. If I change 3 user settings, then the camera is in manual mode and the 4th user setting is determined by the other 3. If I then change a 4th user setting, there is a conflict which might be resolved by using the most recently adjusted 3 user settings.
Going back to auto mode is rare enough that it can be done by flipping the power switch twice, off then on. A menu item is also fine for this, but not needed.
It sounds like Fuji does part of what you want.
Fuji (at least the X-T3 I own) doesn't have an explicit "Aperture priority, shutter priority, auto, manual" mode dial like most cameras. Instead it has physical dials for aperture, shutter speed and ISO. The dials have "auto" positions and the shutter and ISO dials can be locked in place.
So instead of aperture priority, you leave the ISO and SS dials in "auto" and change the aperture on the lens. If you care about the ISO, you can change that and it'll automate the shutter speed.
The main thing it doesn't do is default to full auto at power on. I frankly think that's insane and would never buy a camera that allows it. I don't trust auto to do what I need.
Fuji (at least the X-T3 I own) doesn't have an explicit "Aperture priority, shutter priority, auto, manual" mode dial like most cameras. Instead it has physical dials for aperture, shutter speed and ISO. The dials have "auto" positions and the shutter and ISO dials can be locked in place.
So instead of aperture priority, you leave the ISO and SS dials in "auto" and change the aperture on the lens. If you care about the ISO, you can change that and it'll automate the shutter speed.
The main thing it doesn't do is default to full auto at power on. I frankly think that's insane and would never buy a camera that allows it. I don't trust auto to do what I need.
You might not trust auto, but don't you trust the previous manual setting even less? It could have been under completely different lighting conditions.
Suppose you are up in a high desert. At night, you take pictures of blossoms by starlight. The next day at noon, you spot an interesting and rare bird of prey quickly flying by while holding an interesting prey item. Quickly you flip the camera on and take a photo. Oh bummer, the camera was still configured for starlight, and you'll probably never have another opportunity for a similar photo. All pixels are white.
Anyway, thanks for the mention of Fuji. That sounds better than normal. Why can't you lock the aperture in place? Why do you need to lock something in place if there is a separate dial position for auto? (if not auto, isn't it locked?)
Suppose you are up in a high desert. At night, you take pictures of blossoms by starlight. The next day at noon, you spot an interesting and rare bird of prey quickly flying by while holding an interesting prey item. Quickly you flip the camera on and take a photo. Oh bummer, the camera was still configured for starlight, and you'll probably never have another opportunity for a similar photo. All pixels are white.
Anyway, thanks for the mention of Fuji. That sounds better than normal. Why can't you lock the aperture in place? Why do you need to lock something in place if there is a separate dial position for auto? (if not auto, isn't it locked?)
> You might not trust auto, but don't you trust the previous manual setting even less? It could have been under completely different lighting conditions.
Usually it'll be in similar lighting conditions because I shoot with my camera pretty continuously.
> Suppose you are up in a high desert. At night, you take pictures of blossoms by starlight. The next day at noon, you spot an interesting and rare bird of prey quickly flying by while holding an interesting prey item. Quickly you flip the camera on and take a photo. Oh bummer, the camera was still configured for starlight, and you'll probably never have another opportunity for a similar photo. All pixels are white.
This is unlikely to happen because I tend to shoot with my camera continuously. I'd have taken a photo of an interesting cactus long before I saw the bird.
That said, assuming I already had a super telephoto lens attached to the camera (which is the bigger problem, if I was shooting blossoms I probably wouldn't have the right lens attached), it'd take me less than a second to move the relevant dials on the Fuji to something acceptable. On the Sony that's not possible but that's just a sacrifice I make by shooting Sony.
And in this situation, I'd expect the auto settings to do something stupid like expose for the sky instead of the bird. For example the camera might choose low ISO, wide aperture, relatively slow shutter speed while I'd want max shutter speed, moderate ISO and whatever aperture works with the other two.
> Why can't you lock the aperture in place?
The lenses just don't come with a locking mechanism for the aperture wheel. It has some little clicks but that's it.
> Why do you need to lock something in place if there is a separate dial position for auto? (if not auto, isn't it locked?)
The lock is a physical mechanism to stop the dial from turning accidentally while in your bag or something like that. Otherwise even if you put it in auto when you put it away, a bit of jostling in its bag can turn the dial to a different setting, which can be an issue when auto is usually between the extremes.
Usually it'll be in similar lighting conditions because I shoot with my camera pretty continuously.
> Suppose you are up in a high desert. At night, you take pictures of blossoms by starlight. The next day at noon, you spot an interesting and rare bird of prey quickly flying by while holding an interesting prey item. Quickly you flip the camera on and take a photo. Oh bummer, the camera was still configured for starlight, and you'll probably never have another opportunity for a similar photo. All pixels are white.
This is unlikely to happen because I tend to shoot with my camera continuously. I'd have taken a photo of an interesting cactus long before I saw the bird.
That said, assuming I already had a super telephoto lens attached to the camera (which is the bigger problem, if I was shooting blossoms I probably wouldn't have the right lens attached), it'd take me less than a second to move the relevant dials on the Fuji to something acceptable. On the Sony that's not possible but that's just a sacrifice I make by shooting Sony.
And in this situation, I'd expect the auto settings to do something stupid like expose for the sky instead of the bird. For example the camera might choose low ISO, wide aperture, relatively slow shutter speed while I'd want max shutter speed, moderate ISO and whatever aperture works with the other two.
> Why can't you lock the aperture in place?
The lenses just don't come with a locking mechanism for the aperture wheel. It has some little clicks but that's it.
> Why do you need to lock something in place if there is a separate dial position for auto? (if not auto, isn't it locked?)
The lock is a physical mechanism to stop the dial from turning accidentally while in your bag or something like that. Otherwise even if you put it in auto when you put it away, a bit of jostling in its bag can turn the dial to a different setting, which can be an issue when auto is usually between the extremes.
[deleted]
Another department I doubt these traditional Japanese companies can catch up on is computational photography. I can take 5s handheld night time photos with adequate quality on a bunch of phones these days. There's still no way of getting anything useful out of DSLRs longer than 1/15s without tripods.
I'm not smart enough to do exact calculations with aperture, etc, but I think the amount of light taken in with a 1/15s exposure with a DSLR would be more than a 5s cameraphone image.
Just taking the area of the lens, say a 5mm diameter cameraphone lens is pi x 5^2=79mm^2 vs a DSLR, conservatively 60mm diameter is pi x 60^2=11309mm^2.
So 143 times the lens area, while your example exposure time is only 75 times more. So your example of a 5s exposure would be similar to a 1/30s DSLR exposure only based on lens area.
With the advantage of bigger sensor pixels and thus much better sensitivity, larger aperture, usually stabilization in the lens, and much, much less motion of the subject during that exposure as well, the DSLR still wins on absolutely everything except weight to lug around.
Just taking the area of the lens, say a 5mm diameter cameraphone lens is pi x 5^2=79mm^2 vs a DSLR, conservatively 60mm diameter is pi x 60^2=11309mm^2.
So 143 times the lens area, while your example exposure time is only 75 times more. So your example of a 5s exposure would be similar to a 1/30s DSLR exposure only based on lens area.
With the advantage of bigger sensor pixels and thus much better sensitivity, larger aperture, usually stabilization in the lens, and much, much less motion of the subject during that exposure as well, the DSLR still wins on absolutely everything except weight to lug around.
Ummm that's a really good point. Though numerically, the numbers are probably debatable.
Taking for instance a full-frame Canon 5D II and something like a Huawei P30 Pro on the back of a napkin. A full-frame sensor is 864mm2 and a 1/1.7in sensor is 43mm2. Huawei with a RYYB sensor has an ISO of 409,600 vs 6,400. The phone aperture is /1.6. Realistically, /1.6 glass would be too heavy, so let's call it /2.8.
The ratio would then be 20 (sensor size) * 0.0156 (ISO) * 0.57 (aperture) = 0.178x before AI kicks in for, say, another 75x more exposure time ~= 421x more usable light on the phone.
Based on super unscientific anecdotal experience between the 2 (since the human eye is logarithmic), it seems about right.
Taking for instance a full-frame Canon 5D II and something like a Huawei P30 Pro on the back of a napkin. A full-frame sensor is 864mm2 and a 1/1.7in sensor is 43mm2. Huawei with a RYYB sensor has an ISO of 409,600 vs 6,400. The phone aperture is /1.6. Realistically, /1.6 glass would be too heavy, so let's call it /2.8.
The ratio would then be 20 (sensor size) * 0.0156 (ISO) * 0.57 (aperture) = 0.178x before AI kicks in for, say, another 75x more exposure time ~= 421x more usable light on the phone.
Based on super unscientific anecdotal experience between the 2 (since the human eye is logarithmic), it seems about right.
Sony is out innovating them on every level. Faster releases, better features etc. Honestly as an enthusiast they deserve to tank. They’ve done nothing exciting in the space.
I own an A7RIII (and preordered an A7RIV) but I actually think Fuji is the most innovative right now.
In terms of image quality, my A7RIII blows my Fuji X-T3 out of the water but in _every other way_ the X-T3 is better. The ergonomics are fantastic (I love manual dials for all the settings), it has the kind of video you'd have to buy a Panasonic GH-5 for in the past, the out of camera JPEGs are much more pleasing to the eye (though I mostly shoot raw), the menu system is far more sane and it comes with features like focus stacking.
Plus, Fuji routinely adds new features to old cameras with software updates, while Sony for the most part tends to forget about a camera as soon as the new one is released.
In terms of image quality, my A7RIII blows my Fuji X-T3 out of the water but in _every other way_ the X-T3 is better. The ergonomics are fantastic (I love manual dials for all the settings), it has the kind of video you'd have to buy a Panasonic GH-5 for in the past, the out of camera JPEGs are much more pleasing to the eye (though I mostly shoot raw), the menu system is far more sane and it comes with features like focus stacking.
Plus, Fuji routinely adds new features to old cameras with software updates, while Sony for the most part tends to forget about a camera as soon as the new one is released.
I read the headline as “cannon rush” at first lol
This failure was a decade, if not longer, in the making, pretty much since smartphones started replacing DSLRs for travel photos for at least some people.
But I'm sure Canon's leaders laughed it off until now.
But I'm sure Canon's leaders laughed it off until now.
While smartphones have decimated the smaller portable camera markets, there is still a large market for larger sensor cameras (APS-C, Full Frame, Medium Format, Etc.)
Canon specifically has fallen drastically behind their competition in those spaces, allowing Sony to decimate them when it comes to features/performance and cost. Canon's current line up of cameras are missing features that their competitors have had for years. It's kind of shocking how they seem to consistently miss the mark on so many things. Their build quality and reliability is still top notch though.
I think ultimately the professional market looking for larger sensor cameras has gone to other brands due to this, which is probably hurting them a lot more than expected.
Canon specifically has fallen drastically behind their competition in those spaces, allowing Sony to decimate them when it comes to features/performance and cost. Canon's current line up of cameras are missing features that their competitors have had for years. It's kind of shocking how they seem to consistently miss the mark on so many things. Their build quality and reliability is still top notch though.
I think ultimately the professional market looking for larger sensor cameras has gone to other brands due to this, which is probably hurting them a lot more than expected.
Canon's professional line has been lacking for years in the high ISO sensor performance. Their saving grace has been their lenses, which are still magnitudes better than the competition. That said, third party lensmakers like Sigma and Tamron have really been getting better in recent years, and the premium for Canon glass isn't always justifiable.
High ISO performance, and their auto-focusing systems are put to shame by just about every one else on the market.
While their lens quality and EF mount have probably been their saving grace, I personally don't find their lenses to be worth the cost. I left the Canon ecosystem for Fujifilm's X-Series cameras, and cannot believe the IQ their lenses have, across the board, and they're priced very competitively. I'm just a hobbyist at the end of the day, but when I can get an incredible portrait lens on the second hand market for $650, that rivals L-series glass, it's really really hard to justify that Canon premium.
While their lens quality and EF mount have probably been their saving grace, I personally don't find their lenses to be worth the cost. I left the Canon ecosystem for Fujifilm's X-Series cameras, and cannot believe the IQ their lenses have, across the board, and they're priced very competitively. I'm just a hobbyist at the end of the day, but when I can get an incredible portrait lens on the second hand market for $650, that rivals L-series glass, it's really really hard to justify that Canon premium.
How are they put to shame by everyone else on AF? Could you be more specific?
Can you specify what you mean by high ISO performance? Do you mean read-noise or do you mean DR or something else? Canon is very competitive in read-noise and DR. Yes AFAIK they don't have dual-gain in their professional series, but the difference is not "magnitudes better" FWICT.
Read Noise:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Canon%20EOS...
DR:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20...
Read Noise:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Canon%20EOS...
DR:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20...
[deleted]
> there is still a large market for larger sensor cameras
It's large, but shrinking according to:
https://petapixel.com/2019/07/08/canon-increased-market-shar...
It's large, but shrinking according to:
https://petapixel.com/2019/07/08/canon-increased-market-shar...
"[In 2018] total sales volume for digital cameras dropped by a whopping 22%. The story is perhaps rosiest for Canon, whose 40.5% market share represents an increase of 3.9% over 2017. Meanwhile, its closest competitors both saw market share drop, with Nikon logging 19.1% (a decrease of 2.7%) and Sony at 17.7% (a drop of 0.7%)" from your link.
"So far, 2019 is continuing that trend" (downwards).
"So far, 2019 is continuing that trend" (downwards).
I wouldn't be surprised to see some consolidation. Nikon, Fuji, and Olympus all seem like they could be purchased by one of their bigger rivals.
Exactly. If you want full frame zoomable quality and don't mind the bulk and weight (I don't even on hikes with >1500m altitude difference), there ain't nothing in phones for next decade that can match it.
Photos on best phone sensors look OKish under ideal conditions, and if you don't need any zoom (subpar additional cameras on recent phones are pretty bad so far). Add any zoom, less than ideal light, faster moving objects and even phone sensors rated in DxO Mark over 100 are simply not good enough (I have one of those). Forget night at all.
Yes its enough to clearly see where you are and what you do, but that's about it and any photo aesthetics are often simply not there. Phones of course have huge advantage of almost always being there, but that's another topic. Some of us want to capture important things in life in ways that will stand the test of time better.
Photos on best phone sensors look OKish under ideal conditions, and if you don't need any zoom (subpar additional cameras on recent phones are pretty bad so far). Add any zoom, less than ideal light, faster moving objects and even phone sensors rated in DxO Mark over 100 are simply not good enough (I have one of those). Forget night at all.
Yes its enough to clearly see where you are and what you do, but that's about it and any photo aesthetics are often simply not there. Phones of course have huge advantage of almost always being there, but that's another topic. Some of us want to capture important things in life in ways that will stand the test of time better.
I think more than anything its that Cannon has really missed the boat when it comes to the transition from still images to video. A decade or two ago, the vast majority of consumers only wanted a camera to shot photographs with, but now most consumers are also at least partially interested in shooting video, with many being primarily interested in video. Other companies have adapted to these changing consumer preferences (Panasonic and Sony especially) while Cannon has lagged behind in terms of rolling out more video focused features like 4K, IBIS, 10 bit color etc. in all but their top of the line models.
My guess is that Canon is afraid of cannibalizing sales of their cinema cameras, like the C300.
Panasonic and Sony don't seem as worried about cannibalizing theirs, which might be a better strategy in the long run. Fuji and Nikon don't sell cinema cameras, so they have no incentive not to move fast on adding video features to their (previously) still cameras.
Panasonic and Sony don't seem as worried about cannibalizing theirs, which might be a better strategy in the long run. Fuji and Nikon don't sell cinema cameras, so they have no incentive not to move fast on adding video features to their (previously) still cameras.
>since smartphones started replacing DSLRs
Smartphones reduced the market for ~$500 digital point-&-shoots. However, for the more expensive prosumer and professional cameras like the $1999 Canon EOS R mentioned in the article, Canon is competing with other high-end cameras like Sony Alpha mirrorless.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sony+mirrorless+outsells+can...
Smartphones reduced the market for ~$500 digital point-&-shoots. However, for the more expensive prosumer and professional cameras like the $1999 Canon EOS R mentioned in the article, Canon is competing with other high-end cameras like Sony Alpha mirrorless.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sony+mirrorless+outsells+can...
Yes, I'm trolling and I'm glad I see this day. I was an early Minolta adopter and always complained about Canon's and Nikon's arrogance, abusive pricing and limited/incompetent feature set. The day of reckoning is here!
For those wanting to see more about Canon's stock:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CAJ?p=CAJ&.tsrc=fin-srch
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CAJ?p=CAJ&.tsrc=fin-srch
Canon ignored m43, put out some crappy mirrorless cameras, sony ate their lunch. I'm not surprised in the least by this.
I'm a bit interested in making DSLR videos. May I present some anecdotal evidence.
I bought a Canon consumer camcorder (Vixia HF R800) for about $200 last year and it was dismal:
- Tiny sensor -- Terrible performance indoor
- Lacks viewfinder -- terrible performance outdoor
- No 4K, 1080p max
- Abysmal bitrate 25Mbps for 60FPS 1080p
- Connecting power supply when recording introduces 60Hz hum on line in audio.
- Electronics and firmware haven't really been updated since 2014
This seemed like a great little camera, but it let me down on every front.
I ended up upgrading to Panasonic GH4 that cost 5x more, and I'm actually happy with it.
Given how poorly EOS R and EOS RP were reviewed about 6 months ago, I'm not surprised.
I bought a Canon consumer camcorder (Vixia HF R800) for about $200 last year and it was dismal:
- Tiny sensor -- Terrible performance indoor
- Lacks viewfinder -- terrible performance outdoor
- No 4K, 1080p max
- Abysmal bitrate 25Mbps for 60FPS 1080p
- Connecting power supply when recording introduces 60Hz hum on line in audio.
- Electronics and firmware haven't really been updated since 2014
This seemed like a great little camera, but it let me down on every front.
I ended up upgrading to Panasonic GH4 that cost 5x more, and I'm actually happy with it.
Given how poorly EOS R and EOS RP were reviewed about 6 months ago, I'm not surprised.
That's probably more related to you paying 5x more, and not the brand...
Yes, but I feel cheated that Canon put their name on such a terrible product.
I would be fine with no-name Chinese camera for the same amount of money, which by the way would have 4K and a hotshoe mount.
I would be fine with no-name Chinese camera for the same amount of money, which by the way would have 4K and a hotshoe mount.
Panasonic makes a roughly $200ish camera, too, and it's also... "not great". 4x optical zoom, 720p, 230k display.
[deleted]
I used to work for Canon in a different division. It was an interesting company to work for, fantastic human-perks
i.e. 2 weeks paid time off (not counted against vacation) if you got married,
1 week of paid time off if you moved. (not counted against vacation)
You got your birthday off (paid and not counted against vacation).
Upper (middle?) management were all dinosaurs, and stuck in their ways. The entire 'digital revolution' caught them unaware and unprepared. And most importantly IMHO, they didn't eat their own dogfood. The only saving grace for the printer/copier division was HP's controller boards and drivers.
This was a situation where you knew you were on a sinking ship. Some R&D and advancements were INCREDIBLE, some of the behind the scenes tech was very compelling but I don't think management could get out of the way.
Upper (middle?) management were all dinosaurs, and stuck in their ways. The entire 'digital revolution' caught them unaware and unprepared. And most importantly IMHO, they didn't eat their own dogfood. The only saving grace for the printer/copier division was HP's controller boards and drivers.
This was a situation where you knew you were on a sinking ship. Some R&D and advancements were INCREDIBLE, some of the behind the scenes tech was very compelling but I don't think management could get out of the way.
We live is a world with a distorted notion of success. About 1/2 the people I know who take photography seriously use Canon cameras. I'm also a happy Canon customer. How is this a sinking ship?
> About 1/2 the people I know who take photography seriously use Canon cameras. I'm also a happy Canon customer.
Social groups tend somewhat towards the same system, so this might have distorted the preferences of you and your acquaintances.
Also Canon is doing badly _now_. People aren't buying their _new_ stuff. You and your acquaintances likely own, for the most part, equipment that's at least a few years old.
Social groups tend somewhat towards the same system, so this might have distorted the preferences of you and your acquaintances.
Also Canon is doing badly _now_. People aren't buying their _new_ stuff. You and your acquaintances likely own, for the most part, equipment that's at least a few years old.
Seriously? Almost every photographer I know switched to Fuji or Sony.
Can the people who take photography seriously sustain Canon's camera business on their own? That's the main problem.
Why should a bubble of casual-photographers exiting the DSLR market be enough to sink Canon? The serious photographer market should be enough to sustain the business (it's not like these things are sold at a loss), but investors in pursuit of infinite growth might not like that.
Canon needs the consumer market to subsidize R&D costs for the professional lines. I'm sure the they're not selling at a unit loss, but like all R&D heavy manufacturing industries, there's a lot of fixed capex that's easier to offset with high volume offerings.
This might be one of the failure modes of the current incarnation of capitalism. My Canon cameras last me forever and that's why I like them. I consider them a blazing technical and scientific success.
If under the current mode of capitalism they want to "succeed" financially they might need to make crappier cameras on purpose so that people replace them every year.
Crocs are also amazing. I bought a pair and never needed to buy another pair. Bad for their balance sheet, but they are an amazing success in terms of sustainability and not creating trash.
If under the current mode of capitalism they want to "succeed" financially they might need to make crappier cameras on purpose so that people replace them every year.
Crocs are also amazing. I bought a pair and never needed to buy another pair. Bad for their balance sheet, but they are an amazing success in terms of sustainability and not creating trash.
Mean time between cameras has probably been increasing due to the very high quality of DSLRs for a decade now. Upgrades aren’t really worth it and there’s better things to spend money on if one wants to improve: lighting, triggers, lenses, supports, and travel!
Film cameras used to last a very long time in the range, Nikon, for example, went from the F to the F4 in forty years. Around ten years between the pro cameras. That’s down to about four years now. My 1DX shows no signs of needing replacement, despite wanting WiFi and GPS, everything is great, and despite fewer pixels than the previous 5D2, enlarges to wall-size without drama. The iPhone takes care of casual use, and a £110 Fuji XM1 covers everyday carry. A secondhand digital camera from six years ago is good enough and costs around £100. Well, why upgrade indeed?
Film cameras used to last a very long time in the range, Nikon, for example, went from the F to the F4 in forty years. Around ten years between the pro cameras. That’s down to about four years now. My 1DX shows no signs of needing replacement, despite wanting WiFi and GPS, everything is great, and despite fewer pixels than the previous 5D2, enlarges to wall-size without drama. The iPhone takes care of casual use, and a £110 Fuji XM1 covers everyday carry. A secondhand digital camera from six years ago is good enough and costs around £100. Well, why upgrade indeed?
[deleted]
"Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge 64%" is the title of the article.
Profits dropping 64% is a pretty good indication that things aren't going great.
Profits dropping 64% is a pretty good indication that things aren't going great.
I know lots of historically loyal Canon shooters who have recently switched to Sony A or Nikon Z; I know others who are seriously considering a Panasonic DC-S1 or a Fuji GFX 100. I don't know anyone who has gone the other way. That's really not a good place to be.
It's obvious from the heavy price cutting that EOS M is struggling. EOS R isn't a disaster, but it's a big disappointment. Canon are still lagging well behind Sony in sensor quality and Panasonic in video functionality; their mirrorless offerings aren't capitalising on Canon's historical advantage in terms of ergonomics.
Canon still make good cameras and good lenses, but there's no obvious reason to buy into the Canon ecosystem unless you're an existing Canon customer, nor is there any sign of Canon turning things around.
It's obvious from the heavy price cutting that EOS M is struggling. EOS R isn't a disaster, but it's a big disappointment. Canon are still lagging well behind Sony in sensor quality and Panasonic in video functionality; their mirrorless offerings aren't capitalising on Canon's historical advantage in terms of ergonomics.
Canon still make good cameras and good lenses, but there's no obvious reason to buy into the Canon ecosystem unless you're an existing Canon customer, nor is there any sign of Canon turning things around.
Not for long, the trend is going toward Sony.
I am probably a minority but I hate live viewfinders as looking at a tiny screen, despite the benefits live exposure composition offers, gives me eyestrain and headaches. I much prefer an optical viewfinder so for this reason I really hope the mirrorless hype isn't going to displace DLSRs entirely and Canon keeps making them.
Bit of a moot point for me at present as all I have is an old Lumix LX1 with manual settings that still takes good photos at 14 years old (just super limited due to sensor size and a 400 max ISO) and had to sell the DSLR for financial reasons. Still have a dream to get back into photography if things ever look up enough I can justify spending on a hobby. I really enjoyed it. I would love to do some astrophotography especially. Even an original 6D (superb low light clarity) and the right lens would probably suit me for life with no compromises to my interests as long as I could keep it serviced and alive. Tried shooting the Milky Way recently with the LX1 but the low light ability won't allow it.
Bright side is maybe even if mirrorless is the future, it would make DLSRs more affordable used as people sell off the "deprecated" tech.
Bit of a moot point for me at present as all I have is an old Lumix LX1 with manual settings that still takes good photos at 14 years old (just super limited due to sensor size and a 400 max ISO) and had to sell the DSLR for financial reasons. Still have a dream to get back into photography if things ever look up enough I can justify spending on a hobby. I really enjoyed it. I would love to do some astrophotography especially. Even an original 6D (superb low light clarity) and the right lens would probably suit me for life with no compromises to my interests as long as I could keep it serviced and alive. Tried shooting the Milky Way recently with the LX1 but the low light ability won't allow it.
Bright side is maybe even if mirrorless is the future, it would make DLSRs more affordable used as people sell off the "deprecated" tech.
Personally, I have the exact opposite opinion on optical viewfinders. Optical is eyestraining, non-ergonomic, physically limiting (can't use an optical viewfinder when you're shooting at foot or waist level without contorting yourself into weird positions), and modern shooting modes often require a lot more setup and selection than is comfortable to use without a full-size screen and looking at the controls you're hitting.
That last point depends strongly on the camera. I almost never have to take my D500 away from my face when I'm setting up a shot, because it has physical controls for the exposure parameters and displays in the viewfinder to show changes of setting - not just shutter speed, aperture, and ISO, but even down to stuff like bracketing and flash exposure compensation. Granted, a lot of DSLRs, especially the prosumer ones, don't benefit from such thoughtful (and expensive!) design. But you absolutely can get cameras that are ergonomic to operate.
(Well, if you buy Nikon, anyway. I don't know who does Canon's UI design, but whoever they are, they could be a lot better at it...)
(Well, if you buy Nikon, anyway. I don't know who does Canon's UI design, but whoever they are, they could be a lot better at it...)
You can buy a 90 degree viewfinder adapter if you really want to shoot low down. They're not very expensive.
Optical viewfinders also vary quite a bit in size which impact eye strain quite a bit - unsurprisingly the larger, brighter ones are typically in the more expensive cameras. If you ever get the chance, try a top of the range DSLR viewfinder next to a bottom of the range one. You might be surprised at the difference.
Optical viewfinders also vary quite a bit in size which impact eye strain quite a bit - unsurprisingly the larger, brighter ones are typically in the more expensive cameras. If you ever get the chance, try a top of the range DSLR viewfinder next to a bottom of the range one. You might be surprised at the difference.
You can't use an EVF at foot or waist level either. That's not what I am on about. I have no issue with using the large back display, articulating or not, as a live display when needed. But when I want to use a viewfinder I want it to be optics, not a tiny screen in a tube simulating that view. And like @throwanem said having tactile buttons/dials available as no look controls is a thing a lot of people like to use over touch screens. I understand it's a personal preference and an increasingly minority opinion.
Now's a pretty good time to be looking at your local camera store's stock of used bodies, because mirrorless is already displacing them among pros and hobbyists who prioritize gear acquisition over technique^W^W^W^W^Whave already made the switch. It'll be a year or two, I expect, before we see D850s and equivalently high-end Canon bodies start hitting the used market in numbers, but aside from that, things are already pretty flush.
(That said, check the shutter count, and the rated shutter life of the model, before you buy a used body! That's the primary wearing item in any DSLR, and the cost of replacement means you're pretty much better off just replacing the whole body instead. You shouldn't expect to pay as much for a used body with a high shutter count as you do for a low one, and if someone tries to get you to, you're likely better off shopping somewhere else.)
(That said, check the shutter count, and the rated shutter life of the model, before you buy a used body! That's the primary wearing item in any DSLR, and the cost of replacement means you're pretty much better off just replacing the whole body instead. You shouldn't expect to pay as much for a used body with a high shutter count as you do for a low one, and if someone tries to get you to, you're likely better off shopping somewhere else.)
You don't have to use the tiny screen. Mirrorless cameras generally come with a large display. I almost always use the display on my Olympus because it's easier and I don't look like I have a machine on my face (this was also an important advantage of old view cameras with the focus screen on top, like the Hasselblad 500). If you want, you can attach a much larger screen to your mirrorless camera, they just use HDMI output so get as big a display as you want.
I meant specifically when using a viewfinder on a mirrorless camera, it means looking at a tiny LCD/OLED screen inside an eyepiece that simulates the classic view vs through glass lenses/prisms for an actual optical view. I like optical viewfinders not little screens in tubes.
[deleted]
Sure but just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it. It's there for nostalgia reasons, mostly.
I disagree its nostalgia. I prefer composing that way and don't use it "because it's there", rather because I like to. It's more comfortable for me. It's also not bothered by sunlight washing out the display. It's not some impractical relic used for old times sake.
I listened to an interesting podcast on Kodak - https://www.spectacularfailures.org/episode/2019/07/15/kodak...
My previous perception which I think is common, is that due to the amount they made from non-digital, they ignored digital until it was too late.
My revised perception after listening is that Kodak was right there at the cutting edge (and has the cameras and patents to prove it). Problem was how the company was structured. Pretty much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law
They had a 'chemical' photography division that did amazingly as they opened up photography to consumers. They created a digital division as they saw the way the market was heading. Problem was the fighting between the two divisions.
My previous perception which I think is common, is that due to the amount they made from non-digital, they ignored digital until it was too late.
My revised perception after listening is that Kodak was right there at the cutting edge (and has the cameras and patents to prove it). Problem was how the company was structured. Pretty much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law
They had a 'chemical' photography division that did amazingly as they opened up photography to consumers. They created a digital division as they saw the way the market was heading. Problem was the fighting between the two divisions.
I thought about going back to film in order to get back into the hobby "cheaply", but quickly learned it was not going to be cheap at all and not worth the drawbacks even then. Prices are on the rise in all regards. Cameras and glass are "vintage" rather than just old, and priced accordingly. Film and processing costs are stupid high now, not on every corner like before, and not to mention the inability to process, learn, and deal with things easily at home like with digital. It's obviously supply and demand, but it's strange to have witnessed the extreme flip flop that occurred in the industry. As far as I know only Nikon (one model) and Leica (one model) are making non medium format film cameras anymore and they are both very expensive. I wonder what the next big leap/flip flop will be.
If you want to get back into the hobby cheaply, go for one of the prosumer kits, like the Nikon 3xxx/5xxx/7xxx series, or whatever in the Canon line is comparable. (I'm heavily invested in the Nikon F system, and as a hobbyist can't justify investing in Canon as well, so I don't really know anything about their lines.)
Film has become extremely niche in the last decade, even among the niche that is interchangeable-lens-camera hobby photography. As you've seen, that makes it expensive.
That said, if you're looking to get back to film specifically as opposed to photography in general, you can find good used midrange 35mm bodies without too much trouble. You'll still pay through the nose for film and developing services, and probably also for glass since that holds its value in a way 35mm SLR bodies don't, but you can at least avoid the $2600 bite of a brand-new F6.
Film has become extremely niche in the last decade, even among the niche that is interchangeable-lens-camera hobby photography. As you've seen, that makes it expensive.
That said, if you're looking to get back to film specifically as opposed to photography in general, you can find good used midrange 35mm bodies without too much trouble. You'll still pay through the nose for film and developing services, and probably also for glass since that holds its value in a way 35mm SLR bodies don't, but you can at least avoid the $2600 bite of a brand-new F6.
I had no desire to live with the limits of film again, I just thought it might be a cheap workaround. Ends up not being the case. I really cannot justify spending at all right now but I have looked at the prosumer stuff you mentioned. While they are good for the new cost there are a lot of compromises and each iteration seems to remove some obvious feature like a remote port or ISO button etc as they keep shoving old guts into new bodies and optimizing production costs. The math always works out cheaper to get used stuff with more appropriate specs when/if I can afford to do anything at all. Rather than spend twice on a kit then upgrading, it's more sensible to buy once and keep that stuff as long as it is physically possible to maintain it. My hopefully "buy it for life" rational desire is a Canon 6D Mark I, a fast everyday zoom, and a really fast prime for the stars. Some day.
Give it a couple of years. As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, mirrorless is already starting to displace mid- to mid-high-range DSLRs into the used market, and by then it should be displacing the high-end stuff too.
(And I feel you about the UI issues. Part of the reason I switched from a D5300 to a D500 was because the prosumer bodies are really designed to be shot in program auto, and you just don't have enough direct control of basic parameters - you need to be in the 7xxx range even to have an aperture dial! I'm waiting for D850s to start hitting the used market in numbers for precisely that reason - 45MP full-frame is just about ideal for the macro work I do, despite the relative DoF loss, and the UI commonality between that and the D500 means I won't have to worry about missing the perfect shot of a wasp or whatever because my hands got confused about how to operate the camera.)
(And I feel you about the UI issues. Part of the reason I switched from a D5300 to a D500 was because the prosumer bodies are really designed to be shot in program auto, and you just don't have enough direct control of basic parameters - you need to be in the 7xxx range even to have an aperture dial! I'm waiting for D850s to start hitting the used market in numbers for precisely that reason - 45MP full-frame is just about ideal for the macro work I do, despite the relative DoF loss, and the UI commonality between that and the D500 means I won't have to worry about missing the perfect shot of a wasp or whatever because my hands got confused about how to operate the camera.)
A two-generation-old DSLR is still a really, really good camera and will still absolutely trounce the performance of any reasonably fast 35mm film. Sigma and Tamron are now making affordable glass that goes toe-to-toe with Canon L; there are a lot of good, cheap DSLR lenses hitting the used market right now thanks to the move to mirrorless.
If you can avoid getting swept up with the idea that you need the latest and greatest, it's a really great time to get back into photography. eBay is full of fantastic kit at yard sale prices.
If you can avoid getting swept up with the idea that you need the latest and greatest, it's a really great time to get back into photography. eBay is full of fantastic kit at yard sale prices.
Yeah a 6D Mark I (7yo model) would cover anything I am and am likely to be interested in. It's popular in the astrophotography world for it's superb low light performance out of the box. It's on the "better days" shopping list. Hoping EF L glass fades in price as well as people gravitate to R mount as options increase, and don't want to bother with converters.
What is your budget?
Right now honestly zero, unless I came across the deal of a lifetime that I believed I could justify responsibly long term. The film idea was fleeting and not realistic. If it becomes possible I am hoping to get a used full frame body with a good low light capability, like a 6d and a couple good lenses. A shutter replacement would be a likely need one day but can be found for a reasonable cost. But IQ and features would be enough. If the rest of the bits kept working/could be cheaply serviced, it could feasibly last me the rest of my life for my needs and wants despite whatever else comes along.
Looks like you have a good plan there :)
This isn't a surprise. Canon has lagged behind Sony on the sensor side of things for ages. Nikon was also lagging, but decided to do the right thing which was buy its sensors from Sony. For full-frame DSLR camera bodies, Nikon is far superior to Canon currently and has been for a long time.
Canon has primarily survived off brand loyalty with professional photographers driven by the extremely high quality lenses they produce. This too has been challenged lately by Sony and their partnership with Zeiss, meaning Sony lenses for mirrorless are on par or in excess of the quality level you can get from Canon lenses and Zeiss is financially able to offer similarly high quality lenses to the wider market, cannibalizing first-party sales. Nikon has historically had worse lenses than Canon and this hasn't changed significantly, but they've made huge leaps in R&D for large telephotos with usable fresnel lenses at 300mm and 500mm focal length.
Canon had some opportunities to right the ship, but their management seems incompetent. It's sad to me that they're in this situation because I respect what they've done for photography for decades. I don't see this improving though.
Canon has primarily survived off brand loyalty with professional photographers driven by the extremely high quality lenses they produce. This too has been challenged lately by Sony and their partnership with Zeiss, meaning Sony lenses for mirrorless are on par or in excess of the quality level you can get from Canon lenses and Zeiss is financially able to offer similarly high quality lenses to the wider market, cannibalizing first-party sales. Nikon has historically had worse lenses than Canon and this hasn't changed significantly, but they've made huge leaps in R&D for large telephotos with usable fresnel lenses at 300mm and 500mm focal length.
Canon had some opportunities to right the ship, but their management seems incompetent. It's sad to me that they're in this situation because I respect what they've done for photography for decades. I don't see this improving though.
While it may appear so from a retail consumer standpoint, I don't think Canon is lagging behind in tech from an IP and R&D standpoint. The thing is they make the sensor themselves, and the fabs and tooling is super super expensive. Canons MO is to extract as much profit as possible from a pre-existing process before moving over to something new. They already have BSI tech.. they already have the means to create a 100MP sensor as well as compete on AF (for video I think dualpixel AF is already ahead of the competition). Canon has diversified product lines and doesn't want to upset its Cinema EOS lineup too much by offering "too many" features. Sony, being the newcomer has sunk a ginormous amount of capital into fabs and tooling to differentiate itself in a saturated market and it has worked for the amateur and enthusiast crowd. They have a few weaknesses, specifically ergonomics, color science, the smaller E mount diameter, and a less rugged body for professional use (compared to 1DX or D5). It will be interesting to see how they tackle the new challenger..
>but they've made huge leaps in R&D for large telephotos with usable fresnel lenses at 300mm and 500mm focal length.
Canon already has this tech, as they showed in their 400 DO II, which is a freakishly awesome lens.
>his too has been challenged lately by Sony and their partnership with Zeiss
Hmm, have there been any sony-zeiss lenses since Sony started their GM lineup?
>but they've made huge leaps in R&D for large telephotos with usable fresnel lenses at 300mm and 500mm focal length.
Canon already has this tech, as they showed in their 400 DO II, which is a freakishly awesome lens.
>his too has been challenged lately by Sony and their partnership with Zeiss
Hmm, have there been any sony-zeiss lenses since Sony started their GM lineup?
[deleted]
I think what has really hurt Canon is their failure so far in the mirrorless segment. As others have said, for quite a while they've relied in large part on high quality glass and people's glass investments within the EF ecosystem to drive people to that and retain them within it. It's worked well - they are "good enough" on the sensor side and have also won (or at least not lost) on things which professionals care about quite a lot like reliability.
But mirrorless eroded a lot of that advantage - they were late to the trend, then came with a substandard offering (EOS M series) and then tried to catch up with the EOS R but leveraging existing glass investments to drive adoption is much harder because people see part of the point of mirrorless as moving to a new mount which allows for smaller lenses (at least at shorter focal lengths).
But mirrorless eroded a lot of that advantage - they were late to the trend, then came with a substandard offering (EOS M series) and then tried to catch up with the EOS R but leveraging existing glass investments to drive adoption is much harder because people see part of the point of mirrorless as moving to a new mount which allows for smaller lenses (at least at shorter focal lengths).
Well, the EOS R and RP are entry level cameras. They have yet to release a professional series mirrorless camera. Comparatively, the 1st gen Sony mirrorless systems were pretty bad. They had tiny bodies that overheated, had poor battery life, and had slow unreliable AF. Ofcource, The EOS R and RP won't be compared to Sony's 1st gen, which is very fair, but I don't think canon has failed in this market.
I'd say they haven't succeeded yet - and the signs aren't great. They needed to produce a knockout offering with the EOS R and RP I think - they were so far behind that unless they did, they would struggle to build market share. I don't know how many more chances the market will give them to get it right, sadly.
I disagree. Given their history and given their capability, I give them an excellent chance to hang on to their current dominant position. They're still producing drool worthy glass.. the RF 28-70 F/2.. the RF 50mm 1.2 is the tits. The new 600 F/4 III is sublime.
>The new 600 F/4 III is sublime.
It'd want to be, for $13,000!!
It'd want to be, for $13,000!!
I initially read this as "cannon rush" and was wondering how StarCraft related to camera profits
oh, I thought the same!! took me a few seconds to realize it's not about the Protoss cheese :D
[deleted]
They deserve every lost profit -- the way they have missed opportunity after opportunity on the video and photo market (late to 4K, late to mirrorless, lackluster features, fear of cannibalising their 6K+ models, and so on).
Maybe they could actually have a chance if they took note of what the users really wanted. Magic Lantern was one of the main reasons many friends of mine got a Canon, and the only reason it could exist is because some old source code leaked. Why not provide an open interface for that kind of stuff? Or at least provide similar features.
Because they want you to buy their expensive, professional EOS Cinema products for video use which have all the features you need.
Why can't I do light editing and post to Instagram directly from the camera? Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable?
I get it that pros don't need these features, but how hard are they to implement? The camera is already $1000+ dollars, how much more could adding a touch screen, a SIM card and a beefier CPU cost, when you have $100 phones with these features?
A lot of influencers would buy these cameras if they had a simple auto-mode (which disables most buttons and hides advanced menus) and upload to instagram feature. The workflow for using a DSLR to post to instagram is terrible, SD-cards, WiFi adapters, laptops, ... Not to mention that you need a lot of technical knowledge to hook everything up. No wonder few bother with the pain.
It's ridiculous that the most expensive cameras in the world can't connect to the number one place in the world where pictures are posted.