# CIPA Camera Sales Data Released, Decline Continues



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 5, 2016)

```
CIPA has released their latest camera sales numbers, and it appears the decline in sales continues. It looks like compact point & shoot cameras continue the biggest decline year over year.</p>
<p>You can see shipment comparisons between 2014, 2015 and 2016 in the images below.</p>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 33%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-27564 gallery-columns-3 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/dw-201610_e3.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/dw-201610_e3-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="dw-201610_e3" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/dw-201610_e2.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/dw-201610_e2-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="dw-201610_e2" /></a>
			</dt></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/dw-201610_e.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/dw-201610_e-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="dw-201610_e" /></a>
			</dt></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 5, 2016)

Point and shoot cameras are definitely going away. They were responsible for huge amounts of income, DSLR's are more profitable on a individual basis, but sales volume is much less.

Its the same with camcorders too.

I think the boom in P&S cameras started with the Kodak Brownie film camera, so its a historic thing to see them disappearing. The high end P&S cameras will hang around.

In the US, at least, mirrorless cameras look to consumers like P&S cameras and tend to be passed over for the professional looking Rebels.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> They were responsible for huge amounts of income, DSLR's are more profitable on a individual basis, *but sales volume is much less.*



Sales volume for ILCs _was_ much lower. In June of this year, ILC units shipped surpassed P&S units shipped for the first time, and more ILCs than P&S were shipped July - September. In October, more P&S were shipped, but only ~10K units (i.e. within 1%).


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 5, 2016)

Hard times for the market and the participating companies. 

Let's hope that we won't recognize too much impact on products and prices.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 5, 2016)

The volume drop is also forcing the price up of inter-changeable lens cameras its a tough but true outcome.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 5, 2016)

YES! Very happy to see that. Despite Canon Defense League claims I seem to have not been the only one who has not bought anything from that industry in all of 2016 ...  

But ... Canon knows better, Canon knows best, Canon multimillion bucks market research clearly shows, crippled Powershots and marginally improved iterations of big, fat mirrorslappers are exactly what the market wants. LOL! ;D

Hope the bleeding and suffering turns REALLY DRAMATIC soon, until they finally offer what "me and millions of other potential customers" want: 

*very compact AND fully powered APS-C and FF mirrorless cameras and lenses at affordable prices.
*

basta!


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 5, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> The volume drop is also forcing the price up of inter-changeable lens cameras its a tough but true outcome.



They will try short term. But very soon they will have to offer their wares at rock bottom prices to sell anything at all. I am not afraid in the least. I know I will get good enough imaging gear at decent prices for as long as i live.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> YES! Very happy to see that. Despite Canon Defense League claims I seem to have not been the only one who has not bought anything from that industry in all of 2016 ...
> 
> But ... Canon knows better, Canon knows best, Canon multimillion bucks market research clearly shows, crippled Powershots and marginally improved iterations of big, fat mirrorslappers are exactly what the market wants. LOL! ;D
> 
> ...



And you enjoy being offensive because...?

There are so many great options for photographers. Canon provides quite a few. So do Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, and Apple. 

Kudos to any camera company navigating the tsunamis of industry and cultural change!


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 5, 2016)

i am gleeful, because Canon and Nikon are not offering what I want and get punished for it. So well deserved. Would not mind, if a few players go under. Like the german imaging industry in the 1960/1970s who first laughed about the Japanese copycats. 

Why on earth is only Sony selling an FF sensored MILC system?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 5, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > YES! Very happy to see that. Despite Canon Defense League claims I seem to have not been the only one who has not bought anything from that industry in all of 2016 ...
> ...



Just off his meds again


----------



## j-nord (Dec 5, 2016)

- smart phone cameras continue to improve
- DSLRs are improving at a decreasing rate
- decreasing desire to upgrade
- used DSLR market is saturated
- sales volume are decreasing which means increasing prices which further decreases sales volume.
- etc

nothing new to see here.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Dec 5, 2016)

j-nord said:


> - smart phone cameras continue to improve
> - DSLRs are improving at a decreasing rate
> - decreasing desire to upgrade
> - used DSLR market is saturated
> ...



As rehashed as this "debate" gets each time... 

I still agree with these being the reasons. I (as a hobbyist) have very little incentive to upgrade as the marginal improvements don't greatly improve my enjoyment of a hobby. 

For the times when I don't lug a full DSLR around - I still have a very competent compact (not really needing an upgrade any time soon) and I almost always have the ubiquitous smartphone with its own onboard camera which is no slouch for quality of "snapshots" - My wife and I, ironically enough are using a cell phone photo from our trip out west for our holiday cards this year... because I didn't want to carry the DSLR on that particular day on that particular part of the trail we were on. I would venture that many/most casual users fall into this category... only very occasionally printing a photo, and when they do, the quality is sufficient from their cell phone. 

It will take a significant improvement in feature sets (or a fully broken non-functioning DSLR body) to get me to upgrade (or replace) any time in the near future. With market saturation at the level it is, finding a low-shutter count, reasonably priced used body isn't a hard task... so thereby not feeding the $$ to the mfr directly and thus contributing to the decline. 

My money, as I suspect is similar for many other CR people, goes to lens "upgrades" or filling out a kit, rather than to bodies. I'm also on a path of going from film/slide photography... selling/donating/tossing that gear to a period of dormancy and no gear other than a compact digital, back to ILC cameras in DSLR format. So, I'm playing catchup on the lens lineup. 

What does it mean for the big MFR's - not much other than they need to keep evolving their product lines, which they are.


----------



## slclick (Dec 5, 2016)

Stomping around like Verruca Salt will get us what we want?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> YES! Very happy to see that. Despite Canon Defense League claims I seem to have not been the only one who has not bought anything from that industry in all of 2016 ...
> 
> But ... Canon knows better, Canon knows best, Canon multimillion bucks market research clearly shows, crippled Powershots and marginally improved iterations of big, fat mirrorslappers are exactly what the market wants. LOL! ;D



As usual, you miss the point. Did I mention...*WOOOOSH*?

For ILCs, Jan-Oct 2016 shows a significant y/y decline for the industry as a whole. Canon's performance over that period shows quarterly y/y changes of 0%, -1% and +8%, and they predict the year will finish at -1%. A basically flat year during which the ILC market as a whole declines substantially means Canon's market share is growing...substantially. Which means that Canon's ILC market research is quite effective at figuring out what the majority of the reduced overall numbers of buyers want, and offering it to them. 




AvTvM said:


> Why on earth is only Sony selling an FF sensored MILC system?



Why is Sony losing market share...to Canon?


----------



## BasXcanon (Dec 5, 2016)

It's looking sad for Canon indeed.
There are so many used lenses on the used market now, 
there is no way they can make money with their Rebel series and the 18-55mm upgrades.

The only moneymaking that's left are:
*Getting their 120MP camera on the market.
*Producing Leafshutter lenses/camera's
*Bringing a Canon 5D(Iso) 12MP, 4k, High iso- clean images, to compensate for the bad 5Dm4 video features.
*Producing compact camera's with a larger sensor, more like their G1X and Fuji x100T
*More dual pixel features, split iso known from magic lantern and options to make 3D/ texture prints.

The jump from 70D to 80D, 5Dm3 to 5Dm4 is actually too small to consider as a hobbyist.

Do we have a Japans translator on this forum that can give my message to canon?


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 5, 2016)

BasXcanon said:


> It's looking sad for Canon indeed.
> There are so many used lenses on the used market now,
> there is no way they can make money with their Rebel series and the 18-55mm upgrades.
> 
> ...



Gibberish is gibberish in any language. Read Neuroanatomist's post above. 

Maybe 5DIII to 5DIV is not enough for YOU. Maybe a more common upgrade cycle would be 5DII to 5DIV...Or 6D to 5DIV...Or 60D to 5DIV. Etc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2016)

BasXcanon said:


> It's looking sad for Canon indeed.
> There are so many used lenses on the used market now,
> there is no way they can make money with their Rebel series and the 18-55mm upgrades.
> 
> ...



We really should find a way to get your message to Canon HQ. In case they really are sad, your ideas are so ridiculous and hilarious they're sure to get a much-needed laugh after reading them.

Actually, there's no need to translate them. AvTvM is 'convinced' that Canon scrutinizes this forum very closely, so no doubt your silly ideas are already printed out and sitting on the desks of Masaya Maeda and Fujio Mitarai.

:


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> We really should find a way to get your message to Canon HQ. In case they really are sad, your ideas are so ridiculous and hilarious they're sure to get a much-needed laugh after reading them.
> 
> Actually, there's no need to translate them. AvTvM is 'convinced' that Canon scrutinizes this forum very closely, so no doubt your silly ideas are already printed out and sitting on the desks of Masaya Maeda and Fujio Mitarai.
> 
> :



Holy snot....you're only 3 posts away from doing it...


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 5, 2016)

People need to get a few brain cells firing before commenting.

Shipments of ILC's are nearly back up to 2015 levels. The impact of Sony's fab is clearly identifiable on the ILC chart.

This year probably would have been pretty close to last year's shipments if it wasn't for that.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 5, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > We really should find a way to get your message to Canon HQ. In case they really are sad, your ideas are so ridiculous and hilarious they're sure get a much-needed laugh after reading them.
> ...



Make 20k upbeat!!! A plan for peace in our time! Goodwill to all!


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 5, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Make 20k upbeat!!! A plan for peace in our time! Goodwill to all!



his 20k post will be a defensive Canon Defense League response to me. 

Canon sucks. Canon is stupid! Neuro, defend your beloved Canon! Tell me, how stupid I am!


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Make 20k upbeat!!! A plan for peace in our time! Goodwill to all!
> ...


Sometimes I thought you were a fanatic, which is not always bad. 
Now this post makes you look like a real troll. *head-shaking*


----------



## hendrik-sg (Dec 5, 2016)

the upgrades are really getting smaller.

i remember when the 5diii came out and i tried it in a shop and compared with my 5dii. I was really impressed, the camera was much more responsive, better AF, higher quality feeling, the electronic horizon and some few more. i was infected, waited few month until the price came little down....

Now, few years later, i tried a 5div in the same shop, took the same test pics and it felt moreless the same. according to measurements, the sensor may be much better, and maybe the autofocus is better, but the 5diii AF is on a nice level, not like the 5dii which fell short compared to a 50d.

upgrade cost to the 5diii (from a quite new 5dii) was 1000$ maybe, now from a 3 years old 5diii it would be 2000$. My wife doesn't use it anymore, just the phone. 

So what features would have made me upgrade? Features, the 5diii has what i need. So I do not know, maybe a even more improved sensor, if they could skip the Bayer filter and measure the color in other way which would give at least 1 stop of sensitivity.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 5, 2016)

truth is: 5D III had the AF that really really should have been in 5D II already. And so on.


----------



## testthewest (Dec 5, 2016)

Oh well, doesn't look too rosy for the industry.
I wonder: How can Smartphones compete, if their imagining unit is not even one cubic cm large with lenses that weight more than 3 times the whole smartphone?

On the other hand, maybe the companies also lost a bit the customer. I for example, really wanted to buy my first full frame camera, but none of the canon offerings really convinced me, so I kept my money.
I hope the 6D will be worthwhile.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 5, 2016)

Canon is DOOOMED. Definitely. 
Neuro, come on - post a festive answer against me! ;D


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> i am gleeful, because Canon and Nikon are not offering what I want and get punished for it. So well deserved. Would not mind, if a few players go under. Like the german imaging industry in the 1960/1970s who first laughed about the Japanese copycats.
> 
> Why on earth is only Sony selling an FF sensored MILC system?



Wow, way to miss the point! Unless your mirrorless is a phone your in the same boat. As stated, big falloff in point and shoots. The slr market is saturated so it's going to be slower moving. This has nothing to do with mirrorless though and everything to do with cell phones getting better and better. For the needs of most people, a cell phone died the trick. And no matter how small mlc's get, unless you can play candy crush, send emails and txt and all the other stuff phones do your not pulling people away from phones.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 5, 2016)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > i am gleeful, because Canon and Nikon are not offering what I want and get punished for it. So well deserved. Would not mind, if a few players go under. Like the german imaging industry in the 1960/1970s who first laughed about the Japanese copycats.
> ...



no. it has EVERYTHING to do with (lack of) SMALL, GOOD and AFFORDABLE mirrorless cameras and lenses. Canon EOS M is a half decent succes, beacuse of samll, decent, affordable EF-M lenses, despite shortcomings of EOS M bodies. Sony... other way round. Good bodies, but no good lenses and/or bloody way too expensive, big and fat. because they made E-mount hiole too small and flange distance too short. lol


----------



## hendrik-sg (Dec 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Canon is DOOOMED. Definitely.
> Neuro, come on - post a festive answer against me! ;D



maybe you are right, maybe not, i do not know if the 5d3 AF unit and coputing power behind would have been available dor 5d2 already.

BUT, for 5D users the 5d2 gave big improvement in IQ,
For 5d2 users the 5d3 gave great AF and features (but outdated sensor)
For 5d3 users the 5d4 gives state of the art sensor and some features. 

if given the 5d3's AF and features to the 5d2, they would have sold much less 5d3's....

maybe this is your wish (and our all's) but not canon's best interest


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 5, 2016)

that's exactly it: we should NOT be concerned with Canon's best. We should FIRMLY DEMAND what is BEST FOR US. On this forum and vis a vis Canon. For example by not buying sub-par gear from them. Or excessively priced stuff. Which is what I do. And not only me. Massively shrinking unit sales. oO. :-D


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> no. it has EVERYTHING to do with (lack of) SMALL, GOOD and AFFORDABLE mirrorless cameras and lenses. Canon EOS M is a half decent succes, beacuse of samll, decent, affordable EF-M lenses, despite shortcomings of EOS M bodies. Sony... other way round. Good bodies, but no good lenses and/or bloody way too expensive, big and fat. because they made E-mount hiole too small and flange distance too short. lol



actually it doesn't because if this was true, the E-Mount and the M43 mount would have shown more signs of growth.

Olympus will ship less than 500,000 ILC's this year. half a million. that's it.

Sony's marketshare keeps eroding as well.

also seems weird to attack the e-mount on physical size and characteristics of the mount, when the EF-M is exactly the same.

Facts are hard .. especially when they don't match your opinion.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



The majority of the market wants 1 device that can go in a pocket and not need other things to go along with it. .. mlc is not the answer there. ..


----------



## hendrik-sg (Dec 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> that's exactly it: we should NOT be concerned with Canon's best. We should FIRMLY DEMAND what is BEST FOR US. On this forum and vis a vis Canon. For example by not buying sub-par gear from them. Or excessively priced stuff. Which is what I do. And not only me. Massively shrinking unit sales. oO. :-D



i did not say i do anything else... and i do not fight for their income... 

i try to understand, it's a balace of interests. If you demand a 1DXii for the price of a PS camera (just for example), there is no solution, it can not be build for this price. There is no deal, no business for canon and no camera for you


----------



## Sharlin (Dec 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> no. it has EVERYTHING to do with (lack of) SMALL, GOOD and AFFORDABLE mirrorless cameras and lenses



You're more even more deluded than I thought. So people are flocking from point-and-shoots to cell phones because phone cameras do everything they want regarding photography in the pocket-sized piece of electronics they have with them anyway. This _integration_ is the killer feature of phone cameras and the reason separate compact cameras are going away. And there you are, seriously thinking that what consumers really want is actually a separate camera that's even bulkier than compacts, with features they neither need nor want like interchangeable lenses... I mean, there's being wrong and then there's medical-grade delusion.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 5, 2016)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > i am gleeful, because Canon and Nikon are not offering what I want and get punished for it. So well deserved. Would not mind, if a few players go under. Like the german imaging industry in the 1960/1970s who first laughed about the Japanese copycats.
> ...


BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!

Most people are just looking for something that takes "acceptable" pictures, and for them, a cell phone is good enough. Short of making cell phones, it does not matter what Canon, Nikon, Sony, or Olympus do.... that market is GONE! So what is left? It's the market for "real" cameras for professionals and enthusiasts.... and that is where Canon and Nikon are duking it out for top spot.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 5, 2016)

From By Thom: "Battleship Canon just fired a salvo at the Cruiser Nikon. And it hit hard. Mostly because Nikon put their bow right where it was vulnerable ...So what to make of all this? Simple. Canon has decided that if the camera market is going to continue to collapse, *the only way for them to grow sales is to take down competitors.* Game on ...Sony is in Battleship Canon’s sights, too." http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/whoop-there-it-is.html

This should get interesting in the next few months. CES isn't that far away.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 5, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > no. it has EVERYTHING to do with (lack of) SMALL, GOOD and AFFORDABLE mirrorless cameras and lenses
> ...



use of the words "deluded" and "delusion" gives you away as member of the (paid?) Canon Defense League. 

What photo enthusiasts like me want is a camera system that provides WAY more photographic functionality and possibilities than a smartphone. I am willing to *pay a LOT more* and to carry *a reasonable BIT more* for this. I - and millions of others like me :_D - are NOT any longer willing to lug around a mirroslapping, essentially 19th century mechanical piece of gear and big fat junks of metal and glass. 

What I want is really simple. A Canon mirrorless FF body with size, weight and form factor exactly like Sony RX1R II, but with a native short flange distance lens mount up front. To take native Canon "EF-X" lense, AF-only, no manual focus cr*p included, decent optical quality, as compact as possible, affordably priced, IP67 weather-sealed please. Red ring, "premium" or "L" moniker not required. So simple. Just do it, stupid Canon.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 6, 2016)

Canon offers lower priced cameras and lenses with features that don't justify an upgrade for many.

And the higher priced Canon cameras and lenses miss essential features and qualities and are 10-40% too expensive.

Although I bought nearly each and every new Canon product over the years, I understand each one who don't, and know lots of people who see it the way described above.

If in 2017 Sony releases the expected mirrorless fusion out of A99II and A7RII plus some missing lenses like a 16-35/2.8 and 70-400 or 100-400, there are hardly any reasons left to invest in a Canon system other than brand loyalty.


----------



## retroreflection (Dec 6, 2016)

What is delusional is the belief that YOUR wishes are shared by millions.
What is delusional is the belief that an enterprise with trillions of yen in capital costs is STUPID for not meeting your wishes exactly (including selling at a loss).


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 6, 2016)

retroreflection said:


> What is delusional is the belief that YOUR wishes are shared by millions.
> What is delusional is the belief that an enterprise with trillions of yen in capital costs is STUPID for not meeting your wishes exactly (including selling at a loss).



Don't think so. My experience tells me otherwise. Whenever I want to do or buy something interesting, there is *millions of people* ahead of me in line up. This whole "delusional" yada yada is nothing but a demagogic trick people like Neuro and yourself are constantly trying to pull off, when you are out of arguments. 

And while I would love to see Canon sell something at a loss, I know perfectly well, they never will. All I am asking for is *affordable prices* for *decent gear.* (=very good, but not "stellar").

I am sure a € 1999 Canon "RX1R II sized" FF MILC plus compact, optically decent, affordable EF-X lenses [think along the lines of EF 40/2.8 STM and EF 50/1.8 STM] would sell well and Canon would turn a decent profit on it.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


So go buy your Sony and don't let the door hit you on your way out..... 

And "no manual focus cr*p included"? ? ? I'll stick to obsolete camera that I can manually focus when I want to take pictures of the night sky..... AF does not work on so many things....


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 6, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> And "no manual focus cr*p included"? ? ? I'll stick to obsolete camera that I can manually focus when I want to take pictures of the night sky..... AF does not work on so many things....



in the camera I would like to get, you would just dial in on camera body "infinity focus" ... and the lens would be set to just that. So simple. No focus ring on lens or manual focussing required. We live in the 21st century, you know ...


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > And "no manual focus cr*p included"? ? ? I'll stick to obsolete camera that I can manually focus when I want to take pictures of the night sky..... AF does not work on so many things....
> ...


I must admit that I would love to see a decent touchscreen interface with a tap for micro-adjust out or in.... I think that in a few years, no new camera will be without one.... but I do love my manual controls as well...


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 6, 2016)

much better: mirrorless! = no need for AFMA shenanigans whatsoever. 8)


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> much better: mirrorless! = no need for AFMA shenanigans whatsoever. 8)


We definitely have agreement there!

For me, the "fantasy come true" would be if the 6D2 was mirrorless, about the same form factor and similar controls, took the EF lenses straight, and they slap in a huge buffer. With no mirror, you can run a FAST burst mode, (my P/S is 100fps), and suddenly you can catch that action shot. I find that at 10Fps on the first shot the chickadee is still, the second shot you can see it getting ready to go, and on the third shot it is out of the frame...


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> much better: mirrorless! = no need for AFMA shenanigans whatsoever. 8)



actually you're wrong. Sony had to gimp AF to use stop down aperture on many of their lenses because of focus shift and the lack of a "AFMA" capability to handle the shift of focus.

since the camera can't focus with a particular lens when unless it's stopped down. you are handily fu*ked if you wish to down stop the lens in a lower light situation to increase your DOF.

Facts ... and understanding of technology and their limitations is hard.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 6, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > no. it has EVERYTHING to do with (lack of) SMALL, GOOD and AFFORDABLE mirrorless cameras and lenses
> ...



I think it's clear now AvTvM is a genuine troll. He's started posting self-consciously bizarre stuff that revels in stupidity and openly wants to rile other forum users. I had him muted before, now I hope he gets banned from the forum, or goes the way of Dilbert.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> retroreflection said:
> 
> 
> > What is delusional is the belief that YOUR wishes are shared by millions.
> ...



Where to even start...ugggg... your assumption is just that, an assumption that millions are like you.... that's where your delusional. Unless your a mind reader I really don't think you can speak for millions. Especially when the market data doesn't even come close to showing your anywhere near on target.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> i am gleeful, because Canon and Nikon are not offering what I want and get punished for it.



Who is selling what you want? Are they gaining market share?



> Why on earth is only Sony selling an FF sensored MILC system?



How many are they selling? Are they taking market share from the reflex lines? That answers your question.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 6, 2016)

Some things never change. Every time the CIPA data is released, we are treated to dunderheads who attempt to extrapolate industry-wide data to confirm their own distorted view of the market.

The data is actually pretty clear and contains no surprises.

The point and shoot market may not be quite dead, but it appears to be on life support. No company can compete against cell phones with general purpose point and shoots. Many are trying for niche cameras and some of them (mostly of the action-cam variety) seem to sell.

My own personal prejudice and extrapolation of industry-wide date to confirm *my* distorted view of the market: Had Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc., paid the least bit of attention to the marketplace 10 years ago, they would have seen the need to incorporate connectivity to their cameras. Instead they handed the market over to the phone industry on a silver platter. 

Now, that AvTvM was "stupid" of Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, etc. etc. They might not have been able to save the point and shoot market, but they should have been able to cut their losses considerably if they'd designed cameras with internet connectivity, touch screens and basic editing and uploading aps all as an integral component of their cameras.

But, what is done is done. 

Today's stats simply show that the interchangeable lens camera market is returning to historical patterns that characterized the camera industry before the advent of digital. Digital cameras are now a mature market. That market was never going to be able to sustain the growth of the first decade of the 21st century. It has nothing to do with offering or not offering mirrorless cameras. It's just the natural cycle of the market.

Fortunately, Canon and Nikon are very familiar with the boom and bust cycle of camera popularity (they've been through it many times in the past 80 years). That's why it's smart to invest in these tried and true systems. It's also why technology fetishists are likely to be disappointed in the offerings of all major manufacturers in the coming years as existing technology has reached diminishing returns.


----------



## MiamiC70 (Dec 6, 2016)

I agree. Yet, 10+ years later and connectivity in DSLRs is still an afterthought, crippled, convoluted or all. Touch screens are fewcand far between, weatherproofing commands huge premiums, accessories are rediculously marked up and their software both Windows, OSX, Android or iOS applications suck. Firmware updates are few and far between and features are rarely added or improved upon. 

Personally, I can't wait till one of the big 3 go under so "maybe" the remaining ones will get it through their thick Japanese skulls.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 6, 2016)

MiamiC70 said:


> And yet 10+ years later and connectivity in DSLRs is still an afterthought, crippled, convoluted or all. Touch screens are few and far between, weatherproofing commands huge premiums, accessories are ridiculously marked up...



Sad, but true.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 6, 2016)

unfocused said:


> MiamiC70 said:
> 
> 
> > And yet 10+ years later and connectivity in DSLRs is still an afterthought, crippled, convoluted or all. Touch screens are few and far between, weatherproofing commands huge premiums, accessories are ridiculously marked up...
> ...



Don't agree. With P&S I think you're right -- it would have been relatively easy to build a smartphone into a P&S camera. Certainly, Canon could have. I never use "connectivity" on my 70D: I don't use WiFi control (might some day), don't upload to FarceBook or SnackChat, don't edit on the teeny screen. I pull the SD card out, insert it into a USB adapter, then copy my photos over. I use my camera as a camera, not as a social media tool.

Better weatherproofing would be great.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 6, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> ...I never use "connectivity" on my 70D: I don't use WiFi control (might some day), don't upload to FarceBook or SnackChat, don't edit on the teeny screen. I pull the SD card out, insert it into a USB adapter, then copy my photos over. I use my camera as a camera, not as a social media tool...



"I don't need moveable type, this quill works just fine."

"I don't want a gas powered buggy, my horses are just fine."

"What do you need a toilet inside for? The outhouse is just a few steps away."

"My typewriter works fine, why would I want a computer on my desk?"


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 6, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > ...I never use "connectivity" on my 70D: I don't use WiFi control (might some day), don't upload to FarceBook or SnackChat, don't edit on the teeny screen. I pull the SD card out, insert it into a USB adapter, then copy my photos over. I use my camera as a camera, not as a social media tool...
> ...



Your point is taken, but exaggerated. The fact that I don't use it doesn't mean others won't find it useful, nor that I won't ever. My point was that these features would be well-placed on a P&S, but there's less demand on a DSLR.

In my opinion, connectivity will go the other way: cameras will reduce to lens and sensor, and you'll use your phone/device as the viewfinder and UI. It's already started happening with lens add-ons for smartphones.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 6, 2016)

BasXcanon said:


> Do we have a Japans translator on this forum that can give my message to canon?



You are like the armchair football watcher screaming at the television. Adjust the rabbit ears on the tinfoil hat and I'm sure your message to Canon will get through loud and clear.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Make 20k upbeat!!! A plan for peace in our time! Goodwill to all!
> ...



Why waste his breath? You already know how stupid you are.


----------



## MiamiC70 (Dec 6, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > MiamiC70 said:
> ...



Yea, I don't use it too often on my 70D either because it's a convoluted PITA to connect and use. Imagine if cellphone WiFi worked live Canon has implemented it in the 70D. :

However, when I have the time and do use it or need it it is great to have.


----------



## MiamiC70 (Dec 6, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Circular logic. Yes. There is "less demand". Mainly, because DSLR manufacturers don't offer it except on a handful of cameras and that is only recently.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 6, 2016)

MiamiC70 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Canon, at least, surveys its DSLR customers, so they likely know what features are important; i.e., what they're willing to pay for on a DSLR. By your reasoning, a manufacturer would have to offer every conceivable feature on one or more cameras to test demand.


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 6, 2016)

Do people still buy digital cameras? Every time I look at the most popular cameras on Amazon, all I see is Fuji Instax...

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Camera-Photo/zgbs/electronics/502394/ref=zg_bs_unv_e_2_281052_1

Even my local department stores no longer stock digital cameras. But they have big Instax displays.

If CIPA tracked film camera sales, we'd be celebrating a healthy and prosperous year, and be looking forward, optimistically, to 2017.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 6, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > ...I never use "connectivity" on my 70D: I don't use WiFi control (might some day), don't upload to FarceBook or SnackChat, don't edit on the teeny screen. I pull the SD card out, insert it into a USB adapter, then copy my photos over. I use my camera as a camera, not as a social media tool...
> ...



I get this, but, it's kind of asking too much. My hammer is still a hammer, yes it could also have WiFi but is there a need?

Give a dslr phone capabilities, great, but, it still doesn't compete with cell phones. The mass market for p&s cameras is quite satiated with what their phones can do. So to me at least this argument is a red herring. Like the hammer, does a camera really need to waste trespasses on apps?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 6, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Agree... this way a camera can be a camera, user the phone for the other stuff


----------



## c.d.embrey (Dec 6, 2016)

MiamiC70 said:


> Personally, I can't wait till one of the big 3 go under so "maybe" the remaining ones will get it through their thick Japanese skulls.



IMHO Nikon will be gone in two years, or so, if they don't get quality control fixed. Read what Nikon maven Thom Hogan wrote today. Nikon's other problem is not listening to their owners—the DX sensor Nikon D500 was several years late, which caused some switching.

Sony menus *suck-more* than most. That along with several other problems could hurt Sony, if Canon went after them with a 4K bridge camera, a Pro M w/4K, etc, etc.


----------



## LDS (Dec 6, 2016)

unfocused said:


> "I don't need moveable type, this quill works just fine."
> "I don't want a gas powered buggy, my horses are just fine."
> "What do you need a toilet inside for? The outhouse is just a few steps away."
> "My typewriter works fine, why would I want a computer on my desk?"



You're just looking at the innovations that worked. But there were, and are, a lots of "good ideas" that turned out not working/being useful at all. For example, I was reading today about the smartwatch sales slump. It looks, after all, people don't need nor like watches with apps. Sometimes all you need a specialized tool that does a single thing, but very, very well.

Wireless connection will become common, but beware also that what can connect to, can be connected to also... while making the UI more complicated with lots of dubious features (which can become obsolete in few years if not months) could - like watches - make people think if they really need them.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 6, 2016)

MiamiC70 said:


> Personally, I can't wait till one of the big 3 go under so "maybe" the remaining ones will get it through their thick Japanese skulls.



If one of the big 3 collapses the others will see less need to give you what you say you want. The competition won't be there to drive them on and people will only be able to buy what is available instead of voting with their wallet. 
It seems neither economics nor business realities are not your strong point.


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 6, 2016)

I've heard smartwatches have failed because they don't take good photos.

Once they get a decent camera, it will be goodbye to Rolex, Patek Philippe, Seiko and Co.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 6, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> MiamiC70 said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I can't wait till one of the big 3 go under so "maybe" the remaining ones will get it through their thick Japanese skulls.
> ...



When Nikon collapses [I bet it will!], I will just laugh. It will not impact my ability to get good imaging gear at decent prices for as long as I live. If the remaining suppliers do not make the right stuff and/or charge too much, me and millions of other potential non-Pro (!) users will just not buy. Until they are on their knees and have to sell their wares at firesale prices. As happened to Canon with their nerfed and overpriced EOS M not too long ago. ;D


----------



## SteveM (Dec 6, 2016)

Current cameras are very very good, and if you think about it, your current camera probably gives you all you need really. It would appear they have virtually maxed out current technology, hence the insignificant improvements from one model to the next. Some of the poor quality new lens releases won't help their cause....principally the 24-105 which could have been a massive seller for them. Then of course you have the the 'incredible' release price of a certain camera and some recent high price rises, always blamed on conversion rates.
I would imagine there is some 'executive' scratching his head and wondering why sales aren't skyrocketing in the dslr market with all the fantastic new add ons! I'm not. My current 5D Mklll and 7D mkll are perfectly adequate...more than that they are very good cameras. Until more significant upgrades are produced, at non insulting prices, my 'disposable income' goes into holidays, somewhere I can make the most of the gear I have and have a seriously good time as well.
For what it's worth, I don't want Bluetooth, I don't want wifi, I don't want touchscreens, I don't want 4K, just give me something simple like lower noise at higher ISO, and I don't mean a lousy half a stop increase. I want an improvement I can see on an A3 print, something tangible.


----------



## YuengLinger (Dec 6, 2016)

Even Starbucks is shifting from catering to the middle-class to targeting customers with more money to spend--as much as $1 per ounce for upscale coffee!

So, for those complaining endlessly about prices and strategies, business school might help you see the world a little differently.

As for mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses, they are absolutely one of the promising class of products for the industry. Baby boomers who have the cash may not have the strength, stamina, or steadiness for 35mm dSLR bodies, but they love, love, love bodies the size of the latest Fuji and Olympus offerings. With Olympus, they don't mind the smaller sensor because they can also use smaller lenses and enjoy in-body IS.

So, yes, there is a big segment of the enthusiast community willing to trade big dSLR's for smaller mirrorless, and Canon has, perhaps, been too slow to respond to this development.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 6, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> As for mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses, they are absolutely one of the promising class of products for the industry.



Absolutely. I just don't agree with those who foresee the demise of Canon because they have not got the technology perfected in their products...like...NOW!




YuengLinger said:


> Baby boomers who have the cash may not have the strength, stamina, or steadiness for 35mm dSLR bodies, but they love, love, love bodies the size of the latest Fuji and Olympus offerings. With Olympus, they don't mind the smaller sensor because they can also use smaller lenses and enjoy in-body IS.



Which is why I have Olympus MFT and Panaconic MFT. And if it was not for my love of shooting wildlife I may well have got rid of my Canon gear by now. 



YuengLinger said:


> So, yes, there is a big segment of the enthusiast community willing to trade big dSLR's for smaller mirrorless, and Canon has, perhaps, been too slow to respond to this development.


'Too slow' or 'no need to hurry'? My guess is the latter. And despite the pro/enthusiasts who have shifted totally to mirrorless (and there are a sizeable number of them), Canon's DSLR offerings remain strong while mirrorless have shown little growth. 
I have read and heard rumors that the next generation of Canon mirrorless will show significant improvements - probably not approaching the functionality of Sony or Olympus but strong enough in themselves to keep Canon owners interested as a second compatible compact system and interest people new to the market.


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 6, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> there is a big segment of the enthusiast community willing to trade big dSLR's for smaller mirrorless, and Canon has, perhaps, been too slow to respond to this development.



actually there doesn't seem to be.

Olympus can only sell 500,000 cameras in a year.

Sony's unit shares have been slipping.

Panasonic who knows.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> that's exactly it: we should NOT be concerned with Canon's best. We should FIRMLY DEMAND what is BEST FOR US. On this forum and vis a vis Canon. For example by not buying sub-par gear from them. Or excessively priced stuff. Which is what I do. And not only me.



So what happens when you (and your million fantasy friends) DEMAND the small FF MILC that is BEST FOR YOU, and two others (and their _two_ million fantasy friends) DEMAND the larger, ergonomically balanced dSLR-like FF MILC that is BEST FOR THEM?

What happens is you still don't get what you want...and you still have no clue why.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 6, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > there is a big segment of the enthusiast community willing to trade big dSLR's for smaller mirrorless, and Canon has, perhaps, been too slow to respond to this development.
> ...



If there is nothing *WORTHWHILE to BUY*, nothing will be SOLD. As easy as that. Circular conclusion. 

Isn't it obvious? 

* Sony sucks, because of lens offering and totally pervert lens prices
* Panasonic sucks because of mFT dwarf-sensor (except for some video-centric people)
* Olympus mFT dwarf. Also, their top-dog mFT camera is as big and expensive as a Sony A7 II FF camera and a lot more expensive than a Canon 6D 
* Fuji sucks because of body and lens prices for a crop-only system. Higher prices than 6D and Canon EF lenses. 

Would you invest *serious money* in a crop-only system? Not me, and not *millions of others* ... if my kind spends a grand or 2 or 3 a pop, its gotta be the FULL FRAME MONTY ... 36x24mm sensor and matching image circle. 

If it has a smaller sensor/image circle, fine we will also accept it, but it better be priced significantly lower ... like Canon EF-S and EF-M glass. As simple as that. I want to give Canon credit - they got THAT ONE right! Smart, Canon!


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> If there is nothing *WORTHWHILE to BUY*, nothing will be SOLD. As easy as that. Circular conclusion.



Is that as far as your knowledge of business management goes? 



AvTvM said:


> Isn't it obvious?
> 
> * Sony sucks, because of lens offering and totally pervert lens prices
> * Panasonic sucks because of mFT dwarf-sensor (except for some video-centric people)
> ...



And yet they all have loyal customers including many, many professionals. Lord alone knows what yo would think of and amateur like Alex Majoli (award-winning |magnum photographer) using Olympus point-and -shoots on assignment. 


Of what I have seen on your flickr site, you could use a MFT and not tell the difference in image quality.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 6, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Of what I have seen on your flickr site, you could use a MFT and not tell the difference in image quality.



Don't have a flickr account or photos there. If there is an AvTvM nick there, it is not me. 


I agree, some people manage to capture awesome images with very basic gear, including smartphones. If I want, I also manage to drive a screw into a wall with a hammer. Yet, that does not make the hammer an adequate screwdriver.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Dec 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sales volume for ILCs _was_ much lower. In June of this year, ILC units shipped surpassed P&S units shipped for the first time, and more ILCs than P&S were shipped July - September. In October, more P&S were shipped, but only ~10K units (i.e. within 1%).



But battery sales per sold ILC must be considerably higher than those per DLSR 8)


----------



## justaCanonuser (Dec 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > YES! Very happy to see that. Despite Canon Defense League claims I seem to have not been the only one who has not bought anything from that industry in all of 2016 ...
> ...



This debate is a wonderful example for our post-thruth age. A scientist (I am one, too) tries to argue with facts, but all those little and bigger Donalds out there don't care.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 7, 2016)

the facts I care about are my wallet, my money and what I get for it from a given gear supplier. I am neither interested in that suppliers' sales numbers nor in their profits. That's their problem, not mine. All I want is max. bang for my buck Euros.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 7, 2016)

You really have lost touch with reality haven't you.



> I am neither interested in that suppliers' sales numbers nor in their profits. That's their problem, not mine. All I want is max. bang for my buck Euros.



Without sales, they do not make profit.
Without profit they go bust
Then you have no cameras at all to buy.
So yes, it is your problem.



> the facts I care about are my wallet, my money


Look at it this way - if htere are no products you want to buy, you can console your self with the knowledge that the 'new' gear is not significantly better than the gear you won, you therefore have near-top of the range equipment _without spending a single cent_. You have saved your self thousands and got the best value of all without doing anything.



Except of course, coming on this forum and whining how the manufacturers are not producing equipment no-one else does and how you are not able to find anything to spend your money on. It may be a radical idea but how about taking the money you _want_ to spend on camera gear and spending it instead on going to exotic locations and actually using the gear you've got?


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 7, 2016)

When the MILCs prove to be good enough and when the lens we have fit them they will be more popular.
The industry is a victim of its own success. Competition has brought the standard to near perfection. The gear is pretty robust and will last for years as long as you keep water away from it. It's hard to grow the market. They almost need a scrapage scheme to get people to get rid of their old cameras. Sales I think will gradually drop but as the worlds population increases there will be new customers. Photography itself is as popular as ever.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> the facts I care about are my wallet, my money and what I get for it from a given gear supplier. I am neither interested in that suppliers' sales numbers nor in their profits. That's their problem, not mine. All I want is max. bang for my buck Euros.



As long as you don't care why manufacturers are not making – and may never make – the products you want, that attitude makes sense. I suppose some people find it liberating to be so clueless they're oblivious to their own cluelessness.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 7, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> > I am neither interested in that suppliers' sales numbers nor in their profits. That's their problem, not mine. All I want is max. bang for my buck Euros.
> 
> 
> Without sales, they do not make profit.
> ...



OMG, panic! No more camera for me! You seem to be a very "concerned citizen". Relax. Consider the facts (!) ... don't panic! ;D ;D ;D

A. Canon looks after their profits rather well themselves. Sales and profits are entirely their problem. As customers we don't have to constantly look after their interests, and consider their profitability, but defend and look after our own interests: decent gear @ decent prices. 

B. Luckily, to the overwhelming majority of existing and potential (non-Pro) customers imaging gear is not a vital product but rather a leisure/luxury item. 

From this follows: 
1. imaging gear suppliers are infinitely more dependent on us customers than we are on them

2. should Nikon, Canon, Sony or all together go bust, likelihood is extremely high, that somebody else will step in and make and sell us decent imaging gear. 

... at least as long as I am not really the only one left who wants to buy dedicated cameras and lenses. ;D


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 7, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > > I am neither interested in that suppliers' sales numbers nor in their profits. That's their problem, not mine. All I want is max. bang for my buck Euros.
> ...



A - I think this is the major thing you don't seem to get --- many of us do believe that we have damn good gear for the cost. that's why we defend canon, because the end result is we have damn good gear.

B - you seem to completely ignore that there is a wide ranging professional market that yes, favors reliability, functionality and build quality over the latest gimmick feature... For this segment imaging fear IS vital. But, for this segment, purchases will be made based on actual need and ROI. Canon and nikon will more than likely design products for the pro/semi pro market because this market is more predictable. The non pro leisure photographer are buying based on want, not need and identifying their wants is not as easy as its not based on need - it's fickle, it changes based on trends, which change. 

I mean, for a while the biggest need was DR, now it's 4k, you cry from the mountain top that we need tiny full frame mirrorless, others are begging for c-fast, others wish video wasn't a concern and want just a stills camera, others want flippy screens. What will the next trend be??? 

1 - Without gear suppliers there can't be customers, its a symbiotic relationship. 

2 - If canon nikon and sony all go bust ---well damn dude, your talking about apocalypse level financial collapse - those are all big companies with deep pockets - and photography is still very very popular. All 3 going down would mean we had an asteroid hit the earth, or nuclear war, or the rise of the zombies. Yes the market has slowed, and yes, cell phones are killing the mid-range of the market. Yes, we've hit a point of diminishing returns for upgrades, that will also slow the market. But, we're no where near a market collapse... To bring this full circle, while yes, it is your priority to look after your own interests and seek out the best gear for the $$ - but - to pretend that your needs are everyones needs and demand a company to make the product you want and let everything else be damned is totally counter to your statement of looking out for your own interest because it costs money to develop and manufacture a product - if it flops that means everything else becomes more costly - isn't your main issue finding decent gear @ decent prices?

We have damn good gear, we've had damn good gear. Hell, many skip upgrade cycles because the upgrade can't be justified - that's because what they have is already good and has been good. It's got lasting power - that's something you don't find in this world anymore. I don't want another disposable item.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 7, 2016)

i hear you. Yes, I agree, overall we have a choice from *fairly decent* gear. 

BUT, now comes the BUT:
* things always only come one or 2 iterations later than what would have been (technically and cost-wise) easily possible ... or are even consciously NERFED, and not due to "reliability considerations"! 

just a few examples, there are many many more ... think of how long it took to finally get WiFi in high-priced DSLRs and then it is strill only half-assed, think of 5D2's nerfed AF, think of ultra-nerfed EOS M, M2, M10 ... I don't even mention 4k, because there are video cams for that. 

But boy, how long did/do we have to wait for a decent APS-C mirrorless system ... especially bodies (M5 is just about OK, but not great). a fully competitive with Sony FF MILC system is not even visible on the horizon from Canon ... and and. 

Did i say sensors that are clearly superior to anybody else's .. like it was before 2011? 5 years and still not fully closed the gap to Sony. Not to speak of having leapfrogged them ... 

Why no Eye Control AF v2.0 - a huge USP that (many, most) customers would directly profit from with every shot taken thru viewfinder with a Canon camera. And no competitor has it or could quickly implement it too. 

Yes, it is not only Canon, Nikon is even worse. But, here we are looking at Canon first and foremost. 

No, I do *not* expect a 1DX II camera for 99 or 999 Euro or an EOS M1 more capable at tracking AF than a 5D IV. 

BUT ... we customers have to constantly push our suppliers for more & better. They try to hold back some of the best stuff from us and try nickel and dime us all the time (called "marketing differentiation"). So if we customers also sing our SUPPLIER'S song, we are really doubly f*cking ourselves. That's it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2016)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> We have damn good gear, we've had damn good gear. Hell, many skip upgrade cycles because the upgrade can't be justified - that's because what they have is already good and has been good. It's got lasting power - that's something you don't find in this world anymore. I don't want another disposable item.



Exactly - a mature market. Call it incremental improvement, call it market differentiation, call it nerfing, bottom line is that products at all levels are giving great value and performance, but people's needs/wants for the level of performance differ. Personally, I started with a T1i/500D, moved to a 7D, added a 5DII, then swapped that pair for a 1D X. Not sufficiently tempted by the 1D X II to purchase one. But novel products are tempting, like the 11-24L that I bought earlier this year.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 7, 2016)

SteveM said:


> Current cameras are very very good, and if you think about it, your current camera probably gives you all you need really. It would appear they have virtually maxed out current technology, hence the insignificant improvements from one model to the next.


Sensors can still improve quite a lot and more MPIX is still noticeably better as it brings out more IQ from each lens you own.

5DS/R filled a massive void in the Canon camera line-up. It had 220%+ more pixels than the 5DIII. The sensor is better in every single dimension than the 5DIII sensor - color, noise, DR. I consider it a "significant" upgrade by any standard. And that's pretty recent. 

Canon has a 120 MPIX camera sensor in the making. Will that also be another "Insignificant" upgrade?


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 7, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> ...
> BUT ... we customers have to constantly push our suppliers for more & better. They try to hold back some of the best stuff from us and try nickel and dime us all the time (called "marketing differentiation"). So if we customers also sing our SUPPLIER'S song, we are really doubly f*cking ourselves. That's it.


Even if so, even you are 100% right here, the only way to act is to vote with your purse. 
So just don't buy the things you think they are c**p. 
Others don't feel like you do and so all - ALL: Canon, Nikon, Sony - don't feel the urge to develop whatever you think is right. You can think those are *** but to call them whatever you think won't make it better.

So maybe you'll find a better way to persuade Canon R&D than to moan in a forum.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 7, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> From this follows:
> 1. imaging gear suppliers are infinitely more dependent on us customers than we are on them



Absolutely



AvTvM said:


> 2. should Nikon, Canon, Sony or all together go bust, likelihood is extremely high, that somebody else will step in and make and sell us decent imaging gear.


Someone else without the experience and know-how of how to deliver the product to millions of so far satisfied customers will fail to deliver to said satisfied customers. We all lose out. Or do you not understand how companies work?

I agree that for us, photography is a luxury. For them, our purchasing is vital to their very existence. 
But personally, if I want to maintain my supply of quality camera gear I need Canon to survive. I would rather they did. And, actually so would you. 
Or do you not understand that? 

Let's put it another way - Canon goes bust and all that gear you have becomes worthless. SO why not sell it up now while it has resale value and buy a brand that satisfies your needs. Because Canon clearly don't.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 7, 2016)

they are not bust. yet. and even if the go bust, ican go and capture MY images with the gear i have. no need to sell. yet. 

i am secure. Canon is at risk.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 7, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Let's put it another way - Canon goes bust and all that gear you have becomes worthless. SO why not sell it up now while it has resale value and buy a brand that satisfies your needs. Because Canon clearly don't.



I am fairly convinced now that the person you're replying to just wants attention. They are posting tonnes of provocative things that incite a lot of response, and that encourages them. There's a point at which someone can demonstrate they are not interested in debate, they just want to stir things up. The best thing we can do here is ignore.


----------



## hbr (Dec 7, 2016)

> I am fairly convinced now that the person you're replying to just wants attention. They are posting tonnes of provocative things that incite a lot of response, and that encourages them. There's a point at which someone can demonstrate they are not interested in debate, they just want to stir things up. The best thing we can do here is ignore.



Don't feed the trolls and maybe they will go away. They are just here for click bait. Nothing worthwhile to contribute to this forum.


----------



## BasXcanon (Dec 10, 2016)

Dear neuroanatomist and yuenglinger,

I do not have the time to look on the forum so much every day, thats why my respond to your reactions comes so late.
Please let me REDEFINE the word *Sad* that I used earlier.

I looked the sales from the consumer side of view, and it might be true that the statements from the post are nothing new with the declining camera sales. 
The only reason why I am writing this reaction is to give you an idea why I used this 'sad'.

After 15 years of digital photography for consumers it is still only like 30% of the world population that can install a canon printer to their computer and learn how to get the SD data to the printer. 
I believed Digital should have made it all easier, and the picture taking part has become easier with digital but storing and getting it printed how ever is the biggest obstacle possible for the most of people out there.
Let not even begin talking about learning them how to operate a DSLR in any other mode than automatic.

The way I see it, there are only 3 groups of camera buyers left. 
1. Paid professionals
2. People that really want a camera for the feeling, the better quality than cellphones or the fact that they knew film photography very well.
3. Younger people that know computers very well and are well educated on the side of computerskills/Storing/editing/printing photo's. They just want cameras for decent footage for their photoshop skills.

Now I believe all those 3 groups have their own specific problems.
*1. Professionals, *
You might think that professionals already know what they need etc. ..
But the truth is, is that since I saw an Internet article about a Fuji photographer I started thinking deeply.
There was being told that the photographer could do the same wedding with Fuji X100t, Xt1, 56mm and 90mm lens.
He showed his gear that he used in the passed aswell.... like 9 L lenses, 2 full frame camera's 1 speedlite.
And guess what..... this person, (and not only this one), still get paid jobs after his switch!
The fact clients pay for this setup makes me wonder why one would need canon full frames for weddings.
With this fuji setup, you could do the same with canon if you use: 7DmII, 11-24mm F4, 50mm L, 100m L Macro, speedlites.
DAMM! why pay for more equipment if it doesn't pay off???? 
In fact if I were the professional and my clients accept me to work with a point and shoot and accept the results and pay the same. My future would contain many less canon purchases....

Have you even looked at photographs in the newspaper in 2016? Even journalists becoming Scamsungographers now.
And let me tell you, I hate the oversharpnessed jpegs from Samsung.
The quality from newspaper photos has dropped to a new depth, but guess what..... the journalist still get paid every week.
I think you can guess where this is going...

*2.The well known enthusiasts,*
They might all pretend like they are a loyal paying group. The fact that they often don't have the right computer-post skills makes them having a bad mood soon enough when they compare their photo's with iPhone photo's with in phone edditing. I don't know if neuroanatomist and yuenglinger have followed the recent news about apple, but that company declared war vs the camera industry by not integrating SD readers in their laptops any more.
CD readers have also gone already, so how is this group getting their DPP-4 software on their computer to start even learning to edit their DSLR photo's???
Well I know canon lets you download it from their webpage aswell. But this group of people have really no idea how to download zip files and instal and search on the web. (certainly if it comes to non-native-english speaking people).

*3. Younger people*
As stated before, this group already can find out the thricks about the post process and all that comes after taking the picture. The problem for canon is that since they rely more on post and editting, they are not likely to buy flashes and more lenses, since everything can be digitally manipulated. They don't care about learning the highest camera skills. 
Not even mentioning the rising of duo lenses on smartphones and litro camera's creating fake bokeh. 


The last thing that almost made me get tears....
I think as an artist (which a photographer is in a way) it also is your duty to teach your friends/followers/surrounding people to teach them your ART. How it gets done, how they get started, how to recognize art and redefine photography vs snapshots. 
Now at the moment I have this older Canon 1100D which I used for the Magic Latern features. 
But since I have bought the Canon XC-10, I have no need for this video features on the 1100D no more....
So I started looking for someone who could use my 1100D, I would give it away as a gift for someone to start exploring photography. But in my own field, there is sadly enough no one left that wants it, even for free, even if I would gave them a bit of a training!

Last but not least I really do believe that these xxxxD cameras are mostly being bought by the not so well informed consumers. Canon is actually (mis-using) the inability of people to get the right information.
Let's be honest, try get in the skin of a consumer buying his first system camera.
A. If you don't care about the flash options on the market.
B. If you only buy the kitlens and believe you don't need anything else.
C. Know nothing about Sensor sizes and equivalent framing.
D. But do compare the spec charts.
You have to admit that the competitions cameras from Panasonic at 350€ are way more appealing than the 1300D.
For 400€ you are better of with an used Canon 60D anyway.
It's only a matter of time before this consumer type gets well informed, and canon won't be selling a single DIGIT-4 Rebel no more, I can guarantee you that.


I hope neuroanatomist and yuenglinger will get the idea why I dared use the word *SAD* for the market situation in general.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2016)

@BasXcanon – your three groups seem to leave out the 'soccer moms and dads' who are a major (if not _the_ major) demographic for xxxD bodies, which represent the majority of Canon dSLR unit sales. They're not pros, not 'enthusiasts' and not 'post-processing experts' (in fact, most shoot in-camera jpg). I think few feel 'duped' by Canon (or Nikon, et al.), and I suspect most would resent your implication that they're happy with their images just because they don't know any better. 

Unfortunately, I think I'd have to apply the word *sad* to the sentiment of your post.


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 11, 2016)

Was going to say a similar thing. Because I photograph a lot of school and sporting events, I occasionally get asked for camera recommendations. Despite being a mirrorless user, I always recommend Canon DSLRs. The reasons why mirrorless works for me is of little relevance to someone who wants to take a sharp image of their child during a sporting event or an indoor performance. Taking into account performance and price, lens choice, accessories and the extensive used market, it is clearly the best value proposition.

BasXcanon, I'd be curious to hear what you'd recommend. 

Anyways, Professionals using Fuji? Yeah, why not. I've got four Fuji cameras. I think they're great. But most Fuji users recognise that there are situations where they're not the best choice. Just as there are situations where DSLRs aren't the best choice. Professionals are expected to get results and it would be assumed they'd choose appropriate equipment. 

I don't think I've ever bought a computer with an inbuilt SD card reader. Do Apple laptops still have USB ports? If so, I guess their users will have to contend with card readers like the rest of us. Not ideal, but going by their ads, aren't Apple users smarter than everyone else? I'm sure they can figure it out.

I went to an iphonography seminar recently. I was impressed by the aps that were available and how they were being used. Because I rarely venture out of Photoshop, it was a real eye opener. I wouldn't be so negative on young people. As you say, it is an artform and the medium people choose to use is their choice. Still, if you were to go to any local camera club meeting, you'd probably see a very high number of young people who'd love an 1100D.

FWIW, I was one of three judges of our national high school photography competition this year. If you do have doubts about young people and photography, trust me, you've got to attend one of these events. You'll leave in awe of what high school students are capable of. The quality of the images is exceptional.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 11, 2016)

BasXcanon:


> After 15 years of digital photography for consumers it is still only like 30% of the world population that can install a canon printer to their computer and learn how to get the SD data to the printer.


Because 70% of the camera owning population don't care about printing - they share their images on social network sites or 500pX, Flickr and the like. Nothing wrong with that - and you try showing a lot of low light smartphone photos on large screen, or cropped.
Besides, if you want it printed there are a growing number of photobooths around where you can slide in your SD card and print it off yourself.

Professionals - the subtext to your comment is that professionals are as mis-informed as anyone else. They are bigoted and blind about gear as anyone else - and as an example you only need to see the insults fly around when a professional says 'I now shoot all my wedding with micro 4/3'. I have been convinced for a long time that all this blather of 'you owe it to the client t ive them the best possible quality so you have to shoot raw with FF cameras' is more about personal ego than about giving the client what they want. 

The well known enthusiasts - I think your logic here is rather muddled. There are many 'well-known enthusiasts' who are well known only because of their skills in post processing to produce outstanding quality images. 
Apple have not declared war on the camera industry, for the simple reason their phones have cameras. They are simply dong what Apple do best in telling the customer what they will do and when. To download pictures you have to put the photos on the cloud (preferably theirs) so they are tying you in. They are reducing manufacturing costs by not installing a SD reader and not paying any royalities (if they are due) for using SD technology. 
One social network site (I don;t recall who) now will only take photos from smartphones and will not take pictures made by 'standalone' cameras. 

Younger people - the number of skilled your photographers is growing from what I can see. 



> You have to admit that the competitions cameras from Panasonic at 350€ are way more appealing than the 1300D.


You may thing that as an experienced photographer because you know the payoffs, but I have advised several friends and acquaintances on their first camera - I have shown them the images quality and size comparison using my own DSLR and MFT rigs, and every one of them went DSLR.


----------

