# ARE Canon heading down the same track as Kodak



## lb (Feb 20, 2018)

Some times I just wonder is it possible that Canon are heading the same was a Kodak, on top and in control but only to fall by the wayside because of the lack of new ideas, I remember all that Kodak achieved and took a wrong turn, Canon seems to be following same path as of late with no interesting new ideas, even the Firmware upgrades are in most cases with just obvious error removals that should not have been their in the first instance, when will the oily spatters be eliminated from our top of the Canon range DSLR etc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 20, 2018)

YAPODFC. :

Film to digital = paradigm shift

ILC with mirror to ILC without mirror = different flavor of same product


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 20, 2018)

lb said:


> Some times I just wonder is it possible that Canon are heading the same was a Kodak,



No. Next question.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 20, 2018)

Humans are heading down the same track as Kodak, so, in a sense, yes.

Otherwise, I agree with Orangutan. And I think the OP has posted here the same stuff under various names. Just a suspicion, though. Otoh, maybe there are more folks who enjoy spending their time posting nonsense in an apparent effort to a) antagonize for the fun of it, and/or b) make a few pennies a post on a troll farm. (Sorry, I'm letting current events confuse me.)


----------



## mistaspeedy (Feb 20, 2018)

If Canon were really hurting, they would cram more stuff into their DSLRs like Nikon did to avoid bankruptcy with the D850... it was their 'this had better be good or we go bankrupt' camera. Even though Canon make their own sensors, if push comes to shove, they can also get someone else to manufacture them, just like Nikon did.

So far, all I see is Canon doing quite well.... so much so that they comfortably gimp and cripple many features on various products to protect other more expensive products.... and these cameras still sell well because they get the most important things right.

I feel that many people are not frustrated by the fact that Canon gimps certain products to protect others... they understand this is good business practice. The frustrating thing is just how much gimping is taking place, and a feeling that this has gone several steps too far. That the final product has been uncontrollably hit with the nerf bat with nobody saying 'stop, that's enough!... it's worse than the 5 year old camera it is replacing!'


----------



## unfocused (Feb 20, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> ...folks who enjoy spending their time posting nonsense in an apparent effort to a) antagonize for the fun of it...



"a" is the correct answer.

And, by the way, this one isn't particularly good at it. He/she is just copying and pasting inane comments that have been floated and proven wrong hundreds of times before.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 20, 2018)

lb said:


> Some times I just wonder is it possible that Canon are heading the same was a Kodak, on top and in control but only to fall by the wayside because of the lack of new ideas, I remember all that Kodak achieved and took a wrong turn, Canon seems to be following same path as of late with no interesting new ideas, even the Firmware upgrades are in most cases with just obvious error removals that should not have been their in the first instance, when will the oily spatters be eliminated from our top of the Canon range DSLR etc.



Sometimes I think Nikon shooters come through here just to project. To quote David Allen Coe, "Well I was drunk, the day my maw got out of prison. And I went to pick her up in the rain. But before I could get to the station in my pickup truck, she got runned over by a damned ol' train!"


----------



## Talys (Feb 20, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Humans are heading down the same track as Kodak, so, in a sense, yes.



Pfft. You must have missed the future-documentary episode of Babylon 5, "The Deconstruction of Falling Stars"


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 20, 2018)

Every time I read about someone saying that Canon's "apparent lack of progress" is going to be detrimental to them, I can only think about how people are going to perceive the industry we live in today after another 20 years have gone by.

Is everything we have today going to be totally irrelevant in the coming years? Or have we very nearly maximized the potential of the best photographic technologies that will ever exist?

Modern refrigerators work well enough, but they're no better than a fridge from 30 years ago (and often worse). There is a peak in the potential design of any given technology, and it's not unimaginable to think that we aren't very far from hitting that point in camera sensors (as long as all the crazy patents we keep hearing about keep being just crazy patents).

If Canon is looking at the long term potential of the industry and saying "we have three major sensor design improvements left to implement before there is nothing more that can be done", the wise business decision is to stretch those out as long as possible.
The A7RIII may very well be the best camera that Sony will ever produce, and if it is that means everyone who buys one is getting their money's worth, but it also means as soon as everyone who wants a high tech mirrorless body has the A7RIII, Sony will have completely saturated their market potential.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 20, 2018)

lb said:


> Some times I just wonder is it possible that Canon are heading the same was a Kodak, on top and in control but only to fall by the wayside because of the lack of new ideas, I remember all that Kodak achieved and took a wrong turn, Canon seems to be following same path as of late with no interesting new ideas, even the Firmware upgrades are in most cases with just obvious error removals that should not have been their in the first instance, when will the oily spatters be eliminated from our top of the Canon range DSLR etc.



Well, first of all you don't know anything about Kodak, apparently, as they were the leading seller of digital cameras in the US as late as 2005. They also made the first DSLRs for Canon. What Kodak did was make film (a market that almost totally disappeared), photo paper for virtually all the film photo processing (a market that almost totally disappeared) and disposable film cameras (a market that almost totally disappeared). 

So what market is going to almost disappear that will send Canon down the same path? Digital cameras?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 20, 2018)

9VIII said:


> Modern refrigerators work well enough, but they're no better than a fridge from 30 years ago (and often worse).



"The average refrigerator manufactured in 1981 consumed 1,278 kilowatt hours (kWh) of energy per year and those manufactured in 2013 consumed only 444 kWh of energy per year..."

http://www.aei.org/publication/home-appliances-good-old-days-now-theyre-cheaper-better-energy-efficient-ever/

http://aceee.org/blog/2014/09/how-your-refrigerator-has-kept-its-co


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 20, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Well, first of all you don't know anything about Kodak, apparently, as they were the leading seller of digital cameras in the US as late as 2005. They also made the first DSLRs for Canon. What Kodak did was make film (a market that almost totally disappeared), photo paper for virtually all the film photo processing (a market that almost totally disappeared) and disposable film cameras (a market that almost totally disappeared).
> 
> So what market is going to almost disappear that will send Canon down the same path? Digital cameras?



Kodak made DSLR's for Canon? Which ones? They did sell sensors to almost everyone. I owned a Kodak DSLR, but they only made the digital back, not the camera.

Here is a photo of mine, it doesn't really look like a Canon, but they later made one model compatible with canon lenses.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 20, 2018)

AlanF said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Modern refrigerators work well enough, but they're no better than a fridge from 30 years ago (and often worse).
> ...



Maybe laundry machines would have been a better example.

Either way my point stands, if we see significant changes in technology everything on market now will be obsolete, or Canon will eventually catch up with the best existing tech.


----------



## bhf3737 (Feb 20, 2018)

lb said:


> Some times I just wonder is it possible that Canon are heading the same was a Kodak, on top and in control but only to fall by the wayside because of the lack of new ideas, I remember all that Kodak achieved and took a wrong turn, Canon seems to be following same path as of late with no interesting new ideas, even the Firmware upgrades are in most cases with just obvious error removals that should not have been their in the first instance, when will the oily spatters be eliminated from our top of the Canon range DSLR etc.


We have heard this several hundred times. And let me help you: there has been several posts comparing Canon with Kodak, RIM and Nokia and all have tried to sell the canon is ******* idea. You are assuming Canon has the "lack of new ideas" but there is no fresh and new idea in your question either.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 21, 2018)

Actually, Canon was early to turn out serious DSLR's, they managed the change of paradigm quite well. Right now, they are diversifying into medical imaging, surveillance imaging, and are actively looking for additional business in the imaging area where there are big bucks. 

I believe that Canon sees the shrinking photography market as a real threat, and is moving to make sure that in the event conventional cameras go away that the company will be in good shape.

Of the 4,080 billion Yen income, only 1133 came from imaging systems in 2017 (Preliminary) thats about 28 percent. 

Canon is making lots of money, and most of it does not come from cameras and lenses.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 21, 2018)

Both Nikon and Canon initially depended on Kodak for early generation digital cameras. Kodak was just so focused on a business model that relied on consumables (film, paper, chemicals) that they just couldn't bring themselves to fully embrace the digital transition. It basically cost them the company. 

The transition from dSLR to ML isn't the same fundamental change in business model, it is simply replacing one component part for a different part. Not nearly as dramatic a shift as what Kodak faced.

I agree Canon is more likely looking for other business opportunities to offset the future lack of growth they anticipate in cameras in general. There are only so many big whites the market can absorb given they seem to have a good 10-15 year life expectancy. Not a lot of replacement opportunity. Bodies are approaching a similar plateau as technology evolution slows.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 21, 2018)

Several years ago, Canon Price Watch compared the return on Canon "L" lenses to the stock market. At the time, the lenses were a better investment.

Thinking about Kodak's new cryptocurrency, maybe instead of "Canon heading down the same track as Kodak" could it be "Kodak heading down the same track as Canon."


----------



## slclick (Feb 21, 2018)

Oh, new ideas like weather proofing your Sony except for the bottom when a large % of users carry on a plate/tripod connection mounted strap (Upside down)...this is like fish in a barrel, too easy and fun. Insert ******* acronym


----------



## dak723 (Feb 21, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Kodak made DSLR's for Canon? Which ones? They did sell sensors to almost everyone. I owned a Kodak DSLR, but they only made the digital back, not the camera.





> From Wikipedia:
> 
> ...Kodak's subsequent models integrated the digital module with the camera body more thoroughly, and included LCD preview screens and removable batteries. The DCS 500 series of 1998 was also based on the Canon EOS-1N, and comprised the 2-megapixel DCS 520 and the 6-megapixel DCS 560, which initially had a suggested retail price of $28,500.[7] These models were also sold by Canon, as the Canon D2000 and D6000 respectively, and were the first digital SLRs sold under the Canon name.



Obviously, this was before DSLRs had a price that made them available for the average consumer. But Kodak continued to make DSLRs:



> Kodak concluded the initial DCS range with the DCS 700 series, which comprised the 2-megapixel DCS 720x, the 6-megapixel DCS 760, and the 6-megapixel DCS 760m, which had a monochrome sensor. By the time of launch, Kodak faced competition from the popular Nikon D1 and Nikon D1x,[8] which were physically smaller and cheaper. The DCS 760's initial list price was $8,000.
> 
> Kodak final generation of DCS cameras was launched with the Kodak DCS Pro 14n, a 14-megapixel full-frame digital SLR, in 2002, and continued with the upgraded DCS PRO SLR/n in 2004. These two cameras were based on a Nikon F80 body, and were considerably more compact than previous Kodaks.



At this point, of course, Nikon and Canon got into the game and Kodak could no longer compete - because they didn't make lenses. Why buy a Kodak and then get Nikon lenses when you can just get a Nikon with lens? People often ask, why doesn't anyone make an EF mount camera to use Canon lenses? I think history shows us that making cameras but not lenses doesn't work. Lenses without cameras...that works, witness Tamron and Sigma. Kodak continued to make Non-DSLR compact digital cameras and led the market until at least 2005 in the US. But once all the camera companies got into the digital game, there was nothing that Kodak had that made them stand out among all the competition. 

Again, it is easy to dump on Kodak and say they just didn't adapt to the transition from film to digital, but they made most of the initial cameras and a lot of the sensors, too. But it was not nearly enough to offset the almost complete loss of film and related products because there was no digital substitute for them.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 24, 2018)

9VIII said:


> Modern refrigerators work well enough, but they're no better than a fridge from 30 years ago (and often worse).



When my grandparents passed away, one of their daughters took the refrigerator. At this point there was a short discussion of how old it is. They got it close to another memorable event, so the answer was the refrigerator was close to 50 years old. It was in perfect working order, and never had to be fixed.

No wonder manufacturers are implementing planned obsolescence.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 24, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Again, it is easy to dump on Kodak and say they just didn't adapt to the transition from film to digital, but they made most of the initial cameras and a lot of the sensors, too. But it was not nearly enough to offset the almost complete loss of film and related products because there was no digital substitute for them.



Exactly!

The vast bulk of Kodak was paper, film, and chemicals. It vanished overnight and they were left with huge amounts of infrastructure which had suddenly turned from being assets into liabilities. Everyone knew digital was coming, but the speed at which the p/s cameras took over was astounding.


----------



## Talys (Feb 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, it is easy to dump on Kodak and say they just didn't adapt to the transition from film to digital, but they made most of the initial cameras and a lot of the sensors, too. But it was not nearly enough to offset the almost complete loss of film and related products because there was no digital substitute for them.
> ...



Therein lies the crux of it.

A portion of internet forum experts believe that it will be at the same speed at which EF, EFS lenses and DSLRs will vanish, with EFM being too nascent to fill the gaps. Some people hypothesize that Canon will turn into another Kodak because by 2020, DSLRs will be specialty devices.

I don't agree with that assessment at all, because I don't think film vs digital is a good comparison with DSLR versus mirrorless.

Digital vs film had two massive benefits: photos no longer cost anything to develop and you could see your results right away. For those who were never film photography enthusiasts, it's hard to overstate those two benefits. I spent enough money on Ilford paper and chemicals back then to buy a really nice piece of camera gear every year. Because of these benefits, it was easy to look early shortcomings of digital, and then to rapidly buy significantly upgraded models.

The benefits between mirrorless versus DSLR are much more dubious if you're not interested in videography. For some photography tasks, mirrorless are a disadvantage (like wildlife/sports and flash/strobe photography), while for others, mirrorless have some nice advantages (like candids and street photography). But in either case, it's nothing near the difference between digital and film. 

And finally, one of the most often stated benefits, size and weight, are practically all in consumer lenses, with pro lenses being as large or larger than DSLR counterparts, making the slimmer bodies an ergonomic disadvantage.

So, will mirrorless continue to gain traction? Absolutely, I think so. The lure of WYSIWIG is high, and the concept of grabbing frames off a camcorder is an appealing one. It's not a fad, and it's not going away. But at the same time, it's not a silver bullet and I think that DSLRs will remain more popular for a variety of tasks for the perceivable future.


----------



## LDS (Feb 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> The vast bulk of Kodak was paper, film, and chemicals. It vanished overnight and they were left with huge amounts of infrastructure which had suddenly turned from being assets into liabilities. Everyone knew digital was coming, but the speed at which the p/s cameras took over was astounding.



Kodak also made a bet that people would still need to print their digital images to store, share and show them around. The smartphone (with its larger screen) and "social" sites destroyed most of that market too. It's no surprise that Kodak had to file for bankruptcy in 2012, a few years after the successful launches of the iPhone and Facebook (yet, the Fujifilm Instax cameras sell well)

But that paradigm shift came from outside the photo industry, and I guess many executive at Kodak couldn't see it coming.

And what was left of the consumer image printing industry also saw new competitors like Canon, Epson and HP - labs inkjet prints became on par with chemical ones.


----------



## LDS (Feb 24, 2018)

Talys said:


> I don't agree with that assessment at all, because I don't think film vs digital is a good comparison with DSLR versus mirrorless.



Of course it's not. Kodak suddenly found itself with a large chemical know-how and manufacturing capabilities that became basically useless, and a remunerative consumables business which disappeared quickly. Its organization was designed around that business model, and changing wasn't easy. It would have needed a big reorganization and downsizing, something always hard to propose to boards and shareholders - who usually can't see beyond the next quarter - until it's too late.

Sure, the P&S and low-end DSRLs market has been mostly eroded by smartphones, but that is a common issue for every company in the sector, no one could take advantage of it over others, even Sony smartphones business isn't good.

Adding an EVF or 4K is not at all outside Canon know-how and manufacturing capabilities. In the 1980s, Canon was late to adopt TTL and AF. Despite that, the T70 did sell well. Then came the T90 and EOS/EF line. More innovative brands no longer exist today.

It looks sometimes Canon prefer a few big long jumps instead of many shorter ones. It could be some conservatism among management, or a market strategy. Till now, it worked.

Camera spec sheets don't automatically translates in more sales. Especially for people who don't buy a "body", but a "system", and aren't so willingly to replace it fully for features they may not need.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 24, 2018)

LDS said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The vast bulk of Kodak was paper, film, and chemicals. It vanished overnight and they were left with huge amounts of infrastructure which had suddenly turned from being assets into liabilities. Everyone knew digital was coming, but the speed at which the p/s cameras took over was astounding.
> ...


You are right about that..... digital displays severely cut the market for prints, and photo printers captured most of it. The money to be made printing shifted quickly from developing/printing to ink cartridges......


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 24, 2018)

LDS said:


> Adding an EVF or 4K is not at all outside Canon know-how and manufacturing capabilities.



M50


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 24, 2018)

LDS said:


> Kodak also made a bet that people would still need to print their digital images to store, share and show them around. The smartphone (with its larger screen) and "social" sites destroyed most of that market too.


The fact a smartphone is camera, video handy-cam, and photo album/video player all combined is an often overlook factor in the destruction of the P/S market. Add cloud storage and it has an automated back-up system as well. 

While serious enthusiasts and pros will argue the relative merits of dSLR v. ML, everyone else just uses their phone. If someone asks you to show them that great photo you took of 'Aunt Millie' last year can you call it up on the back of your camera? No, well maybe that's a problem.

Dropping the mirrorbox is one more step away from mechanical parts mastery shifting towards reliance on electronics/software to do the same job. It also provides more physical space to add additional processing. Maybe someday 'Aunt Millie' will again appear on your camera screen.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 24, 2018)

Kodak was killed by momentum and a disruptive technology.

They were heavily invested in infrastructure that suddenly became worthless. When that happens, you can’t get rid of it because nobody will buy it from you. 

Imagine you are Ford cars. You have a series of factories and suppliers. You have knowledge and experience. You also have pensioned workers, loans, financing, inventory, and a worldwide network of dealers and parts, as well as an obligation to service what you have sold.

HarryFilm (he is a genius......) invents a transporter pod.... now instead of driving in to work and suffering through rush hour traffic, you can instantly teleport. Car sales plummet. Just like two hour printing vanished, so do the cars on the highways. Ford, despite knowing what is happening, is powerless to stop it and because of momentum, can not change quickly enough, and even if they could, Harry has captured the market.

The thing about disruptive technologies, is that they are disruptive. Mirrorless is not a disruptive technology, it is an incremental improvement.


----------



## LDS (Feb 24, 2018)

old-pr-pix said:


> If someone asks you to show them that great photo you took of 'Aunt Millie' last year can you call it up on the back of your camera? No, well maybe that's a problem.



Why? If there are more comfortable devices to show images - smartphones, tablets, TVs, computers -, devices you always have at hand, why should you use your camera? How large could become the display on a camera before it impacts usability? 

Why put your $4K camera in the hands of Uncle Bob, known for his clumsiness, just to show him a photo of Aunt Mary? Or to show your last travel at the pub after a few beers?

Many devices are only useful at the creation stage, then there are better ones to share and consume the results.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Kodak was killed by momentum and a disruptive technology.
> 
> They were heavily invested in infrastructure that suddenly became worthless. When that happens, you can’t get rid of it because nobody will buy it from you.
> 
> ...



Well said. Digital cameras REPLACED film. For all practical purposes ENDING the need for film, paper, chemicals, photo processing labs and stores. If mirrorless replaces DSLRs, 99% of the camera and all accessories will remain the same. All it ends is the need for a mirror and associated mechanical parts.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 24, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Modern refrigerators work well enough, but they're no better than a fridge from 30 years ago (and often worse).
> ...



Occasionally I will read a review on cnet of a really expensive refrigerator. They will go through all the features, bells, whistles, internet connections, TV screen, Bluetooth, grocery list maker, etc., etc., and conclude that it works absolutely great for everything except keeping food cold.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 24, 2018)

stevelee said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



Fwiw we upgraded our refrigerator just over a year ago and find food lasts a lot longer in there than in the one(s) it replaced. Certainly, some new items have gimmicks attached (internet-connected fridges are still ridiculous), but that is not to say in general progress isn't being made. You always had to use common sense when making purchases, and that is still true.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 24, 2018)

LDS said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > If someone asks you to show them that great photo you took of 'Aunt Millie' last year can you call it up on the back of your camera? No, well maybe that's a problem.
> ...


Indeed... my point is that many people have reached this same conclusion and have stopped using their 'camera' preferring their smart phone instead. I anticipate general market consumer level sales of ILC's will continue to erode. Enthusiasts and pros will continue to use dSLR's and ML and argue amongst themselves which is better; but the millions of consumers who fund the industry are going away. 

Smartphones are an equally disruptive technology. Not scientific, but big family gatherings have transitioned from Instamatics and disposable cameras to digital P&S, perhaps a few Rebels, now to smartphones. Those who invested in P&S and Rebels have mostly abandoned them for the ever-present smartphone. Where once 4x6 snapshots were passed around, now it is everyone sharing photos on their phones.


----------



## Talys (Feb 24, 2018)

scyrene said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



We actually bought a super-duper refrigerator about a year ago. It cost more than brand new 1DXII, and I have to say, it's a joy to use.

You can set the temperature and humidity individually for each section, including flex compartments that can go between deep freeze and wine cooler. It also has a ton of LED lights inside (including on the sides of the fridge), so that there are no dark corners and it is very thoughtfully designed so that you don't end up with stuff at the back of the fridge that you can't see, forget about, and spoils.

Practically, we just find that we have a cleaner fridge; but also, vegetables last a lot longer, because they're inside their own temperature/humidity controlled compartment instead of the main fridge. There are a whole bunch of other very useful features, as well; too many to list, but suffice it to say, the design is very intelligent, and the feel of the build quality it is like the difference between it and our old fridge is like going from a 17-55 STM to a 24-70L.

Also, measuring the current draw, it uses considerably less power than our old fridge, which is impressive considering that its a little bigger on the outside, and quite a bit larger on the inside.

I don't expect that it will last 50 years, though. I'd be thrilled if it lasted 15.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 24, 2018)

Talys said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > stevelee said:
> ...



So you're saying that Canon is so far behind in cutting-edge refrigerator tech, that they'd better release a killer product next year, or they're *******! 

At least that's what understood you to say...


----------



## LDS (Feb 24, 2018)

old-pr-pix said:


> their smart phone instead. I anticipate general market consumer level sales of ILC's will continue to erode. Enthusiasts and pros will continue to use dSLR's and ML and argue amongst themselves which is better; but the millions of consumers who fund the industry are going away.



We are talking about two separate tasks. Photography has always been made by two separate processes, the image taking one, and the storage/display/sharing one. If to watch a daguerreotype you would have needed a clusmy camera, I don't think they would have been a success. 

The smartphone can cover both of them, obviously, but still with some limitations. The storage/sharing part is not fully covered by smartphones, because local space could still be limited, especially in budget models, and devices may break, be lost, stolen or replaced - not many consumers use microSD cards in their phones, and not all model can use them, the most notable example being iPhones, and still, if the device is lost or stolen you lose everything.

Hence online storage and sharing, especially on on social sites is important for consumers, as they also work as a "backup".

To display photos to a larger audience, TVs or monitors are still better than phones (although they can be the source of the images), and you won't mail your phone to your aunt.

Just, Kodak had really no presence in any of these markets, and in many ways it probably made more money from prints than films - and not surprisingly negative films, and its prints, survived past reversal ones, because there is still some money coming from them.

Cameras are not really suited to be display devices, even for those who will keep on using ILCs, and you'll need more functions to publish images than to access them for display. 

It's just like when audio recordings became easily available, the music performance and most of its fruition became separate processes using different devices. Today you don't need a piano in your house so you and your hosts can play and sing, or have people bring their instruments to listen to some music. And no one thought to add recording capabilities to them just so you could bring around your piano and use it to play a recording.



old-pr-pix said:


> Smartphones are an equally disruptive technology. Not scientific, but big family gatherings have transitioned from Instamatics and disposable cameras to digital P&S, perhaps a few Rebels, now to smartphones.



How do you explain the Fujifilm Instax sales? Nor photo printers disappeared yet. It looks sometimes a physical artifact still has some value.

And for important events, i.e. weddings, if the hired photographer showed up with a smartphone only I guess he or she would be lynched, and finished by the bride with the wedding cake knife... ;D

It's just a matter of convenience - most people never liked cameras or photography, they just wanted the images. They will use the easiest tool to obtain them. Just, when images becomes really important for any reason, they will pay homage, maybe unconsciously, to skill, performance and quality.


----------



## RGF (Feb 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> YAPODFC. :
> 
> Film to digital = paradigm shift
> 
> ILC with mirror to ILC without mirror = different flavor of same product



Good point.

It used to be a film camera was a box to hold film flat and a bit of electronics for the shutter, etc.

Now ILC electronics is based upon the sensor. How the viewfinder works if minor.


----------



## RGF (Feb 24, 2018)

9VIII said:


> The A7RIII may very well be the best camera that Sony will ever produce, and if it is that means everyone who buys one is getting their money's worth, but it also means as soon as everyone who wants a high tech mirrorless body has the A7RIII, Sony will have completely saturated their market potential.



You must a very clear crystal ball. Not sure what the future holds for Sony, but I suspect that the A7R IV (or what it is called) will top the A7 RIII (at least in some important ways).


----------



## Talys (Feb 24, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> So you're saying that Canon is so far behind in cutting-edge refrigerator tech, that they'd better release a killer product next year, or they're *******!
> 
> At least that's what understood you to say...


​
Absolutely. Canon needs crisper and freezer tech. ;D :-X


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 24, 2018)

Talys said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > So you're saying that Canon is so far behind in cutting-edge refrigerator tech, that they'd better release a killer product next year, or they're *******!
> ...


I just walked over to my fridge, which is mirrorless and NOT made by canon, got a beer, and will sit back and enjoy the show. Canons lack of ability to come out with a mirrorless fridge means that Canon is *******!!!!


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 24, 2018)

LDS said:


> How do you explain the Fujifilm Instax sales? Nor photo printers disappeared yet. It looks sometimes a physical artifact still has some value...


Fuji expected to sell 7.5 million Instax cameras in 2017... basically as a fashion accessory. In its early going Instax felt the same impact as other film cameras from the digital 'revolution.' The product was almost cancelled by Fuji. Here is Fuji's explanation: http://www.fujifilm.com/innovation/achievements/instax/ Although Amazon lists it as a Best Seller, only once have I noticed someone using one.

As to weddings, not long ago my son shot one where all the couple wanted was a thumb drive to show images on their 55" TV. No prints at all in initial contract. (Yes, he used dSLRs, not his smartphone!) Of course there is still value in physical print copies; just not as much as we always used to assume.


----------



## yungfat (Feb 24, 2018)

Canon still make good camera that many people still buying. As a market leader in digital imaging, they are doing what they are suppose to grow the overall business such as introduce more products range and pushing the higher end equipment. 

Sony as a new comer, if they are offering anything similar with what Canon offering, do you think they can overtake Nikon today?

Therefore, that is totally different position between Canon, Nikon & Sony. As many mentioned, Nikon without much choice now, so they have to include everything they could into D850 improve their market share. Which is very similar as what they did with D700.

The competition of the technology will never end, consumer is the one who benefit. 

Agreed with Sony might have some issue if they next gen of camera do not have revolutions as their current a9 & a7r3. 

I have read a lots of review in past few years, most of the reviewers are leaning towards Nikon (and now Sony). To their eye, Canon do not even made a good camera. How many reviewer really mentioned and complaint about the single card in a7r2? They all talking about dynamic range, dynamic range and dynamic range. Is mirrorless really lighter after puting on a pro lens?

So the argument will never end and many people is thinking Sony will going to be the market leader after launching a7r3 and a9. 

Only time will tell. 

Cheers~


----------



## LDS (Feb 24, 2018)

old-pr-pix said:


> Although Amazon lists it as a Best Seller, only once have I noticed someone using one.



It depends on where and who you look at. For the matter, I've never seem people birding with a smartphone...




old-pr-pix said:


> to show images on their 55" TV.



Which confirms what I've said - when you have better and handier display devices you'll choose the one that suits your needs best - and it's useless to cram those features in devices which are not suited for the task. A camera is great to take images, but not to show them, and a 55" TV is better than a smartphone, in some situations.


----------



## Talys (Feb 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



LOL +1


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 25, 2018)

yungfat said:


> I have read a lots of review in past few years, most of the reviewers are leaning towards Nikon (and now Sony). To their eye, Canon do not even made a good camera. How many reviewer really mentioned and complaint about the single card in a7r2? They all talking about dynamic range, dynamic range and dynamic range. Is mirrorless really lighter after putting on a pro lens?



Before Canon released the 5DS, all they were talking about was resolution, dynamic range, and 4K.

It is the reviewers' nature to focus on differentiating features, as much as it is the infantile's and troll's nature to whine.


----------



## Talys (Feb 25, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> yungfat said:
> 
> 
> > I have read a lots of review in past few years, most of the reviewers are leaning towards Nikon (and now Sony). To their eye, Canon do not even made a good camera. How many reviewer really mentioned and complaint about the single card in a7r2? They all talking about dynamic range, dynamic range and dynamic range. Is mirrorless really lighter after putting on a pro lens?
> ...



One problem is the need to pick a winner at all. 

Actually, I would argue that the vast majority of non professionals buying a professional camera aren't going to be using the device to its potential, and for the vast majority of professionals it will come down to preference.


It is like when they rank Sony's 16-35 and say that it is the best ever. Well. For what? For anyone who is using a 16-35 on a body, they're getting amazing shots out of Sony, Nikon, Canon that are all knock your socks off, for the right shot. And they are all humongous boring for the wrong shot. 

But having every review say, buy what you like because they are all pretty awesome is not a way to win readers.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 25, 2018)

yungfat said:


> I have read a lots of review in past few years, most of the reviewers are leaning towards Nikon (and now Sony). To their eye, Canon do not even made a good camera.



Why do people put so much stock into internet review sites? What is their goal - to give a fair and accurate review or to generate buzz and get as many clicks as possible to make money. You choose.


----------



## kanehi (Mar 25, 2018)

I don't believe so. Kodak was mainly a film imaging company and didn't really produce cameras and when they did it wasn't the same caliber as Canon


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Kodak was killed by momentum and a disruptive technology.
> 
> They were heavily invested in infrastructure that suddenly became worthless. When that happens, you can’t get rid of it because nobody will buy it from you.
> 
> ...



Not the same, Kodak essentially invented Digital Cameras in 1975, and had a 25 year jump on everyone else. Management could have bet the company on them, but did not believe in them.

Polaroid invented DVD's, but failed to take advantage. Their first digital cameras were strange looking, and did not catch on, Some of the camera makers believed a new form factor would sell cameras, they were dead wrong.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 25, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Kodak was killed by momentum and a disruptive technology.
> ...



While Canon and Nikon bet the farm on giving the user a familiar experience with tried and true ergonomics. Cameras had 100+ years to evolve into the shape they were... perhaps there was a good reason.....


----------



## slclick (Mar 25, 2018)

I'd really like a Tri-X preset in the FF Canon MILC.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Nikon had some pretty strange looking cameras like my CP-990 but it was so good that I forgave its strange setup.  Olympus started out strong but seemed to decide to copy polaroid with a strange looking camera. Sony had their horrible floppy disk cameras that sold well because they were Sony, memory stick and all. Finally people revolted and it took them many years to recover.


----------



## scottkinfw (Mar 26, 2018)

lb said:


> Some times I just wonder is it possible that Canon are heading the same was a Kodak, on top and in control but only to fall by the wayside because of the lack of new ideas, I remember all that Kodak achieved and took a wrong turn, Canon seems to be following same path as of late with no interesting new ideas, even the Firmware upgrades are in most cases with just obvious error removals that should not have been their in the first instance, when will the oily spatters be eliminated from our top of the Canon range DSLR etc.



The sky if falling (again)

Scott


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 26, 2018)

I think any company is vulnerable to going out of business.
Canon as possibly more equivalent to Nokia which was a really strong brand and made very reliable products.
The didn't recognise fast enough how good Apple would be at make a great interface to connect the phone to the internet. Early attempts by Nokia were to complicated. Once iPhone took hold and Samsung got good, Nokia started panicking and made some very poor phones. For many years they were still doing fine on volume but margins were dropping like a stone. First their own operating system and then tying up with Windows.

Canon have their heads screwed on and watch the market carefully. They always make good solid products in terms of cameras and stellar quality lens as they know people come back for the lens after they've bought the cameras. Incremental improvements is a nice way to operate (its nice and calm way to do business) but it can leave you vulnerable to a leap ahead by a competitor. They are lucky so far that neither Nikon or Sony have opened up a significant enough gap in image quality / fps / ISO performance / Dynamic range.
I think Canon haven't left them do that.
But someday it could happen and then the calm environment of incremental improvement in Canon might be replaced by panic changes and dud cameras (I don't think they will ever make dud lens).
I think Sony have given Canon enough time to produce a decent full frame MILC in a calm measured fashion.
If Sony had produced a MILC that shoots 30 FPS, best in class by a stop or two ISO performance, best in class focussing and 400 and 600 F4 by now then you might find high end Canon users moving ship - especially on the sides of pitches.
By the time Sony do Canon will be close by to that level.

The whole DSLR / MILC iceberg is melting. For most people the new mobile phones have good enough quality to take the photographs they need . It's far more convenient for travelling with.
Canon see that too so are migrating into higher end businesses


----------



## dak723 (Mar 26, 2018)

If Canon were to dramatically lose market share, it won't be because of all the reasons stated on this forum. It will be because all of the bad publicity generated by internet forums and review sites. People searching for a new camera will be using the internet - and as we have seen in other cases - internet information can have a huge negative impact.

The problem for Canon is not that their products aren't competitive, but that they are being judged on the internet by folks who are all "technology" biased. When comparing spec sheets and technological add-ons (focus peaking, zebras, etc.) Canon has definitely been behind Sony. The negative "talk" is quite overwhelming - and in almost all cases - biased and prejudiced beyond reality. In an effort to create a more honest perspective, a few folks spend way too much time on this and other forums just trying to combat the negative propaganda. Quite frankly, I am ready to quit. I'm sure many of you will be quite glad to see me go.

If folks mainly interested in photography - not technology were running the forums and review sites, I am sure Canon would be seen in a much different light. Many would say they are still ahead in color science. Many would say that they are the leaders in reliability. Many would say - for almost all photographers and not pixel peepers - the IQ of all similar level cameras is essentially equal. Many would say that their lens quality and selection is second to none. But to the technologically biased, it is all about pixel peeping, testing underexposure of 5 stops, and how many "cool" things you can add to the camera to make it "innovative."

I have owned Canon, Olympus and Sony cameras. I am in the process of trying out an Olympus E-M1 mark II. It's a pro level camera costing twice the Canon M5. And I really like the Olympus system, but guess what, their new Touch AF while looking through the EVF doesn't work very well while Canon's works great. For regular HD video that the average consumer will use for home videos and the like, Canon's DPAF still makes video AF better. Overall, the best pics, in my opinion, still come from Canon when you factor in color and contrast and their tonal curves.

So, the danger for Canon isn't in the quality of their products. It is in the bias and prejudice of the internet review sites and forums, in my opinion. If you know anyone looking to buy a new camera, tell them to try them out themselves and form their own opinion - and stay away from the internet! 8)


----------



## peterzuehlke (Mar 26, 2018)

I think actually Sony is heading more in Kodak's path. Kodak was a very innovative company. I remember in the 1990s they were the first with digital pre-press for the commercial printing industry as well as leading in digital image sensors. Canon seems to watch the market and produce cameras that work where people need them to work. Not just to be on the bleeding edge of specs and test well under a specific set of parameters.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 26, 2018)

What people are missing is that Canon could stop making Cameras next week, and still be a strong company.

They have a wide range of products, and while 17.2% of their sales would be lost if cameras went away would hurt, its not their major product.


----------



## Quirkz (Mar 26, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Actually, Canon was early to turn out serious DSLR's, they managed the change of paradigm quite well. Right now, they are diversifying into medical imaging, surveillance imaging, and are actively looking for additional business in the imaging area where there are big bucks.
> 
> I believe that Canon sees the shrinking photography market as a real threat, and is moving to make sure that in the event conventional cameras go away that the company will be in good shape.
> 
> ...



I think you nailed it. Canon execs are more aware of the market than us in our tiny myopic camera pond, and are 5 years ahead of sony, Nikon, Fuji, etc. In their eyes, it’s like competing to make the best petrol driven internal combustion car. Sure, it’s still a big market now, but...


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 26, 2018)

I've told my wife to bury me with my Canon. Hoping I'll be able to push 100 stops by then and not have red and orange hues on everything.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 26, 2018)

Quirkz said:


> I think you nailed it. Canon execs are more aware of the market than us in our tiny myopic camera pond, and are 5 years ahead of sony, Nikon, Fuji, etc. In their eyes, it’s like competing to make the best petrol driven internal combustion car. Sure, it’s still a big market now, but...



And only 17.2% of their income comes from Cameras and lenses. The rest of the imaging sales are for items like photo printers.


----------



## pgeezer (Mar 27, 2018)

I think Canon successfully navigated the film-digital paradigm shift with the EOS 10D. Comparison prints to film showed that there wasn't much point to film anymore for me.


----------



## Talys (Mar 27, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I've told my wife to bury me with my Canon. Hoping I'll be able to push 100 stops by then and not have red and orange hues on everything.



LOL...

1) Which one?
2) Which lens?

;D


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 28, 2018)

Talys said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I've told my wife to bury me with my Canon. Hoping I'll be able to push 100 stops by then and not have red and orange hues on everything.
> ...



All of them.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 29, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...


Are you hoping to take them with you into your afterlife. You'll be found in 5000 years laterand marveled at as a king of his time. King Canon.


----------



## Talys (Mar 29, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



An alien archaeologist will discover the remains, marvel at how the Canon lens still work.


----------



## sanj (Mar 29, 2018)

Talys said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



How??


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2018)

sanj said:


> How??



Because people will continue to buy dSLRs. If you look at the plots of CIPA data on MILC and dSLR shipments form 2012 onwards, the salient observations are that MILC shipments are essentially flat and that dSLRs shipments dropped substantially but that decline is leveling off. 

But beyond that, the really key point when Kodak and Nokia are brought up is that film to digital and flip phone to smartphone were paradigm shifts, whereas dSLR to MILC is not. Like laser printers when ink jets came out a few years later.


----------



## sanj (Mar 29, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > How??
> ...



I still am curious how mirrorless are better for street and bad for wildlife...


----------



## Talys (Mar 29, 2018)

sanj said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



Mirrorless are great for street because they make ambient light photography _easier_. An electronic viewfinder means you can how light is captured rather than have to imagine it, which is a skill that photographers take many years or decades to acquire.

DSLRs are superior for wildlife for a few reasons:
- The OVF is always available, even when the camera is in sleep or being brought up to eye level; the blackout lag is significant.
- At the high end, autofocus through OVF is faster and more accurate.
- There are no refresh or lag issues.
- Batttery life: wildlife photographers can wait for a very long time to get a shot. This kills battery life in an EVF. You can stare through an OVF for 20 hours, take 300 pictures, and still be at 75% battery. You'll go through a bag of batteries on EVF.
- Mirrorless, at the moment, means focus by wire. Mechanical focus has great benefits for wildlife photography, because as a human, I can rotate the focus ring to CLOSE to where I want it a lot faster than a computer can, and let the computer resolve the end of it.
- Practically, I get much higher keeper rates when comparing DSLR to mirrorless when photographing birds in flight
- Weight is not really an issue for many action/wildlife photographers. They're used to packing huge rigs, and the lens is going to dwarf the weight of anything on the body anyways.
- Ergonomically, a larger body has benefits when the lens is much larger.

There are other reasons, but that should give you an idea.


----------



## criscokkat (Apr 10, 2018)

Talys said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



I don't know how many years you are talking with "Perceivable Future" for recording frames off a camcorder. I don't think it's as far out as many people think it is. You are seeing this happen on the consumer level with phones already - when you go to take a picture, the camera has already been taking video before and after the shot and some models allow you to choose the best of several pictures. As this becomes more widespread and expected, DSLR makers will need to incorporate that into their hardware as well, or risk being irrelevant to the regular consumer where quite a bit of the money is. I perceive a future where the camera has a setting for sports photographers and wildlife photographers where it just starts recording as soon as it is held up in a manner that suggests you are about to press the button to capture. Capturing will just tell the device "Hey, save the last x amount of time and post x amount of time" so that you can choose the image later.


----------



## Talys (Apr 12, 2018)

criscokkat said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



This may be a great way for someone with a smartphone to take the best photo that they can, but it's a terrible way for a photographer to take great photos.

One reason is that the shutter speeds of video recording are not the right shutter speeds for photography. Another important reason is that a lot photography is great because of modified light - that could be strobes, long exposures, reflectors, using short flash durations, filters, whatever. You just can't do that in the "record and pull a frame" paradigm.

I agree that smartphones and simple to use devices are crushing it in winning over people who want nice photos who have no desire to engage in the hobby of sophisticated photography. However, if you want to stand out from the pack as an amateur, and surely if you want to be paid as a professional for fashion, celebrity, corporate, weddings, events, sports, wildlife, or whatever... it's not going to be with the "grab a frame from a video" paradigm for a very long time yet.


----------

