# Prosumer Level Canon Mirrorless Camera to Have 4K [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 12, 2016)

```
We’re told that “at least one of the three mirrorless cameras coming in 2016 will feature 4K video recording”, though the size of the image sensor was unknown.</p>
<p>We’ve heard from a few places that we’ll see a fixed lens mirroress camera along the lines of the Leica Q and Sony RX1 R, but we don’t know what the sensor size would be, one would hope it would be full frame. The other two mirrorless cameras would be a new APS-C model, as well as the introduction of a full frame model, which we assume would be the camera most likely to shoot 4K.</p>
<p>The current estimate on when such products would be announced is the end of August, in time for Photokina 2016 in Cologne, Germany.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Pitbullo (Mar 12, 2016)

This is great news! 
Looking forward to the FF mirrorless from Canon.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 12, 2016)

Since this is Canon related rumour, this camera wont come in 2016 but somtime after 2020 when 6k/8k will be standard across the competition.


----------



## Etienne (Mar 12, 2016)

Announced in August, delivered by Christmas. You need the patience of Job to wait for a top MILC from Canon. 
I hope it at least has DPAF.


----------



## gargamel (Mar 12, 2016)

Just speculating, but: Could it be that this mirrorless FF camera is the 6D Mk II?
We have heard that the 6D gets a successor this year and that it would be smaller than the original 6D. Small size and light weight are key features of mirrorless cameras. Many landscape photographers are currently using Sony cameras with Canon lenses. Also, the time would just perfectly fit for a 6D replacement --- announcement at Photokina, starting sales around Christmas.

What do you think: Could this make sense?

gargamel


----------



## gn100 (Mar 12, 2016)

gargamel said:


> Just speculating, but: Could it be that this mirrorless FF camera is the 6D Mk II?
> We have heard that the 6D gets a successor this year and that it would be smaller than the original 6D. Small size and light weight are key features of mirrorless cameras. Many landscape photographers are currently using Sony cameras with Canon lenses. Also, the time would just perfectly fit for a 6D replacement --- announcement at Photokina, starting sales around Christmas.
> 
> What do you think: Could this make sense?
> ...


I was wondering exactly the same thing - it would make sense to introduce FF mirrorless more at the consumer level, where demand would be greater, and many users of the 6D would have been swayed by the smaller size than the 5D.


----------



## jebrady03 (Mar 12, 2016)

I don't think it makes sense at all.

If a FF mirrorless is introduced, it will have the "M" product line name. Not the typical DSLR naming convention. So, IMO, if a product is labeled 6D Mark II, it will be a DSLR.

Now, might they introduce a FF mirrorless which would appeal to current 6D users, or be of similar specification/ability to a 6D Mark II? Sure. That's possible. Heck, they might even name it the Canon EOS 6M - just so people know where it's intended to fit. But I don't think it'll REPLACE the 6D. I think there will be a 6D Mark II with a mirror. That camera is practically a necessity. The 6D was/is immensely popular. Nikon has the D610 and also the D750. Canon can't afford not to have a camera in the lineup below the 5D series to compete with shoppers who can't swing $3k for a camera body but still want a FF sensor, when Nikon has 2 product line offerings.

If you think like a business person, things like this are obvious. If you think like a camera enthusiast, you end up with posts wondering if the 6D will be replaced by a mirrorless camera. There's room for both in this world (and much more), but one is fantasy while the other makes sense.


----------



## Diltiazem (Mar 12, 2016)

gargamel said:


> Just speculating, but: Could it be that this mirrorless FF camera is the 6D Mk II?
> We have heard that the 6D gets a successor this year and that it would be smaller than the original 6D. Small size and light weight are key features of mirrorless cameras. Many landscape photographers are currently using Sony cameras with Canon lenses. Also, the time would just perfectly fit for a 6D replacement --- announcement at Photokina, starting sales around Christmas.
> 
> What do you think: Could this make sense?
> ...



6D replacement will be a DSLR. Canon will sell 4-5 times more with a DSLR than mirrorless for 6D replacement. But it is quite possible that Canon's first FF mirrorless will have similar specs as 6DII.


----------



## deletemyaccount (Mar 12, 2016)

Diltiazem said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > Just speculating, but: Could it be that this mirrorless FF camera is the 6D Mk II?
> ...


----------



## ecka (Mar 12, 2016)

Pitbullo said:


> This is great news!
> Looking forward to the FF mirrorless from Canon.



Yeah, for six years now. :-\


----------



## martti (Mar 12, 2016)

Now that would be great, wouldn't it. 8)


----------



## brad-man (Mar 12, 2016)

I hope we'll be getting a lens or two to go with this cornucopia of mirrorless goodness. Seven cameras with just five lenses (4 slow) just doesn't seem quite right. 8)


----------



## douglaurent (Mar 12, 2016)

Don't try too hard with 4K, Canon. It's still early if you increase the video resolution in a sub 10k camera for the first time at the 10th anniversary of the 5D2, in 2018. When you are the last of the manufacturers who offers 4K on a broad basis. While you have proven with the 1DC you could have been the first.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Don't try too hard with 4K, Canon. It's still early if you increase the video resolution in a sub 10k camera for the first time at the 10th anniversary of the 5D2, in 2018. When you are the last of the manufacturers who offers 4K on a broad basis. While you have proven with the 1DC you could have been the first.



Well, that's great advice. After all, the sales data show how badly Canon's market share has suffered. Clearly, 4K is critically important to a vast majority of buyers.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 12, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told that “at least one of the three mirrorless cameras coming in 2016 will feature 4K video recording”, though the size of the image sensor was unknown.</p>
> <p>We’ve heard from a few places that we’ll see a fixed lens mirroress camera along the lines of the Leica Q and Sony RX1 R, but we don’t know what the sensor size would be, one would hope it would be full frame. The other two mirrorless cameras would be a new APS-C model, as well as the introduction of a full frame model, which we assume would be the camera most likely to shoot 4K.</p>
> <p>The current estimate on when such products would be announced is the end of August, in time for Photokina 2016 in Cologne, Germany.</p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>



except you're guessing.

there's been no real credible rumor about canon doing a full frame mirrorless to date, outside of "we're looking at it to see if it's worthwhile".

it would be dumb as f.. for canon to come out with a FF mirrorless when they can't even support a APS-C mirrorless in terms of optics.

btw, WTF is a fixed lens mirrorless - that's a fixed lens compact. 

canon coming out with three mirrorless in 2016-17 makes sense. they would be refreshing the M10, M3 and a newer model that has a built in EVF - matching basically the powershot Gx series.


----------



## Khufu (Mar 12, 2016)

Are people here (or in general) reeeally that into 4K? I see/hear lots of regret/dismissal of the 5DS bodies due to the large files, is the 4K situation not going to be similar?
I'm personally disappointed that Canon generally only offer 720p at double the desirable frame rate and file size, with no 16:9 576p or even 480p at 16:9...


----------



## Woody (Mar 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> canon coming out with three mirrorless in 2016-17 makes sense. they would be refreshing the M10, M3 and a newer model that has a built in EVF - matching basically the powershot Gx series.



+1. My sentiments too.


----------



## mustafa (Mar 12, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> The 6D was/is immensely popular.



Evidence?


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 12, 2016)

mustafa said:


> jebrady03 said:
> 
> 
> > The 6D was/is immensely popular.
> ...



the concept that it and the 5D Mark III have for most of their lifespans been the top FF cameras on amazon.com?


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 12, 2016)

Khufu said:


> Are people here (or in general) reeeally that into 4K? I see/hear lots of regret/dismissal of the 5DS bodies due to the large files, is the 4K situation not going to be similar?
> I'm personally disappointed that Canon generally only offer 720p at double the desirable frame rate and file size, with no 16:9 576p or even 480p at 16:9...



most of the people crying about 4k would never shoot it, but just want to see it on a spec - look my camera shoots 4k..

anyone that is seriously needing 4K is already shooting it, and not waiting for canon.


----------



## infared (Mar 12, 2016)

I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > We’re told that “at least one of the three mirrorless cameras coming in 2016 will feature 4K video recording”, though the size of the image sensor was unknown.</p>
> ...



to add to this.

the ONLY way that IMO, I could see canon doing a full frame mirrorless is EF mount.

it would honestly make the most sense:

a) it falls in canon's sensor patent porfolio as they don't have a ton of patents dealing with offset microlenses.

b) by the time you add on a healthy grip, there is no difference in camera depth between a short registration distance mount and the 42mm EF mount.

c) keeps the EF mount continuity and allows canon to experiment and see how well a mirrorless camera sells.

d) canon now has a full frame DPAF sensor.

the only disadvantage is the fact that you can't use rangefinder lenses on it, nor FD lenses. however you can use EF, F, OM, C/Y, Leica R, Rellei, Pentax K, M42. more than enough if using old glass gives you a lump in your pants.

I would take that camera - use a C/Y 35-70mm + 24/28/35mm IS + 50mm 1.8 + 40mm pancake and call life good.

I'd make it full spectrum and get Astronomik in camera body filters for it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2016)

hubie said:


> mustafa said:
> 
> 
> > jebrady03 said:
> ...



Anecdotal. Besides, why would anyone ever believe that an entry-level, affordable FF dSLR from the market-leading brand would be popular?!?


----------



## Etienne (Mar 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Canon could just as easily create a new FF mirrorless mount and include an EF adapter with the body. To kick start the new mount they'd only need to release 3 or 4 good lenses at launch, a couple of primes (a 28 with IS and a 50 1.8 IS would do it for me, YMMV) and a 24-70 f/4 IS. This would give them plenty of room to grow the system, and sell new lenses.
As long as there's a couple of decent native mount lenses, I'm happy to adapt my EF lenses as needed (provided of course that they work well on the new body)


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 12, 2016)

Etienne said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



reading is hard .. right?

they don't have the patent porfolio for full frame sensors with a short registration distance, not only that they'd have to create an entire new lens array.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 12, 2016)

I also expect 3 new mirrorless Canon cameras in 2016, quite differently:

* NO MILC with FF-sensor + new native short-flange-distance lens lineup ("EF-X") from Canon any time soon. Canon is in no way capable to make a fully competitive offering versus Sony A7/R/S II. Unfortunaetly, since I would buy it. 

2 new EOS M bodies (APS-C) in 2016 
a) EOS "M4 Pro" - built-in EVF, 80D sensor + DPAF and hopefully EOS UI/firmware; pitted against Sony A6300 
b) plus one cheaper, very compact lower-end body; M3 innards and dumbass powershot firmware, maybe called M20 

3) plus some fixed lens 1" sensor camera with 4k video and Powershot UI/firmware - pitted against Sony RX10 II or RX100 IV


----------



## LoneRider (Mar 12, 2016)

I am really liking this forum. 

rrcphoto, I must admit, adding a 4th mount does seem, well, ripe for consumer confusion. And honestly, a FF mirrorless, is going to be a niche product. Tooling for a 4th camera lens mount does seem excessive. 

Have a deeper mirrorless camera to just use EF lenses does make sense. And honestly, if you are going to a mirrorless FF camera, you are doing it for quality of pictures, and adding a bit to the depth of the camera is not too terrible. They've got battery and other mechanical bits to fit in. The added volume might not be really that huge????

So a '6M' could make sense in the lineup, but it is going to be about a $1500 camera, no? 25MP, 4K video, bracketing, and a few other things, could be a really nice little camera. It appears job #1 has been in creating the technology pool under what has been announced at the 1DX-ii, AF, DPAF, on board sensor (we believe) and so on.

Let the product engineering and speculation of what Canon is going to produce from that pool of technology commence.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> hubie said:
> 
> 
> > mustafa said:
> ...



Maybe anecdotal-plus. The 6D has consistently been the best selling full frame DSLR on Amazon's list of top sellers (current sitting at No. 5 among all DSLRs.) Indeed, it has often been the only full frame DSLR to crack the top 10.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 12, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> Since this is Canon related rumour, this camera wont come in 2016 but somtime after 2020 *when 6k will be standard across the competition*.



That would be silly since there is no 6k standard.


----------



## ecka (Mar 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21572.msg414922#msg414922
:


----------



## pvalpha (Mar 12, 2016)

As a person who is more interested in stills than video, I say that 4k is a "nice to have" not a "must have" in any camera I consider. Especially considering there are some decent options for 4k video cameras out there that would be far more palatable in terms of price and connectivity. That said, I'd consider a 4k camera in the same performance range I was looking for as having a preferable feature over a similar camera without it. Not to mention price... I'd be willing to spend a small premium on it, but not a significant one - as 4k (and eventually 8k) will be those... "Oh, I want video" moments that I haven't specifically prepared for. In which case the camera at hand is the best camera for the job. 

Cause if you're going out to shoot video, you're likely to take the camera that will do the best job for the environment you're working in and make your life easier in post. 

Just my opinion.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 12, 2016)

ecka said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



Gee I don't know.. it's not a full frame sensor, so basically all it is an EF-M camera with a canon made focal reducer.

so what they could do that with the current EF-M

the same problem applies - the current 24MP APS-C sensor in a short registration distance camera reeks to the high heaven for corner handling.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 12, 2016)

LoneRider said:


> I am really liking this forum.
> 
> rrcphoto, I must admit, adding a 4th mount does seem, well, ripe for consumer confusion. And honestly, a FF mirrorless, is going to be a niche product. Tooling for a 4th camera lens mount does seem excessive.
> 
> ...



if you take a look at the SL1 form factor.

that could be the same form factor as a Mirrorless full frame - it's actually smaller than the A7RII - sans flash housing at the top.

so what does it have to be another mount other than the EF mount?

rip out the mirror and penta mirror viewfinder, put in an EVF - the 2.36M dot EVF from the DC-EVF1 is fine thanks, add in a tilting screen. use the 20MP DPAF sensor from the 1DX generation .. 

done?


----------



## ecka (Mar 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



No, it won't be an EF-M camera, it would be an EF camera.


----------



## Cali Capture (Mar 12, 2016)

from my perspective Canon would use EOS mount to do a 4K Mirrorless first. The greatest market advantage Canon has is "Lens Loyalty". I offen laugh when I read post here about leaving Canon for XYZ and switching there kit for more of this or that (DR, ISO, 4K). As photographers we all should know that our most valuable resource is "time"! It takes an incredible amount of time & money to efficiently sell off and the buy a new mount & Kit all while stating in business!
All of the recent Canon executive interviews acknowledge some very basic facts, 4k consumes a lot of power and memory space currently. So, You can provide a higher spec camera with a larger body even when you are dropping the mirror and prism! Canon has become the market leader foremost because of it's autofocusing glass. It has backed up that with market leading pro cameras such as the Cine line, 1D's, and 5Drs bodys. Others have their nitch and their own system loyalty, but nobody covers the pro market as well as Canon!
The biggest weakness I see in Canon's lineup is a good EOS "video' body below the C series. It makes sense that a mirrorless would be that camera, with the body size to balance EOS glass. Canon can use that extra space for processing, memory and batteries!


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 12, 2016)

Etienne said:


> Reading is easy.
> Dismissing an arrogant blowhard with no inside knowledge is even easier.



it's pretty easy to read though canon's patent applications. no insider knowledge required.

try harder.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Don't try too hard with 4K, Canon. It's still early if you increase the video resolution in a sub 10k camera for the first time at the 10th anniversary of the 5D2, in 2018. When you are the last of the manufacturers who offers 4K on a broad basis. While you have proven with the 1DC you could have been the first.
> ...



They actually have had big losses in the DSLR/Mirrorless video market. If not for ML they'd have really, really, really fallen off as their stock body video features are way behind anyone else.

And, once again, only people who sit inside and run spreadsheets care whether they manage to get by with delivering less for more, people who actually go outside and use their equipment care about the features and what it can deliver. Maybe try getting away from the spreadsheets.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> most of the people crying about 4k would never shoot it, but just want to see it on a spec - look my camera shoots 4k..
> 
> anyone that is seriously needing 4K is already shooting it, and not waiting for canon.



that's a pretty bizarre justification for Canon


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Canon is in no way capable to make a fully competitive offering versus Sony A7/R/S II.



You just keep slapping that mirror, don't you? Do you think repetition will make it correct? :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 12, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



Where are the 'DSLR/Mirrorless video market' sales data published? 

I guess it hasn't occurred to you that you are not the universal arbiter of what features are important to the majority of buyers. Try comprehending that there's a big world out there, and your personal priorities aren't as representative of that world as you seem to think.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 12, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> They actually have had big losses in the DSLR/Mirrorless video market. If not for ML they'd have really, really, really fallen off as their stock body video features are way behind anyone else.
> 
> And, once again, only people who sit inside and run spreadsheets care whether they manage to get by with delivering less for more, people who actually go outside and use their equipment care about the features and what it can deliver. Maybe try getting away from the spreadsheets.



maybe they don't care.

What are the numbers of the video market versus a percentage of overall ILC sales - versus them focusing on Cini-EOS.

edit: 

to expand on this - canon through their corp strategy presentations the last couple of years, has stated that the focus is more on horizontal expansion of Cini-EOS, and very little in the mention of DSLR video. 

Canon is predicting less and less of Cameras (and printers) as being the core part of it's business portfolio.

http://www.canon.com/ir/housin2016/housin2016ceo-e-note.pdf

canon sells a C300 II (16k) with a 24-70 Cini lens (24K), and they probably couldn't give a rats posterior about selling off a few low margin DSLR video ILC's.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 12, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> Since this is Canon related rumour, this camera wont come in 2016 but somtime after 2020 when 6k/8k will be standard across the competition.



Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Blah, blah, blah.
Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc...


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Don't try too hard with 4K, Canon. It's still early if you increase the video resolution in a sub 10k camera for the first time at the 10th anniversary of the 5D2, in 2018. When you are the last of the manufacturers who offers 4K on a broad basis. While you have proven with the 1DC you could have been the first.
> ...



Cat videographers everywhere are suffering. *sigh* Videos of Miss Pussy will just have to wait.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is in no way capable to make a fully competitive offering versus Sony A7/R/S II.
> ...



He does it while staring at photos of Sony Cameras with adapters and Great White Canon lenses hung on them. Then he feels guilty and comes here to complain. He's worried about going blind too... or may already be.  Wait, is he complaining or confessing?


----------



## Etienne (Mar 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Reading is easy.
> ...



Keep blowing, maybe your arrogance bubble will pop and you can return to earth.


----------



## Etienne (Mar 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Reading is easy.
> ...



btw, someone claims to have found evidence of a Canon patent for a mirrorless 50mm f/2 "The patent also includes a 50/2 design for a full frame mirrorless (22 mm backfocus [BF] distance).
The text suggests the likelihood of a full frame mirrorless"
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/lenses/lenses_archive_12.html

How could you possibly have missed that after easily reading all of Canon's patent application, Mr. Blowhard?


----------



## RGF (Mar 12, 2016)

Hope canon is able to license the Sony 42MP backlit sensor and do the camera right.

Menu structure and ergonomics on the A7R II is, dare I say, lacking.


----------



## dolina (Mar 12, 2016)

Why wait for a beta product from Canon? Why not get an actual production model from Sony?


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 12, 2016)

Etienne said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



and what part of that has anything to do with a sensor patent? as i stated, canon has very little in the realms of full frame sensor patents dealing with short registration distances.

not to mention it's very common for canon's optical patents to include every possible embodiment of the optical formulate regardless of usage. that example for instance, had a slew of other embodiments. most patents do this.

there was even one embodiment with a BF of 14mm - which would work with no system.

keep trying.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 12, 2016)

dolina said:


> Why wait for a beta product from Canon? Why not get an actual production model from Sony?



the odds that canon could deliver a mirrorless full frame camera are probably greater than sony delivering an actual production model.
8)


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 12, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



of course I'll add this recent patent from canon here:

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=09274254

patent application made on March 1st of this year.

of course it's 1-2 years before it's a published patent, and as well it doesn't deal with DPAF and offset microlenses, however it's a start.

it's still a very long way off to resolving the issues.


----------



## Rocky (Mar 12, 2016)

Just hope Canon gives us a fast and accurate AF with a LED screen that is usable under the sun. So far, we have not see these in the M, M2 or M3.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 13, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



LOL, just check any film maker or video forum. Go out on the street also and see things in action.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 13, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



LOL, just read this forum to see all the predictions of doom for Canon. 

I guess I missed the part of your response providing data of any sort for your previous claim of Canon's, "...big losses in the DSLR/Mirrorless video market." Can you please provide those data sources again?


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Mar 13, 2016)

gargamel said:


> Just speculating, but: Could it be that this mirrorless FF camera is the 6D Mk II?
> We have heard that the 6D gets a successor this year and that it would be smaller than the original 6D. Small size and light weight are key features of mirrorless cameras. Many landscape photographers are currently using Sony cameras with Canon lenses. Also, the time would just perfectly fit for a 6D replacement --- announcement at Photokina, starting sales around Christmas.
> 
> What do you think: Could this make sense?
> ...



Interesting theory but whether Canon would abandon an entry level FF DSLR is doubtful. It will have the Nikon D620 and D760 to contend with down the track. I do think that Nikon however will make the DF2 a mirrorless camera, it's got the classic retro format already that works well in the mirrorless world and would be the natural way for Nikon to get on the mirrorless bandwagon.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 13, 2016)

There are two inescapable conclusions to be reached from this (and others) thread......

First is that Canon is ******* because they are not into mirrorless and 4K....

Second is that Canon is ******* because they are moving into mirrorless and 4K.....


----------



## slclick (Mar 13, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> There are two inescapable conclusions to be reached from this (and others) thread......
> 
> First is that Canon is ******* because they are not into mirrorless and 4K....
> 
> Second is that Canon is ******* because they are moving into mirrorless and 4K.....



Should I have waited for the 'Sale of Doom' before buying the 70-300L?


----------



## Nininini (Mar 13, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Khufu said:
> 
> 
> > Are people here (or in general) reeeally that into 4K? I see/hear lots of regret/dismissal of the 5DS bodies due to the large files, is the 4K situation not going to be similar?
> ...



that makes no sense, I shoot 4k on my panasonic_* all....the..... time*_

being able to grab 8k stills is _*amazing*_

It's like having an 8k camera doing NON-STOP 30fps burst

People dimissing 4k, have never used it.


----------



## gargamel (Mar 13, 2016)

jebrady03 said:


> I don't think it makes sense at all.
> 
> If a FF mirrorless is introduced, it will have the "M" product line name. Not the typical DSLR naming convention. So, IMO, if a product is labeled 6D Mark II, it will be a DSLR.



Well, I wasn't speculating about how they will label the product in the end, at all. The question is: Will the successor of the 6D be a DSLR or a mirrorless camera?



jebrady03 said:


> Now, might they introduce a FF mirrorless which would appeal to current 6D users, or be of similar specification/ability to a 6D Mark II? Sure. That's possible. Heck, they might even name it the Canon EOS 6M - just so people know where it's intended to fit. But I don't think it'll REPLACE the 6D. I think there will be a 6D Mark II with a mirror. That camera is practically a necessity. The 6D was/is immensely popular. Nikon has the D610 and also the D750. Canon can't afford not to have a camera in the lineup below the 5D series to compete with shoppers who can't swing $3k for a camera body but still want a FF sensor, when Nikon has 2 product line offerings.



Now let's think like a business man, as opposed to a camera enthusiast. 
Canon's sales are shrinking, their market share is shrinking, too, just like the whole camera market is shrinking. The only segment that is growing is the segment of mirrorless cameras. Add that about 1-2 years ago we heard (I think it was here, at CR) that Canon wasn*t too happy with 6D sales. Now, as business man; what would you conclude?



jebrady03 said:


> If you think like a business person, things like this are obvious. If you think like a camera enthusiast, you end up with posts wondering if the 6D will be replaced by a mirrorless camera. There's room for both in this world (and much more), but one is fantasy while the other makes sense.



My humble thinking is that cameras that meet user demands will usually sell better than cameras that don't. So product management should follow user feedback, to some degree. The photographers the 6D is aimed at want an even smaller, lighter camera. This could be more easily achieved without a mirror, I guess, as the mirror box takes space and adds weight.

Now, as a hobby photographer, I *wish* that the successor of the 6D will be a DSLR, and not a mirrorless one. Like many others I would like a light and small body, plus good battery life, but I couldn't care less about 4k video. So I agree with you that a DSLR is the most likely scenario for a 6D replacement, but only because Canon will take some more time to develop a competitive and attractive mirrorless FF camera. But I doubt that they will present the 6M, too. Instead, we might see a compact mirrorless camera with an FF sensor and a fixed lenght.

Speculating again: I guess the 6D Mk II will mark the end of the line and be replaced by a mirrorless camera in a few years. 

gargamel


----------



## TAF (Mar 13, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> if you take a look at the SL1 form factor.
> 
> that could be the same form factor as a Mirrorless full frame - it's actually smaller than the A7RII - sans flash housing at the top.
> 
> ...



Yes, please.

Keep the price reasonable, and I'll order one. Create a new mount, or continue to waste more time with the -M mount, and I'll just stick with my 5D3...


----------



## unfocused (Mar 13, 2016)

Insulting comment removed by moderator


----------



## scrup (Mar 13, 2016)

Khufu said:


> Are people here (or in general) reeeally that into 4K? I see/hear lots of regret/dismissal of the 5DS bodies due to the large files, is the 4K situation not going to be similar?
> I'm personally disappointed that Canon generally only offer 720p at double the desirable frame rate and file size, with no 16:9 576p or even 480p at 16:9...



When my cellphone can take 4k, I don't see why a dedicated camera cannot have that ability. Some people takes videos to view in the future. 5-10 years it be good to view old footage on a 4k display. 

Canon probably wont release a 4k crop camera this year. But I hope there is some weighting in the full frame mirrorless rumor.


----------



## TAF (Mar 13, 2016)

Nininini said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Khufu said:
> ...



What sort of display are you using to view those 8K images and those 4K videos?


----------



## Woody (Mar 13, 2016)

gargamel said:


> ... their market share is shrinking...



In 2008:






In 2014:





Blah, blah, blah...


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 13, 2016)

I really do not need 4k urgently but ...
* I see timelapse movies of landscapes/industrial landscapes in my mind where a movie might benefit from 4k
* I see 4k as a chance to make good "photos" with 30 frames per second (speaking about 4-8MPix images)
* downsampling of 4k to 1080p might help to have very good 1080p footage (smooth transitions + crispness)
* I would like to see 4k footage on my UHD TV display the first time 

So if it doesn't compromise reliability and IQ - why not? Hopefully in a mirrorless with EVF and with EF-mount or better
a "shorter EF mount" + 15mm ext. tube as adapter for EF and the native mount with adapter for all the other interesting
lenses. I would like to shoot with my FD 2.5 135 or 4.0 17 ...


----------



## Ivan Muller (Mar 13, 2016)

I hope Canon rethinks this whole mirrorless line...the M3 is very small, almost too small I think and it is very difficult to hold the camera with a big zoom like the 70-300L it feels like the lens will brake off the mount...you hold the lens not the camera, so if they are going to release a FF mirorless something like the Leica SL makes more sense...thats hoping that they can get their AF sorted abut looking at past offerings there is absolutely no evidence of that....


----------



## scyrene (Mar 13, 2016)

gargamel said:


> Canon's sales are shrinking, their market share is shrinking, too, just like the whole camera market is shrinking. The only segment that is growing is the segment of mirrorless cameras. Add that about 1-2 years ago we heard (I think it was here, at CR) that Canon wasn*t too happy with 6D sales. Now, as business man; what would you conclude?



[CITATION NEEDED]


----------



## scyrene (Mar 13, 2016)

gargamel said:


> My humble thinking is that cameras that meet user demands will usually sell better than cameras that don't. So product management should follow user feedback, to some degree.



Absolutely, and I'm sure it does. But the question is, what *kind* of feedback should they value, and pay most attention to? A few people on forums? Or the overall sales figures and in depth market research I'm sure all big companies do?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 13, 2016)

unfocused said:


> [quote author=gargamel]
> Now let's think like a business man, as opposed to a camera enthusiast.
> Canon's sales are shrinking, their market share is shrinking, too, just like the whole camera market is shrinking. The only segment that is growing is the segment of mirrorless cameras. Add that about 1-2 years ago we heard (I think it was here, at CR) that Canon wasn*t too happy with 6D sales. Now, as business man; what would you conclude?



You are thinking like a businessman alright. A delusional businessman smoking dope. 

You've packed an incredible amount of wrong in a single paragraph. 
[/quote]

+1

But as I've stated before, many people on this forum have the business acumen of garden slugs.


----------



## Atcanon (Mar 13, 2016)

Think my wish list is limited.

Must have:

• Clean ISO 1600. Same as ISO 800 on M1.
• Acceptable AF in low light. M3 has acceptable AF, but not in low light.
• Same pricing as M3.
• Same Automatic WB as M1.
• Continued support for mic input, hot shoe and 3rd party lenses like Samyang.
• The rumored EF-M 15mm f/2 STM & EF-M 35mm f/1.8 STM. They need to be as good as the 22mm. Preferably with easier MF.

Nice to have:

• 4k, and 25fps at minimum.
• IBIS. Actually, I prefer this to 4k. A lot.

I don't want a lot. Yet, somehow, I feel I am dreaming.


----------



## Wizardly (Mar 13, 2016)

Atcanon said:


> Think my wish list is limited.
> 
> Must have:
> 
> ...



Same price as EOS M3...if you wait 10 years and buy it off the used market that might happen.


----------



## Atcanon (Mar 13, 2016)

Well, pricing is subject to change. M3 was more expensive at launch.

But yeah, nothing in the "EOS M track record" hints at a complete fulfillment of my wish list.


----------



## hubie (Mar 13, 2016)

Sometimes threads here feel like school yard back in the days, just without punching ur opposite in the face when you run out of arguments (which is in 95% of the posts the case here).

I myself am looking forward on a mirrorless Full frame with EF-mount. That would be great, although I fear a bit too expensive, as I am not going to "waste" more than 2000$ on a camera body...


----------



## gargamel (Mar 13, 2016)

scyrene said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's sales are shrinking, their market share is shrinking, too, just like the whole camera market is shrinking. The only segment that is growing is the segment of mirrorless cameras. Add that about 1-2 years ago we heard (I think it was here, at CR) that Canon wasn*t too happy with 6D sales. Now, as business man; what would you conclude?
> ...



Of course::

Canon Releases Q3 2015 Results (10/2015)
http://www.canonrumors.com/page/40/

CANON ANNUAL REPORT 2014, page 14f.
http://www.canon.com/ir/annual/2014/canon-annual-report-2014.pdf


And a few unauthorized (EDIT: unauthoritative) sources:

REFILE-UPDATE 1-Canon Q3 profit slides on weak camera demand but full-year forecast lifted (10/2014)
http://www.reuters.com/article/canon-results-idUSL4N0SM25K20141027

Canon destroys Nikon in DSLR marketshare for 2010 (4/2011)
http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-destroys-nikon-in-dslr-marketshare/

Canon and Nikon Japanese market share declines (9/2011)
http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/cameras/canon-and-nikon-japanese-market-share-declines-1019035

The Market for Interchangeable Lens Cameras (2/2015)
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-market-for-interchangea.html

What is the market share between Canon and Nikon in the US? (5/2013)
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/39351/what-is-the-market-share-between-canon-and-nikon-in-the-us

Report Claims Only Nikon, Canon and Sony Will Survive the Smartphone Revolution (12/2013)
http://petapixel.com/2013/12/30/report-claims-nikon-canon-sony-will-survive-smartphone-revolution/

gargamel


----------



## gargamel (Mar 13, 2016)

scyrene said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > My humble thinking is that cameras that meet user demands will usually sell better than cameras that don't. So product management should follow user feedback, to some degree.
> ...



Well, they should value all the feedback from all of their customers, of course.  Regarding product strategy, however, it's not so much about people on forums, who may or may not be customers, but on sales figures (not only for their own products, but also the competition) and market trends. The difficult part is to separate hypes from real, more sustainable trends. Forum scans serve as one "trend barometer" and help the product management to get indication for new or changing trends. 

This is, BTW, what Fujifilm did, when they launched their X series. They listen to customers and live Kaizen. This, and their products have helped them to grow a positive image for their brand name and to become profitable, finally. They responded to customer demands and brought the lenses that were most eaglery desired first.

Canon does this, too, as the 80D and the 7D Mk II show clearly They are just bigger and slower. Some might like to rephrase this as "more stable". Well, ok, that's fine for me.  If I wouldn't like a lot about Canon products I wouldn't participate in this forum, would I?

gargamel


----------



## ecka (Mar 13, 2016)

gargamel said:


> ...
> Canon's sales are shrinking, their market share is shrinking, too, just like the whole camera market is shrinking. The only segment that is growing is the segment of mirrorless cameras. ...
> 
> ...
> ...



I myself would like to have a nice FF Canon mirrorless camera instead of my 6D. Now I'm thinking Sony a7# + Sigma MC-11 + Sigma EF lenses , but that's just me and it has nothing to do with 6D family, which I believe will stay with us for a while. I don't want it to be small. Less weight is good, but not much smaller.

I think that the only thing that's shrinking is the mirrorless. I mean the size of mirrorless cameras. On the other hand, there is so much aggressive nonsense from mirrorless fanboys (mostly Fuji and m4/3) all over photography forums, so it is obvious that their brains must be shrinking in sync with their cameras. Thank god Canon isn't listening to that rubbish. Now, how would you separate crazy customers from sane customers? Are those who pay $1200 for a nice and small point&shoot camera, which needs some extra unreasonably expensive lenses (~$1000 each) to take a decent picture (which I could reproduce with anything at F5.6 on my 6D), sane? Isn't the "shrinking down" crazy?

P.S. It's not the mirror box, it's the pentaprism.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 13, 2016)

gargamel said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > gargamel said:
> ...



Reaching quite a bit there. Let's take away the references to 2014 and before because they're not relevant to the current state of affairs. You still need to provide clear support for these statements:


"[Canon's]market share is shrinking, too..."
"The only segment that is growing is the segment of mirrorless cameras"
"I think it was here, at CR) that Canon wasn*t too happy with 6D sales"



> Now, as business man; what would you conclude?



First, I would conclude that I would fire you if you were my data analyst. Second, I would note that Canon's imaging unit has been consistently profitable for over a decade, so they probably know more about how the market moves than anyone on this forum.


----------



## gargamel (Mar 13, 2016)

Mr Majestyk said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > Just speculating, but: Could it be that this mirrorless FF camera is the 6D Mk II?
> ...



At this point of the discussion I agree: The 6D replacement will be a DSLR. One generation ahead, however, things may change, and the 6D III might actually turn out to be the 6M. Time will tell, and we'll have to see, if Nikon's peer product will still be a DSLR or a mirrorless system camera, by that time. Like the FF models from Sony compete with the 5D III (in the semi-pro and wealthy enthusiast segments of the market, at least).

gargamel


----------



## unfocused (Mar 13, 2016)

Comments truncated to save space.



Orangutan said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



As frequently happens, Orangutan has beaten me to a response. Several of the citations referenced conflict with Gargamel's claims. 

Thanks though, for the references. Once again they confirm what I've felt for some time, which is that Thom Hogan is one of the better analysts of photography trends out there. 

[quote author=Thom Hogan]
...if I’m right about what the disruption needs to be, both Canon and Nikon are poorly equipped to create it, as it will mostly be *differences in software, not hardware*, that define future cameras from present ones. [/quote]

See my previous rants about how Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. have all completely blown the social media and connectivity revolution.


----------



## gargamel (Mar 13, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> [...]
> 
> Reaching quite a bit there. Let's take away the references to 2014 and before because they're not relevant to the current state of affairs. You still need to provide clear support for these statements:



Well, not more than you would need to prove me wrong, I guess.  But let's see below.




Orangutan said:


> [...]
> 
> 
> "[Canon's]market share is shrinking, too..."


See "Canon destroys Nikon..." and compare the figures with the figures in the diagrams posted by Woody. The diagram for 2014 shows 43.3% for Canon. 2010 it was 44.5%. 


> "The only segment that is growing is the segment of mirrorless cameras"


As it seems, not even the mirrorless segment is growing, at least not fast. But it's all in the CIPA figures, just look yourself: http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html


> "I think it was here, at CR) that Canon wasn*t too happy with 6D sales"


I finally found that article again. Here it is, just for you, Sir:

EOS 6D Mark II to Move Upmarket? [CR1]
http://www.canonrumors.com/eos-6d-mark-ii-to-move-upmarket-cr1/

Canon to Rethink 6D Market Position After Disappointment With Sales?
https://www.slrlounge.com/canon-rethink-6d-market-position-disappointment-sales/

Canon EOS 6D Sales Figures Not Satisfying?
http://www.canonwatch.com/canon-eos-6d-sales-figures-satisfying/



Orangutan said:


> > Now, as business man; what would you conclude?
> 
> 
> 
> First, I would conclude that I would fire you if you were my data analyst. Second, I would note that Canon's imaging unit has been consistently profitable for over a decade, so they probably know more about how the market moves than anyone on this forum.



LOL! Luckily, for the both of us, I am not your data analyst. I would obviously have a hard time to explain my results to you... 
With your final statement I fully agree, by the way. As I said in a previous post: At Canon they are conservative, and sometimes it looks like they are slow, but they do respond to user demands and trends. And while their products are a bit boring at times, it only means that the product as such doesn't get in your way. So "boring" is the best thing a camera can be.

However, in my opinion thet underestimated the potential and (even more) the appeal of mirrorless cameras (and 4k Video), and I hope that they are not going to be the Nokia of the camera business in a couple of years. The iPhone was a disruptive force in the smartphone market, and some Nokia managers still wonder, what went wrong.

gargamel


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 13, 2016)

gargamel said:


> However, in my opinion thet underestimated the potential and (even more) the appeal of mirrorless cameras (and 4k Video), and I hope that they are not going to be the Nokia of the camera business in a couple of years. The iPhone was a disruptive force in the smartphone market, and some Nokia managers still wonder, what went wrong.



I think your off with this statement. 
It is probably more proper timing and technical level than being late.

From an interview of Mr. Go Tokura

_Dual Pixel AF is a technology which has huge potential for mirrorless cameras. A lot of our readers are still very hopeful for future Canon enthusiast mirrorless models. Is there anything that you would like to say to them?

Obviously I can’t be particularly concrete when talking about our future product planning, but this is something that we are looking at. Something that is under consideration. There are some features, such as AF, which have not yet caught up with DSLRs, so given the current state of affairs it would be a little unrealistic to say that we will suddenly start offering a professional mirrorless camera. *There’s still a performance gap that needs to be addressed. *

If we assume that at some point in the future Canon will create an enthusiast or professional mirrorless camera, what are your benchmarks?

This is just my personal opinion. In my view there are two key features that have to be addressed. The first is autofocus, particularly tracking of moving subjects. The other is the viewfinder. The electronic viewfinder would have to offer a certain standard. If those two functions were to match the performance of EOS DSLR camera performance, we might make the switch.

Tremendous progress has been made in electronic systems. However in terms of AF, pro-level AF functions, and the range of shooting situations that professional photographers can respond to, *there’s still a gap between DSLRs and mirrorless systems.*_
http://www.dpreview.com/interviews/0533836703/cp-plus-canon-interview-important-to-increase-development-speed


----------



## Diltiazem (Mar 13, 2016)

gargamel said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > gargamel said:
> ...



You made few claims.
1. Canon's sales are falling.
2. Canon's market share is falling.
3. 6D isn't selling well.
4. Mirrorless market is growing. 

#1 is true. 

#2 is false. 
Worldwide data for 2015 isn't available yet, but data for Japan market is available.
DSLR: http://www.bcnranking.jp/award/section/hard/hard102.html
You can see Canon's market share has grown

Mirrorless: http://www.bcnranking.jp/award/section/hard/hard94.html
Again Canon's market share has grown and for the first time they are in #3 position. 

#3. Your claim is based on a CR1 rumor. It is hard to know how many 6D Canon is selling. But if you look at the best sellers at Amazon and B&H you will see that it is among the best sellers. It is possible that Canon sold less 6D than they hoped for, but it is still selling very well. 

#4
The best year for mirrorless was 2012, 4 million cameras were shipped according to CIPA figures. According to the same source 3.2 million mirrorless cameras were shipped last year (better than 3.1 million shipped in 2014). Would you say mirrorless market is growing? It actually has become stagnant. 

A lot of people including leading industry analysts have been wrong about mirrorless cameras potential. For example, in 2012 IDC predicted that by 2014 mirrorless sales volume will reach 14 million. How wrong they were!


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 13, 2016)

Diltiazem said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



also to add to this.

in 2012-14 Sony scaled down and stopped shipping somewhere around 2 million SLT's.

from 2012 to 2015, CIPA shows a less than 5% growth rate in marketshare in Mirrorless versus DSLR's.

however that does not take into account Sony scaling back SLT shipments. at their highest point they had around a 13% marketshare.

just taken into account the scale back of SLT shipments is around 6% shift of marketshare. which is MORE than mirrorless has grown in that same period of time.

predominantly, what seems to be happening based up the above - is that the people that are purchasing mirrorless are continuing to purchase mirrorless, and for the most part the leakage from DSLR's to Mirrorless is pretty low.

another thing that people don't consider is that there is approximately three times the vendors for mirrorless as there is for DSLR. On average there are 3-4 times the releases of Mirrorless versus SLR's.

CIPA is reporting shipments, it's nothing unusual for vendors to mass ship initially and then dwindle off after that. if that is the case, then it's stands to reason that mirrorless shipments "appear" more consistent.


----------



## Schwingi (Mar 13, 2016)

Finally Canon will enter the mirrorless market. I hope they do it with a bang!!! Nice specs and good battery capacity/performance.


----------



## slclick (Mar 13, 2016)

Schwingi said:


> Finally Canon will enter the mirrorless market. I hope they do it with a bang!!! Nice specs and good battery capacity/performance.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_M


----------



## Nininini (Mar 13, 2016)

TAF said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > that makes no sense, I shoot 4k on my panasonic_* all....the..... time*_
> ...



My Benq monitor, IPS 1080P screen.

You don't need a 4k screen to grab stills from a 4k video. It's going to be a 8 megapixel still regardless of your screen resolution.

All you need is a cheap video program that allows you to take a snapshot of a video.

In Corel Video Studio go to Edit..Take a Snapshot.

In Adobe Premiere Elements go to Tools....Freeze Frame.


you can also adjust the settings:









4k video is powerful for several reasons:

*video*:
-it's 4k, duh, video will look nicer
-video downsampled to 1080P also looks nicer since the 4k source has more detail
-you can easily stabilize 4k video into 1080P video, since you have a massive border to work with
-you can use 4k as a zoom for 1080P video

*stills*:
-taking snapshots from 4k video is great, it results in 8 megapixel pictures that are full of detail
-it's like shooting non-stop 30FPS burst in 8 megapixel, you no longer miss the moment you wanted
-unlike shooting burst stills, it doesn't tax your mirror or curtain, eventually a cameras mirror and curtain gives up, shooting burst all the time will eventually break either your mirror or curtain, video will not do that because both the mirror and curtain are open as long as you do video
-it's completely quiet, you're not scaring animals or people, unlike with a 15FPS mirror slap that scares away everyone, draws massive attention and sounds like a machine gun


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 13, 2016)

Three new mirrorless ?

That's a lot of EOS-M product ! My guess would be a midrange replacement to the EOS-M4, plus a higher end EOS-M with hopefully some nice primes. Third one ? I'm hopeful of a full frame in a SL1 type body using EF lenses.

Bring it one... But mostly the M primes please


----------



## gargamel (Mar 14, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > However, in my opinion thet underestimated the potential and (even more) the appeal of mirrorless cameras (and 4k Video), and I hope that they are not going to be the Nokia of the camera business in a couple of years. The iPhone was a disruptive force in the smartphone market, and some Nokia managers still wonder, what went wrong.
> ...


_

If f understand you correctly, you are just re-phrasing what I was going to say. So I agree with you: The right timing is key to success (combined with or based on technical level, as you put it correctly). Early bird catches the worm, but the second mouse takes the cheese.

I know this interview with Mr. Tokura you quote, and he's quite right, and said this in another post in this thread: DPAF is probably the greatest innovation from Canon in recent years, but it's highly underrated. (Ok, Canon's fault, as they don't market it that well...). 
I said it in a previous post: Some folks complain about Canon's decision to stick with FHD in the 80D instead of adding 4K video capabilities. Personally I think they made the right decision. A well-implemented FHD video section with DPAF makes more sense than a half-assed 4K implementation.

gargamel_


----------



## gargamel (Mar 14, 2016)

You arbitrarily mix and match figures from various sources and market shares, i.e. percentages, with absolute sales figures. This is a bit confusing. Let's get things straight a bit, again, please.



Diltiazem said:


> [...]
> 
> You made few claims.
> 1. Canon's sales are falling.
> ...


Yes, but it has become evident in this discussion that, with the exception of companies like Fujifilm, just about everyone else in this business is suffering, too.


> #2 is false.
> Worldwide data for 2015 isn't available yet, but data for Japan market is available.
> DSLR: http://www.bcnranking.jp/award/section/hard/hard102.html
> You can see Canon's market share has grown


Please provide evidence that this holds for the global markets. My "claim" may not apply to Japan. However, Japan is a very special market and all the publications you are referring to make it quite clear that Japan definitely not representative for the global markets.


> Mirrorless: http://www.bcnranking.jp/award/section/hard/hard94.html
> Again Canon's market share has grown and for the first time they are in #3 position.


Well, the link goes to a Japanes page, but I think I saw an English translation of it before, As far as I can tell, you are, again, mixing up things. This figure is only for the Japanese mirrorless camera market. It doesn't include DSLRs, and it's, again, only applicable for Japan, not for the global markets.


> #3. Your claim is based on a CR1 rumor. It is hard to know how many 6D Canon is selling. But if you look at the best sellers at Amazon and B&H you will see that it is among the best sellers. It is possible that Canon sold less 6D than they hoped for, but it is still selling very well.



Please define "selling very well". It seems that Canon's definition of good sales is not based on rankings, but on actual sales. It's nice that you think that the 6D sells very well, but it's wishfull thinking. Canon saw it differently, a while ago. The 6D may be popular now, but only after Canon lowered the price. So they can't be all-too happy, as low sales like low prices both mean less profit.
It doesn't matter that the camera is more popular than competing products among the customers of one popular web shop, because if that shop sells just one 6D and no other cameras, it's going to be ranked #1. Right? 



> #4
> The best year for mirrorless was 2012, 4 million cameras were shipped according to CIPA figures. According to the same source 3.2 million mirrorless cameras were shipped last year (better than 3.1 million shipped in 2014). Would you say mirrorless market is growing? It actually has become stagnant.



Well, in your response to #1 you confirmed that the mirrorless market ist growing...., and you were right with that, because: Absolute sales figures seem to have been stagnant for a while, but DSLR sales have dropped at the same time. Now, it's simple arithmetic: Abolute figures for mirrorless are stagnat, absolute figures for DSLRs decrease. I guess, it's obvious to anyone that this *must* mean, that the market share of mirrorless cameras is increasing. I cannot say, how Canon is affected by that development. Let's wait for CIPA to publish the numbers for 2015, as this will be highly interesting.

Or even better: Let's get out and shoot! It's almost spring time! 

gargamel

But don't let this point stretch too far, and wait for CIPA to publish the figures for 2015.



> A lot of people including leading industry analysts have been wrong about mirrorless cameras potential. For example, in 2012 IDC predicted that by 2014 mirrorless sales volume will reach 14 million. How wrong they were!



Let's see, how this all is going to go, and what Canon will come up with. Mirrorless or not: I am looking forward to the camera that will succeed the 6D. A few more cross-type AF sensors, slightly increased focus speed, a 100% view finder, plus a slighlty lighter and smaller body would be on my wishlist.

gargamel


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 14, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> First, I would conclude that I would fire you if you were my data analyst. Second, I would note that Canon's imaging unit has been consistently profitable for over a decade, so they probably know more about how the market moves than anyone on this forum.



+1, but then smurf society is basically a barter economy so probably the real fiscal world is a little confusing for gargamel...


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 14, 2016)

Oh wow, the assembled Canon Defense League at full swing again! Flapping and slapping, legt and right, smoke and ... mirrors.

Does not change the facts though:
• 2016, and Canon (and Nikon) have no competitive mirrorless camera system in their product portfolio yet
• 2016, and Canon has no 4k video except in one expensive ILC
• therefore many people buy Sony, Fuji and mFT products
• once customers have switched brand to another system, it is very hard to win them back

Conclusion
• current product strategy "less than optimal" for Canon

Risks
• Nokia, Kodak, Hasselblad


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 14, 2016)

Except that the Eos M has been competitive (if you look at sales figures).

But with every extra Fuji lens or accessory that I buy, returning to Canon get's a little harder. But a prosumer camera sounds like they are on the right track. Hopefully they'll make some desirable lenses, too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 14, 2016)

Hillsilly said:


> Except that the Eos M has been competitive (if you look at sales figures).



Lol, yes but AvTvM defines 'competitive' as 'something I personally like'. Please don't bother him with facts and data, those things make his little noggin hurt worse than a mirrorslap to the back of the head. 

After all, Canon is 3rd in MILC market share (a smaller segment in which they haven't strongly invested), and the clear leader in the overall ILC market. But, of course, AvTvM knows more about market strategy than they do... :

Conclusion: he's a card-carrying member of the anti-reality league.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 14, 2016)

Nininini said:


> *stills*:
> -taking snapshots from 4k video is great, it results in 8 megapixel pictures that are full of detail
> -it's like shooting non-stop 30FPS burst in 8 megapixel, you no longer miss the moment you wanted



Overall your points are well made. However, for balance, it's worth pointing out a few caveats (once again). The stills from a video are only useful if they aren't motion blurred. As has been said many times in many places, in general for smooth video, exposure times of <1/100sec are preferred per frame. For some subjects, with no camera movement, this would be fine. But for moving subjects especially, many of the frames will be blurred and therefore of no use for extraction as a still image. This can be solved by shooting video with shorter exposure times (say, 1/1000 per frame), but that leads to footage that looks jagged or stilted. Tl;dr: there's no such thing as a free lunch. Either you have good footage that's poor for stills extraction, or good stills from poor footage.

Incidentally, 'full of detail' is relative. A raw still of the same resolution will likely always be superior. Not to say an extracted still won't be _good enough_ for some purposes - it just won't be for others.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Does not change the *facts* though:
> • 2016, and Canon has no 4k video except in one expensive ILC
> • therefore many people buy Sony, Fuji and mFT products
> • once customers have switched brand to another system, it is very hard to win them back



-Since you used the f-word, I ought to correct a few assertions. Canon technically has 4k in at least four ILCs (the 1DC, 1DxII, C300 II and C500).
-Your 'therefore' is misplaced if we're talking about *facts* - can you demonstrate the lack of 4k in cheaper Canon ILCs is the reason for many, let alone most people choosing other brands?
-Your final point works both ways. If those customers are switching one way, why can't they switch back? If it's just one feature (as your earlier points imply) that's won them over?


----------



## slclick (Mar 14, 2016)

I never understood the bizarre need to continue to visit a place which brings you so much unhappiness. It's truly unhealthy.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > First, I would conclude that I would fire you if you were my data analyst. Second, I would note that Canon's imaging unit has been consistently profitable for over a decade, so they probably know more about how the market moves than anyone on this forum.
> ...



After a night of sleep I wish I had phrased that differently. Though Gargamel misunderstands the data he's citing, he does not appear to be a troll.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> the assembled Canon Defense League


Speaking for myself, I'd switch to a different body if I thought it would be a significant improvement, and would work well with my L-lenses. 



> Does not change the facts though:


Nor does it change their lack of relevance, e.g.



> • 2016, and Canon (and Nikon) have no competitive mirrorless camera system in their product portfolio yet


No one has shown that such a product would be financially beneficial in their portfolio



> • 2016, and Canon has no 4k video except in one expensive ILC


While it would be nice to have, I wouldn't trade existing features for it, and no one has shown that such a product would be financially beneficial in their portfolio



> • therefore many people buy Sony, Fuji and mFT products


That's the way market economies work: if Canon sold all the gear to all the people they would have a monopoly. At present, ML is minority product (I don't mean that in a disparaging way); when Canon thinks they can make real money from it they'll make a play. It's just business.

Another way to look at it is that "Sony, Fuji and mFT products" are not good enough to take from Canon more than a small fraction of their overall ILC share.



> • once customers have switched brand to another system, it is very hard to win them back


It sounds like you're speaking for yourself. If we want to cite personal experience, I know a few people who attempted to switch to Nikon because of the sensors, but switched back because of everything except the sensors.



> Conclusion
> • current product strategy "less than optimal" for Canon


This is meaningless: you have only show that not having the best in all product categories is "less than optimal" for any market player. This is a trivial, hence meaningless, result. It also fails to account for the cost to participate (i.e. R&D&S) at that level in all product categories.



> Risks
> • Nokia, Kodak, Hasselblad



Competition is good!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 14, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> Though Gargamel misunderstands the data he's citing, he does not appear to be a troll.



Agree with both. I must say, I love that his 'evidence' for Canon's purported disappointment with 6D sales is a CR1 rumor that was reblogged by an Oregon boudoir photographer. Now that's reliable information!


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Though Gargamel misunderstands the data he's citing, he does not appear to be a troll.
> ...



I guess some are able to perceive what is concealed to others. ;D


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 14, 2016)

The 6D used a fair bit of technology from the 5D MKII and added wi-fi, gps & a smaller body (it did have its own sensor). The investment for Canon was far short of what it spent on the 5D MKIII, 1D X etc. 
There is simply no evidence to suggest this camera is a disappointment to Canon and defining disappointment as a camera in continued manufacture for four years given Sony 3 year cycle for the a7, a7r etc. is frankly nuts. 

Canon have used the 6D to up-sell users from crop bodies and into a more profitable FF segment thats called business sense and I would be gob smacked if they do not continue with an entry level FF camera after all the 7D MKII is considered a semi-pro body and the prices are not too dissimilar yet specification sensor aside is much lower on the 6D. 

Canon know what their doing, yes like all business in business for decades they make mistakes but overall the successes far outweight the failures and the 6D is not one of them.


----------



## Woody (Mar 14, 2016)

gargamel said:


> See "Canon destroys Nikon..." and compare the figures with the figures in the diagrams posted by Woody. The diagram for 2014 shows 43.3% for Canon. 2010 it was 44.5%.



Wow, isn't it fun to distort the picture? You deliberately presented skewed data to distort the picture for your own purpose.

See how Canon and Nikon's market shares fluctuate in the interchangeable lens market:

2006: Canon 47%, Nikon 33%, Sony 6%
2007: Canon 42%, Nikon 40%, Sony ??
2008: Canon 38%, Nikon 37%, Sony 13%
2009: ??
2010: Canon 44.5%, Nikon 29.8%, Sony 11.9%
2011: Canon 47.5%, Nikon 31% (Thom Hogan's estimates and CIPA figures)
2012: Canon 40.6%, Nikon 34.7% (Thom Hogan's estimates and CIPA figures)
2013: ??
2014: Canon 43.3%, Nikon 32.1%, Sony 13.0%


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 14, 2016)

gargamel said:


> Well, in your response to #1 you confirmed that the mirrorless market ist growing...., and you were right with that, because: Absolute sales figures seem to have been stagnant for a while, but DSLR sales have dropped at the same time. Now, it's simple arithmetic: Abolute figures for mirrorless are stagnat, absolute figures for DSLRs decrease. I guess, it's obvious to anyone that this *must* mean, that the market share of mirrorless cameras is increasing. I cannot say, how Canon is affected by that development. Let's wait for CIPA to publish the numbers for 2015, as this will be highly interesting



they already have.

Mirrorless shipments for the most part have remained constant. but that stands to reason. this is SHIPMENTS.

none of the mirrorless are really to the point of diminishing returns yet (Olympus is close) so they are shipping as much consistently because they are releasing 4 times the amount of new products per year as Canon and Nikon.

the markeshare from 2012 to 2015 has changed 5% in favor of Mirrorless, however, that does not take into account Sony's market shift.

Sony had a 11-13% overall ILC marketshare when they were focused on SLT's pre NEX.

they have slowly stopped shipping A-Mount in vast quantities - as they basically are no longer shelf stuffing A mount.

the shift of sony should have accounted for a 6-13% gain in mirrorless as they shifted their shipments to mirrorless, however we are only seeing a 5% shift.

it's really difficult to say that Mirrorless itself is really growing, because of the sony shipment shift.

Then there is other aspects to consider. with the global currencies and economy being in a great deal of flux, canon and nikon shortened their inventory supply.

Again, influencing "shipments".


----------



## hendrik-sg (Mar 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Don't try too hard with 4K, Canon. It's still early if you increase the video resolution in a sub 10k camera for the first time at the 10th anniversary of the 5D2, in 2018. When you are the last of the manufacturers who offers 4K on a broad basis. While you have proven with the 1DC you could have been the first.
> ...



Neoro, i really appreciate what you write to this forum, normally. But this is to conservative in my opinion. Nobody would have thought nokia would completely disapear from the phone market, just because they went on the smartphones to late (or never??, don't know)

Canon has given us some really nice lenses the last years, but i think the high end lenses are not the big market share, and sellable only to customers who are in the system. Sure, my impression is that my 5d3 has better AF than a D810, but this is pro (or enthusiast level maybe) gear and not what first time buyers care about.

On entry level (and with entry i mean "system entry" and not "cheap") there is no coolness to buy EOS, all others have better specs on paper. At the moment, canon has a good reputation for beginners, as had Nokia, 2 years after the first I-Phone, but this might get lost if there is no visible innovation (beside completely new developped 18MP sensors of course) 

So beeing the only brand having no affordable 4k offering is not really cool, and to be honest, today i would not buy a camcorder without 4k, because i do not want to buy new every 3 years. So innovation and marketing seem to be quite close, no D5x00 user would ever care that there is no 11-24 and no TS-E 17 lens in the lineup. But he will see there is no 4k, less frame rate, and maybe it's getting common knowledge that canon has the weakest sensors on the market

So neglecting (or oversleeping) 4k, mirrorless and sensor developpement in general is dangerous, and even a market leader can get obsolete..... see the exhibitions list of CBit 30 years ago


----------



## Refurb7 (Mar 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> • therefore many people buy Sony, Fuji and mFT products
> • once customers have switched brand to another system, it is very hard to win them back



Some people get frustrated before completing the switch, and go back to their Canon gear for pro work. I've read enough reports of people going back to Canon to sense that it's not that "hard to win them back".

For a look at all the fun you can have switching to Fuji, read the very mixed (3 star) first review of the Fuji X-Pro2 on the B&H web site, titled "Per usual the hype is greater than reality". It would be a decent average camera if not for the unexpected shutdown, unexpected reset and other quirks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 14, 2016)

hendrik-sg said:


> Nobody would have thought nokia would completely disapear from the phone market, just because they went on the smartphones to late (or never??, don't know)



How can you say that on a photography forum, when Nokia offers camera phones with the *more megapixels* than most dSLRs? 




hendrik-sg said:


> On entry level (and with entry i mean "system entry" and not "cheap") there is no coolness to buy EOS, all others have better specs on paper. At the moment, canon has a good reputation for beginners, as had Nokia, 2 years after the first I-Phone, but this might get lost if there is no visible innovation (beside completely new developped 18MP sensors of course)



For all that there is 'no coolness' and 'all others have better specs' Canon still manages to outsell the others. Simply astounding! 

Time will tell, I suspect you'll find that Canon changes with the times (they have, so far, in ways that have maintained their solid position as market leader).


----------



## hendrik-sg (Mar 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody would have thought nokia would completely disapear from the phone market, just because they went on the smartphones to late (or never??, don't know)
> ...



of course i hope they will change as needed, and stay there and competitive, i am locked in their system. i hope you are right with this, and you mention of tghe 41MP phone i take as a joke, for 2 reasons: i never saw one inthe wild, and i like the low light performance of FF combined with fast primes...

BUT i would really appreciate the ISO invariant Sony sensors for party shooting. Yes it's more in high iso range, but underexposing with lower iso and pusing in past, would give me less highlight clipping and HDR is no option when people are moving


----------



## JohanCruyff (Mar 14, 2016)

Sorry, I have no time to read the whole thread. Just a question: "Canon is *******" has already been written?


----------



## unfocused (Mar 14, 2016)

I have to wonder how many of the "4K is everything" people actually shoot video.

From my limited experience, it seems like 4K would be very important for editing but not all that critical for a final product.

Most videos live on You Tube and are viewed on tablets and phones. Aside from Hollywood productions, hardly any videos will be seen on 4K televisions and even most Hollywood productions are being watched on tablets, phones, laptops or non-4K televisions. So the main reason to actually output to 4K is to satisfy your own ego, and allow you to watch your homemade videos on your new tv.

On the other hand, if you are actually producing video for client or distribution, there can be advantages to shooting in 4K and outputting in 1080p.

You can crop a scene without losing quality,
Post production stabilization is a lot easier,
You can zoom in to a scene or pan across a scene without losing quality.

But all of these require a certain level of editing expertise that most casual users don't have and don't have the desire to acquire. 

So, yes, 4K can be very useful. But, it is not going to be a make or break feature for most users, unless they are very seriously into video. Given that, I can see why Canon isn't feeling the need to drop everything in order to shoehorn 4K video into every new release.


----------



## msm (Mar 14, 2016)

unfocused said:


> I have to wonder how many of the "4K is everything" people actually shoot video.
> 
> From my limited experience, it seems like 4K would be very important for editing but not all that critical for a final product.
> ...



I have to wonder how many who say that have actually seen good 4k video on a good 4k display. The difference from good HD is enormous. The difference from the traditional blurry Canon SLR HD is absolutely gigantic.

The 5DSR doubled the number of pixels over 5DIII. 4k quadruples the number of pixels over HD. It's like having reduced vision and putting on glasses for the first time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 14, 2016)

msm said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I have to wonder how many of the "4K is everything" people actually shoot video.
> ...



What's important to wonder is how many *camera buyers* have seen good 4K video on a good 4K display. I suspect the answer to that is damn few, relatively speaking. Next, one could wonder how many have the hardware and software to conveniently edit 4K video, to which I suspect the answer is damn few_er_.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 14, 2016)

unfocused said:


> I have to wonder how many of the "4K is everything" people actually shoot video.
> 
> From my limited experience, it seems like 4K would be very important for editing but not all that critical for a final product.
> 
> ...



Anything I upload is first converted to a lower resolution and a slower bitrate before uploading it..... and that's with 2K video.....


----------



## unfocused (Mar 14, 2016)

msm said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I have to wonder how many of the "4K is everything" people actually shoot video.
> ...



I have to wonder if you read my post. 

Unless you are walking around with a portable 4K display and accosting strangers on the street by saying, "hey, look at my 4K video" or subjecting friends and family to the modern day equivalent of an evening with your Kodachromes from vacation, no one is seeing your good 4K video on a good 4K display.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...


The Sony F65 is an 8K camera outputting 4K and being broadcast 95% of the time at 2K or less. 4K broadcast is virtually non existant and 4K TVs are only just being complimented with 4K Bluray. Add to this most people sit further away than the recommended viewing distance which means their not actually seeing 4K in the true sense of the word. The world is being "conned" into believing you can have it all, you cannot and its about balance and practicality the only true really world advantage of 4K, 6K or higher is oversampling.


----------



## ecka (Mar 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



There are much much more 4K camera and display owners, than people dreaming about it in forums .
Of course, 80% of population are poor people and even the "not-so-poor" people have different priorities without any 4K stuff on the list at all. You and I may not care about things other people do. That doesn't make us a benchmark for them to adapt and follow.


----------



## msm (Mar 14, 2016)

unfocused said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



I read your post. I just get the impression you do not realize what you miss. As for your other arguments, youtube has supported 4K for quite some time now so it is not exactly hard to share it with others. And then there is the question if you want to see your videos in the future when 4K is going to be standard everywhere.

Nor is software for editing 4k rare in fact you even got basic functionality in adobe camera raw and photoshop cc. It does not require a monster machine neither.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 14, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> The world is being "conned" into believing you can have it all, you cannot and its about balance and practicality the only true really world advantage of 4K, 6K or higher is oversampling.



Well, it's apparent that some people on these forums have certainly been 'conned'.


----------



## Schwingi (Mar 14, 2016)

slclick said:


> Schwingi said:
> 
> 
> > Finally Canon will enter the mirrorless market. I hope they do it with a bang!!! Nice specs and good battery capacity/performance.
> ...



I meant serious competition against the other brands... :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 14, 2016)

Schwingi said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Schwingi said:
> ...



Yeah, I guess you missed the fact that with just one line of MILC and a few lenses, Canon is #3 in the market segment and has a bigger share of the (smaller) MILC market than Panasonic, Ricoh, and Fuji. 

Or maybe you meant competitive in your own mind and not in the real world.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 14, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> The Sony F65 is an 8K camera outputting 4K



not it isn't.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 14, 2016)

msm said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I have to wonder how many of the "4K is everything" people actually shoot video.
> ...



I've watched 4K videos - but at reduced quality, as my laptop is only 2560x1600. They can look dazzling - at first, and in comparison to lower resolutions. But just as with HD, a lot of the time, you can't tell the difference. Or rather, your eyes adjust, and it's only when swapping between different resolutions that you notice.

When HD came along, we were told it was like looking through a window - so clear and crisp. Except it's not. 4K is sharper, but it's not the be all and end all. What matters to me, and to most people, is content. I'd rather watch a show I enjoy in SD than something boring in HD. Not to mention, a lot of channels still don't broadcast in HD for free here (in the UK) - and somehow we manage. I don't think 4K will be mainstream for a while yet.

None of this is to say it's bad to have it - it's great to have more of most things. But claiming it's something particularly special, a deal breaker, a life-changing thing, is just the same old hyperbole.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 14, 2016)

scyrene said:


> None of this is to say it's bad to have it - it's great to have more of most things. But claiming it's something particularly special, a deal breaker, a life-changing thing, is just the same old hyperbole.



4K video is useless unless you can underexpose it by 6 stops and push it back up in post.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 14, 2016)

scyrene said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



To my mind, it all comes down to the bitrate.... Nobody broadcasts uncompressed video.... Nobody puts an uncompressed movie onto a DVD... and to my mind, visually there is very little difference between 2K video and 4K video at the same bitrate.

Since both broadcast and cable feeds are already at the limits of their data rate, and since DVDs (including Blu-Ray) are also hitting the same wall, going to 4K will have no practical effect on the quality of video delivered to the consumer. The distribution pipeline is full and it does not even come close to meeting the needs of 2K, so 4K is a laugh..... Of course, those 10 minute "demo" DVDs are different, they have the bitrate cranked up to consume the entire DVD with just the short clip and the subject matter is carefully chosen. Making your evaluation based on that is a bit like deciding which pickup to buy based on the TV commercials where they do things that no sane person would ever do, and when what you really needed was a minivan to fit the kids.

That's for distribution, production is different. 4K and higher bitrate encoding allows much more data to be collected. You get more detail. You get more cropping and framing. You can average out noise. You have more tools to deal with moiré. You can do post-production steady-cam and still have full 2K HD left over... Yes, it also eats up memory a lot faster, but from a production point of view this makes as much sense as a still shooter deciding to change from shooting jpg to shooting RAW.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > None of this is to say it's bad to have it - it's great to have more of most things. But claiming it's something particularly special, a deal breaker, a life-changing thing, is just the same old hyperbole.
> ...


Neuro, you are so wrong on that one......

First.... no Canon shoots 4K, only Sony. Canon only claims they shoot 4K in a few models because to admit otherwise would mean immediate and irrevocable doom for Canon. (YAPOD)

Second..... if you are shooting Sony, you can underexpose by 5 stops ( not 6, 5! ) and bring it back in post

Third..... The second point only holds when shooting RAW uncompressed video.... of course, at 24Mb per frame and 60Fps you fill up that 512Gbyte memory card in 6 minutes.... but hey, this is the price to pay for not knowing how to set your exposure and if people don't like it then Boo! Hoo! go set it right!

Fourth.... If Canon really was that good, it would mean that the DXO site would be temporally off-line while they invented a new anti-Canon ratting system (ratting is NOT a typo of rating)


----------



## scyrene (Mar 15, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Of course, those 10 minute "demo" DVDs are different, they have the bitrate cranked up to consume the entire DVD with just the short clip and the subject matter is carefully chosen.



So *that's* why all the tvs in the shop show videos of coral reefs and suchlike!


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 15, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, those 10 minute "demo" DVDs are different, they have the bitrate cranked up to consume the entire DVD with just the short clip and the subject matter is carefully chosen.
> ...


Yes..... nobody in sales ever lies or misleads 

Watched the news on TV tonight..... according to the adds, Chevy, Ford, and Dodge all sell the most fuel efficient pickup truck, the toughest truck, the best selling truck, and the class leading pickup truck... I wonder why I don't believe any of them


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 15, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Watched the news on TV tonight..... according to the adds, Chevy, Ford, and Dodge all sell the most fuel efficient pickup truck, the toughest truck, the best selling truck, and the class leading pickup truck...* I wonder why I don't believe any of them*



Because you drive a Tundra?


----------



## gargamel (Mar 15, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Don't worry, I put it into the "special sense of, but still humor" drawer. 

gargamel


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



I stand sit corrected, thanks Don.


----------



## gargamel (Mar 15, 2016)

Woody said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > See "Canon destroys Nikon..." and compare the figures with the figures in the diagrams posted by Woody. The diagram for 2014 shows 43.3% for Canon. 2010 it was 44.5%.
> ...



Well, in your previous post you provided diagrams showing Canon's market share in arbitrarily selected years. From these two diagrams it might be concluded that Canon's market share had beein quickly increasing ever since. Now, who distorted the picture? Which is far from reality, of course, as the figures you provide now, clearly show. I only responded to this, I did not start it, and personally I don't actually care about this sort of figures, at al Anyhow thanks for providing the more complete information, now.

gartgamel


----------



## gargamel (Mar 15, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Though Gargamel misunderstands the data he's citing, he does not appear to be a troll.
> ...



First, I clearly separated authoritative and unauthoritative sources in my post, and never made the claim that any of the latter is "reliable information". So, please, stop suggesting something else to readers of this thread. 

Second, "unreliable" doesn't necessarily mean "wrong". The almost permanent sales support in the form of cashback, bundles ("value packs") and permanently lowered prices certainly don't indicate that the 6D is selling itself.

Third, up to now you are not really participating in the discussion. You think; my arguments are wrong? I can live with that. Just provide evidence. instead you prefer enjoying your arrogance, and blaming and bashing others. I kindly ask you to

1. Read carefully before you write.
2. Think twice, what message you want to get over.
3. Stop intentionally misinterpreting what others say.
4. Support your statements with references and reveal your sources.

If you need help, contact your counsellor. 

gargamel


----------



## Woody (Mar 15, 2016)

gargamel said:


> Well, in your previous post you provided diagrams showing Canon's market share in arbitrarily selected years. From these two diagrams it might be concluded that Canon's market share had beein quickly increasing ever since. Now, who distorted the picture? Which is far from reality, of course, as the figures you provide now, clearly show. I only responded to this, I did not start it, and personally I don't actually care about this sort of figures, at al Anyhow thanks for providing the more complete information, now.
> gartgamel



The diagrams were used to simply dispel the nonsensical statement you made below; there was no other intention.



gargamel said:


> ... their market share is shrinking...



You, on the other hand, wanted to use the figures from 2010 and 2014 alone to prove, once again, that Canon's market share is shrinking.



gargamel said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > "[Canon's]market share is shrinking, too..."
> ...


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 15, 2016)

gargamel said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



There is much wrong with your post, but I'll focus on a few pieces.

You made strong, affirmative statements based largely on very poor sources. Recognizing poor sources generally should occur before you write so you can omit those sources entirely. While none of us have (demonstrable) access to truly authoritative information, most do make an effort to rely on something much more solid than the speculations of another poster.

While it's true that unreliable doesn't mean wrong, it does mean "waste of time." 

You use weak sources to support your claims, then expect others to use reliable sources to refute them. Really??!!! That won't fly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2016)

gargamel said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Ok, let's see what I read:



gargamel said:


> Canon's sales are shrinking, their market share is shrinking, too, just like the whole camera market is shrinking. The only segment that is growing is the segment of mirrorless cameras. Add that about 1-2 years ago we heard (I think it was here, at CR) that Canon wasn*t too happy with 6D sales. Now, as business man; what would you conclude?



That's a blend of some correct information, some totally wrong information, and some pure speculation. But you are making conclusions based on that, and you believe them to be correct.

When you next visit your therapist, be sure to have your metacognition assessed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2016)

By the way, here's a quick plot of the CIPA data on mirrorless units shipped since they started tracking subsegments of the ILC market in 2012. For all those claiming the MILC market is growing, you're technically correct - it grew a whole *1.7%* in 2015 (after shrinking each of the prior two years). At that growth rate, assuming it's maintained (hey, one year makes a trend, right?), the MILC market might even grow all the way back up to 2012 levels in a few years!


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 15, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



Amen. Just as too many folks around here are worrying about megapixels for stills (and at least those pixels from the file perspective are created equally) I don't get all this hype for 4k. The bitrate and compression used is huge. Even the 1080p signals I get today from my provider are less then optimal. In fact, I can tell which stations are the "important" ones, as the ESPNs of the world look a lot better then a kids cartoon channel.

It certainly has gotten better, compression algorithms, bandwidth, etc. but I can recall 10 years ago where it wasn't uncommon to see that beautiful 720p or 1080i picture get horribly pixelated during times of a lot of action and/or changing sceen info. One of my favorites was watching an HD concert during a heavy strobe lighting scene or something and watching the picture just fall apart. I recall contrasting that with a well mastered DVD (480p) that while it was limited to a fixed amount of data for the whole movie, was not bandwidth limited like the HD signal coming down the cable pipe. This meant crazy actions scenes would shoot up the bitrate quite high and end up with a much better picture, even if it was lower resolution.


----------



## kubelik (Mar 15, 2016)

yeah, they hype about 4K is ... well, mostly hype. I'm not a saying it doesn't have a place, or that it doesn't have a future. clearly, it does.

but I'll weigh in as a typical consumer (DSLR-toting hobbyist photographer who mostly shoots video for family events/to record the kids growing up) and say that, frankly, I have essentially zero use for 4K in my everyday life. I think the thing that gets lost a lot of times when looking at spec sheets and everybody egging on each others' GAS is how this stuff really gets used.

what do you actually do with your videos? (again, not to you pros out there, to the laypeople that I suspect make up a significant portion of those claiming that Canon is dead/dying due to being behind the curve on 4K) for me, I have family spread out between the US Eastern shore, the US west coast, southeast asia, and China. 1080p stuff I can rapidly dump from a G7x to a cell phone and then upload onto multiple sharing apps, while we're still out on vacation, and not have to bring a laptop or even a tablet. there's rarely opportunities for everyone to get around a 65" 4K TV to view video of the kids ... and even if there were, I really don't think anyone would give a hoot if it was in 4K versus 1080p.

the other thing that people tout 4K over is the whole "have you SEEN a 4K TV and how awesome it looks?" the answer to that is, yes. I cruise my local Best Buy frequently to see goods in person before buying. the real question is, "have you stood at a realistic viewing distance and compared a reasonable-sized 4K TV against a 1080p TV simultaneously?"

because at any sort of reasonable viewing distance (over 8' based on a normal family room layout), on any sort of reasonable sized TV (60" or less) ... there's really not much between the two. contrast ratio, color depth, and motion clarity all matter WAY more than the slight uptick in resolution. 4K TVs look mindblowing from about 2' away like you view them when you're at Best Buy. put it in a realistic living room environment and there's not much to write home about. I recently had friends purchase a gigantic, top of the line, 75" 4K TV, and then come over and ask me how large my 6 year old, 55" 1080p Samsung TV was. having been to their house before, I knew exactly why they were asking. in my family room, the TV is about 9 feet away from the couches, but in their family room, it's easily 14 feet away. I told them they could have saved a lot of money by moving some furniture.

lastly, if I were to shoot 4K video more often ... now I gotta upgrade monitors. which means I need to upgrade my graphics card. which means I need a new power supply. and get more storage (even more if I want to maintain redundancy). not to mention the new TV. it adds up. I'm a gear-head as a much as the next guy, but I have to evaluate the cost of going 4K in terms of opportunity cost. do I get more benefit out of upgrading to 4K-capable or saving up for a 300mm f/2.8L II? do I get more benefit out of upgrading to 4K or being able to afford upgrading from my 5D Mk III to a new Mk IV when it gets released? do I get more benefit out of upgrading to 4K or spending that money on a really nice vacation with lots of great photo and video opportunities?

also, neuro - keep fighting the good fight, man. I'm always amazed at your endless patience playing the whack-a-mole game with folks who are just making up faux numbers and statistics and then drawing fanciful conclusions from them. spread that real knowledge!


----------



## unfocused (Mar 15, 2016)

kubelik said:


> ...I think the thing that gets lost a lot of times when looking at spec sheets and everybody egging on each others' GAS is how this stuff really gets used...



This is a great post.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 15, 2016)

kubelik said:


> the other thing that people tout 4K over is the whole "have you SEEN a 4K TV and how awesome it looks?" the answer to that is, yes. I cruise my local Best Buy frequently to see goods in person before buying. the real question is, "have you stood at a realistic viewing distance and compared a reasonable-sized 4K TV against a 1080p TV simultaneously?"
> 
> because at any sort of reasonable viewing distance (over 8' based on a normal family room layout), on any sort of reasonable sized TV (60" or less) ... there's really not much between the two. contrast ratio, color depth, and motion clarity all matter WAY more than the slight uptick in resolution. 4K TVs look mindblowing from about 2' away like you view them when you're at Best Buy. put it in a realistic living room environment and there's not much to write home about. I recently had friends purchase a gigantic, top of the line, 75" 4K TV, and then come over and ask me how large my 6 year old, 55" 1080p Samsung TV was. having been to their house before, I knew exactly why they were asking. in my family room, the TV is about 9 feet away from the couches, but in their family room, it's easily 14 feet away. I told them they could have saved a lot of money by moving some furniture.



Yep, I agree with this. Not saying it doesn't or won't have it's place at some point, but yes, generally speaking, when looking at typical viewing distances and average eye sight the benefit of the resolution bump will be little to none. Of course, those other things, like color, contrast, etc. are all going to be better with newer and higher end sets so one does get that.

Of course that brings up a whole other point, 4k content. I was out with a sales guy who was kind of bragging about his new 4k TV and how he wanted to be future proof, treat himself to a "good" TV, etc. Of course there is basically zero 4k content available at the moment. So he may have been better off saving a couple grand, picking up a 1080p set for $700 and in a few years and buying the 4k set then (Again for probably $700) when there is a chance of there being more native content to consume.

To each their own but I'd argue too many consumers do get wrapped up with the spec sheet and keeping up with the Joneses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> To each their own but I'd argue too many consumers do get wrapped up with the spec sheet and keeping up with the Joneses.



Not so sure. I think too many _forum dwellers_ get wrapped up with spec sheets. Consumers buy what works, and the Joneses are probably shooting Canon anyway.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 15, 2016)

given the split in market demand ... 
a) people who definitely demand 4k and
b) people who don't care for 4k or video capture at all 
the solution would be so simple:
A) one video-centric body, of course with 4k video
B) one stills-focused body, without 4k or possibly without any video capture

Like Sony does with A7/II series. Only Canon is too stupid to figure this out.


----------



## gargamel (Mar 15, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



This is fair, for the most part. My first post was based on my own conclusions, based on reading print and online articles over the last few years. I do not have access to authoritative sources, other than those that I provided. So I used sources that I considered trustworthy and of which I thought that the authors may have better insight and information than I do. Maybe that's not the case, for some of them. But how would I know, without access to authoritative sources?

I think this forum would be very quiet if it was only about secured facts and evidence. In fact, this thread would not even exist, as it is purely about speculating what the next Canon prosumer camera will be. This thread started with a rumour and speculation.

If you have better information or know that something I said is wrong, share your knowledge, please, like some people here do. It's possible to do it in a polite way, like you demonstrate with your post. That's how a forum discussion works, IMHO. 

My logic and my conclusions are wrong? Fine, explain. You don't have secured facts, either? Fine, too, just say so. We still can discuss opinions and thoughts, if secured facts are not availalbe for both of us. Discussing unsecured information is a waste of time? Well, you are participaing in a forum that has "rumors" in its name....  I think this is what a forum like this is all about: Discussing opinions in an open way, learning what others think, and why you think or don't think the same. As you demonstrate, this can be done in an educated and adult way, even if standpoints differ. What is not going to fly, is personal offenses without presenting arguments, 

gargamel


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Like Sony does with A7/II series. Only Canon is too stupid to figure this out.



Poor Sony – they're so innovative and smart, but so many more people buy cameras from slow, stupid Canon. 

Then again, it takes smart, innovative Sony weeks or months to fix your camera, whereas slow, stupid Canon has figured out how to do that in just a few days. 

At least some of us know stupid when they see it. :


----------



## unfocused (Mar 15, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> given the split in market demand ...
> a) people who definitely demand 4k and
> b) people who don't care for 4k or video capture at all
> the solution would be so simple:
> ...



Seriously? 

When people call Canon (or Nikon or Sony or Apple or Microsoft or any other successful company) "stupid" it only confirms their own ignorance. Do you honestly think these major corporations don't spend millions on market research figuring out what the demand is?

"given the split in market demand ..."

Honestly, what do you know about market demand? How much research have you conducted? How many camera buyers or potential buyers have you surveyed? Are they a randomly selected representative sample of customers?

a) people who definitely demand 4k and
b) people who don't care for 4k or video capture at all 

How many customers fit into these categories and what is their intensity? Are there customers who are mildly interested in 4K but not sufficiently so that it will impact their buying decision when balanced against other features? Are there engineering factors that must be considered? What is the cost-benefit ratio? What is the adoption rate among customers for devices playing 4K? Are customers who produce video for commercial purposes seeking 4K? 

Splitting the customer base into just two general categories is incredibly simplistic.

"the solution would be so simple:"

"Simple" solutions almost never are. Rather it's usually the person claiming the solution is simple that is really the simple-minded one. 

Not having access to the mountains of research that Canon has done on this subject may make it seem simple. But, if you or your team must risk millions of dollars on developing a product that may or may not sell it is never "simple."


----------



## gargamel (Mar 15, 2016)

Woody said:


> The diagrams were used to simply dispel the nonsensical statement you made below; there was no other intention.
> [...]
> 
> You, on the other hand, wanted to use the figures from 2010 and 2014 alone to prove, once again, that Canon's market share is shrinking.
> [...]



It accept that there was actually no intention, but they still gave a somewhat biased impression, and they were not well-suited to support the statement that Canon's market share was stable or growing (EDIT: recently). That's why I posted some other figures.. Obviously, depending on the time frame you look at, Canon's market share went up and downgoing up to above 47%, down to slightly above 43% from there and recovering to slightly above 44% recently. As you provided more complete figures in the meantime, I stand corrected. Thanks again for taking the effort.

My personal guess is, however, that the market share of Canikon may have decreased noticeably in 2015. This is, of course, purely based on personal observations and not backed by official statistics, as I couldn't find any. Some of my friends made the switch to mirrorless (Fuji and Sony) last year, and in the big consumer electronics shops I see what a hard time the sales staff has had in selling midrange DSLRs like the 700D, recently. Only the cheap entry-level kits are selling themselves, still, it seems. As I said, it's my personal guess. But still, I can see that the market has started to change. And it's not only the disappearing point-and-shoot segment that is affected.

gargamel


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 15, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Do you honestly think these major corporations don't spend millions on market research figuring out what the demand is?



Yes, I do. Seriously. 
In Canon's case miore so than for most other corporations. I don't doubt Canon spends a whole shitload of money on market research. But they are obviously unable to draw the right conclusions from it and/or unable to build it. As evidenced in their (camera) product strategy and portfolio. 

No rocket science or advanced marketing classes neded to come up with three variations of a camera body that share 99% of parts ... 
A a general use camera - A7/II
B) a video-centric camera for all the "gimme 4k yellers" - A7S/II
C) a stills-focused hi-rez body A7R/II

Canon tried to mimick it with 5D / S / R ... but they did not introduce a 5D-C akin to the 1DC, with 4k, to get those 4k-wishers to buy it.


----------



## Luds34 (Mar 15, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > To each their own but I'd argue too many consumers do get wrapped up with the spec sheet and keeping up with the Joneses.
> ...



Quite right, "spec sheet" was the wrong word/term, that is reserved for us "forum dwellers". 

Thinking outloud here... how about "marketing highlights"? Like the words on the front of the box, "50x zoom!" or "600 hz Refresh!"


----------



## Refurb7 (Mar 15, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Do you honestly think these major corporations don't spend millions on market research figuring out what the demand is?
> ...



Thankfully Canon did not mimic Sony and turn the 5D series into EVF-mirrorless cameras. I would be shooting Nikon or Pentax if they did. I'm also thankful that Canon didn't mimic this amazing no-rocket-science Three Camera Strategy. Thankfully they make about a dozen DSLRs, so we have choices in a broad price range. I'm also thankful that Canon didn't mimic the sucky-slow startup time of the A7II general use camera, or the sucky-short battery life of the same. And I'm more than thankful that Canon didn't mimic the molasses-slow 3rd party service times on those high-res bodies. Canon's obvious failure to draw the "right" conclusions is making me very thankful today. Thank goodness for failed market research.


----------



## fugu82 (Mar 15, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Like Sony does with A7/II series. Only Canon is too stupid to figure this out.
> ...




Yeah, just talked myself out of a a7r II after reading about all the repair nightmares. Doesn't matter how innovative a camera is if it's piled up on a lab bench for a month waiting on a sensor clean....


----------



## unfocused (Mar 15, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Do you honestly think these major corporations don't spend millions on market research figuring out what the demand is?
> ...



Yikes! Just Yikes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 15, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Do you honestly think these major corporations don't spend millions on market research figuring out what the demand is?
> ...



What you mean is, Canon looked at actual data and derived conclusions that differ from your uninformed opinion. But you think you're right and they're wrong. Yes, we know it when we see it. 



AvTvM said:


> No rocket science or advanced marketing classes neded to come up with three variations of a camera body that share 99% of parts ...
> 
> Canon tried to mimick it with 5D / S / R ... but they did not introduce a 5D-C akin to the 1DC, with 4k, to get those 4k-wishers to buy it.



Because...what? There are tens of thousands of people for whom 4K is a critical buy/don't buy feature? Canon likely asked thousands of people (or tens of thousands)...how many thousands of people did you ask? 

Even though you've obviously never taken advanced marketing classes and I sure as hell wouldn't trust you to build even a Lego rocket, but you're right that it would certainly be possible for Canon to come up with three body variations – the question is, would it be *profitable*. You've seen Canon's answer based on their releases...but of course, you still know better. :


----------



## gargamel (Mar 15, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Same pattern, again, and no arguments, no evidence, no substance, as usual.
Instead of responding to my last post, you repeat your opinion (and that's all it is, as you provide no facts whatsoever) about my first one, completely ignoring the progress of the discussion. 

Reading is obviously something you are struggling with. For instance, you ignore that I already accepted that my conclusion regarding Canon's market share is not backed by the most recent figures, but were based on somewhat outdated (not wrong, not speculative) figures. But again, it was somebody else, not you, to take the effort.

My conclusions are wrong? Maybe. But who are you to know? Again: If you have better information, share it. If all you want to say is that I am wrong "IN YOUR OPINION", please have the decency to explain why you think so. And BTW: Which of the information I was referring to is totally wrong? You continue to make claims, but don't support them with anything. So it's poorly backed information (me) vs. un-backed claims (you).

You may continue posting replies to my first post in this discussion, it's up to you. Every dog has its favourite bone. However, the rest of us will carry on and discuss other, more interesting aspects of the actual topic of this thread. This whole debate regarding market shares down to the second digit is pointless and off-topic, anyway.

gargamel


----------



## gargamel (Mar 15, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...


[/quote]

Do you think that Nokia didn't do any market research? And do you think, those who warned them that the iPhone could be a real thread for them, were wrong, in the end? So Canon knows it all, no criticism allowed from a customer perspective? Or should I say: You know better, and the rest us doesn't have a point?



neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > No rocket science or advanced marketing classes neded to come up with three variations of a camera body that share 99% of parts ...
> ...



Based on what reliable source do you make that claim? Or is it based just on what you BELIEVE to know? Fact? References? Or are just stating what you *think* big companies *should* do, if they were owned by you?



neuroanatomist said:


> Even though you've obviously never taken advanced marketing classes and I sure as hell wouldn't trust you to build even a Lego rocket, but you're right that it would certainly be possible for Canon to come up with three body variations – the question is, would it be *profitable*. You've seen Canon's answer based on their releases...but of course, you still know better. :



Again, personal offenses instead of arguments. And BTW, marketing is something totally different from product strategy, and market research is some discipline on its own. But I guess, my lifetime is too short to find a way to explain the difference to someone who has obviously had a hard childhood.

The only evidence you provide is the evidence that you have no clue of how large corporations work.

gargamel


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 15, 2016)

I think you are grossly missing the point.

Canon's business decisions are well-founded. Their decisions now and in the past have historically yielded market domination. They put a ton of research, more than you can imagine, into marketing and strategy. And as a result, they have always been the market leader and obviously have a proven track record. Therefore, if they ignore certain things YOU want, nobody cares. 

That's really all you need to know. Nokia is a very, very poor example to use because they did not have the proven track record Canon does, over many many years (and many more to come). Any decision Canon makes you can bet your a$$ is a very, very good business one.

Anything else?


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 16, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> I think you are grossly missing the point.
> 
> Canon's business decisions are well-founded. Their decisions now and in the past have historically yielded market domination. They put a ton of research, more than you can imagine, into marketing and strategy. And as a result, they have always been the market leader and obviously have a proven track record. Therefore, if they ignore certain things YOU want, nobody cares.
> 
> ...


I agree!

BTW..... "Anything else?"

Yes!

In order to build and market cameras, you also have to deal with long development times. Before a camera is released, they are already working on it's successor. Some things, like a "pro quality" mirrorless camera are undoubtedly the result of many projects to deal with the requirements of such a camera.... things like DPAF, A/D on the sensor, parallel processing to reduce lag times, optical displays, touch screen interfaces, etc, etc, etc.... In other words, you need to know the labs to make the plans....

In order to plan, you need to know what is happening in the market for trends, but you also need internal sales numbers (not available to us), what is being worked on in the labs (not available to us), what the competition is working on (not available to us), and the state of both manufacturing capacity and available resources, both financial and manpower..... and once again, it is not available to us. And then you have to know this for your competition!

In fact, we forum readers have so little of the necessary decision making information available to us that all we can do is make noise and taunt each other.... neither is productive or mature..... let's take a deep breath and step back from the keyboard.... go outside and take a few pictures.....


----------



## gargamel (Mar 16, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> I think you are grossly missing the point.
> 
> Canon's business decisions are well-founded. Their decisions now and in the past have historically yielded market domination. They put a ton of research, more than you can imagine, into marketing and strategy. And as a result, they have always been the market leader and obviously have a proven track record. Therefore, if they ignore certain things YOU want, nobody cares.
> 
> ...



Nokia had no proven track record? I heartily disagree with you. They had. Apple did not, and still blew them out of the water. But wait: Was it Apple or was it their own ignorance?

Nokia transformed itself several times, including changes of business models and industries. And they excelled. But at one point in time they started to think like Neuroanatomists. They used sales figures, asked people they knew, and thought they just would need to continue what was so successful over many years. Their market share reached over 70%, and they sold more phones than Intel sold CPUs. Talking to some business man from the IT industry at that time, they were not even aware that the ARM platform was already much more popular than Wintel, at least in the count of devices shipped.

They did research the market and found that phones should be fancier and more appealing. So they launched Vertu, and added some bling to some of their phones. They did not get the clue what the feedback they received actually would mean. Regarding the iPhone their response was arrogant: They just ignored it, and the "smartphones" they came up with were not competitive.

All big companies with a long track record of success are in jeopardy of becoming arrogant and ignorant. However, I agree with you that Canon is in a better position, now, than Nokia. While their first "M" products were as half-assed and uninspired like Nokia's smartphones in the end, the Canon management seems to have gotten the message, that they must invest in MILC products and sensors. Let's see what they come with.

gargamel


----------



## gargamel (Mar 16, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> [...]
> 
> BTW..... "Anything else?"
> 
> ...



Let me add one very specifi detail for Canon, which is the high flexibility in their industrialiation and go-to-market processes.
I was told by one software vendor (sorry, I cannot disclose the name) whose products are used by virtually all camera manufacturers, that Canon is different from the others as they have the capability to change a product design even very late in the process, and they did that in the past. Canon sometimes waits for Nikon's announcements, and then is capable of adapting the design of their own product, including adding or removing features, and then make their own announcement only a few days after Nikon. They do this by developing several designs in parallel, and decide later which one will be implemented. They even can combine features of the different designs unitl a very late stage in the process.

According to the sales rep of the above mentioned software company, Canon is pretty unique in this, which puts a heavy challenge on him and his company, as Canon expects them to support thsi flexibiltiy in the software.

In the light of the long development cycles including planning that you described correctly, Canon's approach is admirable, I think. It also raises a question, however: Why aren't they confident enough to announce and launch their products first? Why do they wait for Nikon to announce the D610, before they announce the 6D? (I have no clue, if they changed anything in the 6D announcement, or not)

gargamel


----------



## Woody (Mar 16, 2016)

Perhaps it's worth looking at the history of smartphones?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 16, 2016)

gargamel said:


> The only evidence you provide is the evidence that you have no clue of how large corporations work.



Thanks, but I have ample experience with the inner workings of large corporations, in particular research-based organizations. Do you?

As for the rest, I do owe an apology. You're rather a noob here, I've given plenty of fact- and data-based arguments – probably hundreds of such posts. With a certain subset of people here – particularly those who don't read or understand the data (and especially those who seem to have trouble understanding the data they, themselves, cite) – those posts go right over their head. Perhaps I should have given the benefit of the doubt. 

OTOH, I notice you ignored the refutation of your previous statement about the growth of the mirrorless market. Did the graph confuse you? I know, you'll just claim that you meant _relative_ or _fractional _ growth within the ILC market as a whole, even though you didn't bother to state that previously. That's ok, you go on about your life firmly believing in your correctness, even when you're wrong. Don't give a thought to metacognition deficits, you seem quite happy – ignorance is bliss, after all.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 16, 2016)

One thing is for sure. If Canon releases a new FF mirrorless this year it will pass the sales of past year FF mirrorless Canon bodies by a huge margin. Canon's market share of the FF mirrorless market will increase dramatically.


----------



## steyr (Mar 16, 2016)

I have a 4K camera and the video quality is amazing. But actually, I don't need 4K and would be totally happy with 1080p IF someone can give me CLEAN 1080p. The problem with Canon's full HD on DSLRs is they often look smudged due to pixel binning.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 16, 2016)

gargamel said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I think you are grossly missing the point.
> ...



Let's try again. Compared to Canon, no they did not. And as for market research, well guess not good enough, because they were wrong.

To insinuate that out of all of these years, out of all of these consecutive years of market leading, that Canon will suddenly and abruptly make a bad business decision that takes them under, let alone to the level of Nokia, is indicative of way too many mirror slaps to the back of the head. It's nothing short of pure ignorance to the way the world works and is asinine at best.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 16, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> One thing is for sure. If Canon releases a new FF mirrorless this year it will pass the sales of past year FF mirrorless Canon bodies by a huge margin. Canon's market share of the FF mirrorless market will increase dramatically.



+1 .. hehe!  ;D


----------



## gargamel (Mar 17, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



First of all, I hope for Canon that you and Neuranatomist are not working for them. Otherwise they Canon will be a company of the past in a few years. Luckily they make better decisions than both of you would, up to now.

You may want to read my post again, but I guess you are one of the guys here, who like to produce themselves. My point was: Noone can save a company, whatever the size is or "proven track record of solid business decisios" may be, if the mangement just continues with what was successful in the past. Doing the same thing will yield the same results. And it happens quite often that the management of a company thinks that there is too much risk involved with a radical change (of business model, organizational setup, M&A, new technology). If that happens the fast has the big for lunch.

The danger for Canon lied in being too conservative and ignoring the appeal of MILC. But as I mentioned in a previous point: I guess they got the message. Otherwise, why would they invest in MILC, if the DSLR market was growing so well? It obviously isn't, at least noone really expects it to be in the long term. It's good for Canon that they obviously acknowledged this.

gargamel


----------



## scyrene (Mar 17, 2016)

gargamel said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > gargamel said:
> ...



You guys all seem to be talking at cross purposes.

Both "this company is big and has been successful in the past, so it will continue to be in the future" and "this other big company failed, so Canon will too" are logically flawed.

On the one hand, all we have to go on in predicting the future of these things is past performance, but the old investing mantra "past performance does not guarantee future results" applies too. However, *if* people continue to buy and use cameras - and in some form or other they certainly will - *then* some company will be making them. At present, there's no sign of a new startup coming along and gobbling up market share, so it's a matter of deciding between the few big names, Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. Since they are all big companies, the same risks apply to all - either too little or too much innovation (and it IS possible to innovate too much to make a decent profit or gain market share). Singling out Canon as the Nokia (or Kodak) of our times is selective, and I can't see any reason to do it except subjective preference (especially given no evidence that their position as market leader is changing).

On the subject of mirrorless, I think this is where you're a bit mistaken, Gargamel. If I may, you've offered no evidence as to why it is the disruptive technology that will shake photography up in the near future. Your statement "[t]he danger for Canon lied (sic) in being too conservative and ignoring the appeal of MILC" implies that MILC is the growth area, but those figures that have been bandied about don't bear that out - MILC is not growing to any significant degree. Most people round here seem to agree that mirrorless is the future, but nobody has successfully predicted *when* it will oust DSLRs as the main type of camera (excluding smartphones, which are irrelevant in this discussion). And given Canon and Nikon have been cautious about the sector, it might be fair to say it won't dominate *until* the two biggest players commit fully. In that case, there's nothing to worry about. Canon will bring out more mirrorless bodies, and that's when people will switch in larger numbers. And then it's not a matter of losing customers to other brands.

Too many people here claim to worry that Canon will fail, but what they really mean is they're impatient for a given product to be released, and feel they have to justify it with specious business reasoning.


----------



## gargamel (Mar 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > The only evidence you provide is the evidence that you have no clue of how large corporations work.
> ...



Ample experience, but learned in the sense of really understood... ?



neuroanatomist said:


> As for the rest, I do owe an apology. You're rather a noob here, I've given plenty of fact- and data-based arguments – probably hundreds of such posts. With a certain subset of people here – particularly those who don't read or understand the data (and especially those who seem to have trouble understanding the data they, themselves, cite) – those posts go right over their head. Perhaps I should have given the benefit of the doubt.



Really, do expect anyone do read all your posts in all threads of this forum? If it is too much effort for you to even provide a link to the right answers, than why are answering, at all? Reading your posts is a waste of time for, so far. There's NOTHING in them that really contributes to this disccussion. So your posts are a waste of time for everyong here, including you. But I guess you are writing them out of pure tedium, because otherwise you would be alone with yourself.



neuroanatomist said:


> OTOH, I notice you ignored the refutation of your previous statement about the growth of the mirrorless market. Did the graph confuse you? I know, you'll just claim that you meant _relative_ or _fractional _ growth within the ILC market as a whole, even though you didn't bother to state that previously. That's ok, you go on about your life firmly believing in your correctness, even when you're wrong. Don't give a thought to metacognition deficits, you seem quite happy – ignorance is bliss, after all.



I just saw that graph, as I am not waiting in front of my screen for a post from you. As you don't provide a link to the original source, I have no real reason to trust the graph, but even if this is not the case, the MILC market has grown, it seems, if only for a small margin. Would you now, have the decency, to add a reference (link or someting) so that we all can verify the authenticity of the data?
_[EDIT] Removed paragraph requesting new figures for DSLR market, as they are available now from CIPA._
Canon's market share could have grown in 2015, although personally I personally would not expect it, and at the same time the number of cameras shipped by them could still have decreased. IMHO, it is much more likely that they feel the pressure of customers whose gear is due to replacement, but want something lighter to carry around, and now find that Canon's lineup doesn't include an appealing option for them, yet. If all was good for Canon and the DSLR market, why would they invest in MILC products, at all? Would this be a smart business decision, then? Which, according to you, they never fail to make.
You feel overcharged, now?

Regarding the last paragraph in your post: You close your post with another soliloquy staring at your mirror image, again. Obviously One You Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

gargamel


----------



## gargamel (Mar 17, 2016)

scyrene said:


> [...]
> 
> You guys all seem to be talking at cross purposes.
> 
> Both "this company is big and has been successful in the past, so it will continue to be in the future" and "this other big company failed, so Canon will too" are logically flawed.



I agree, but want to make clear that I haven't said or meant the second.



scyrene said:


> On the one hand, all we have to go on in predicting the future of these things is past performance, but the old investing mantra "past performance does not guarantee future results" applies too.



This is all I was going to say, actually. I used Nokia as an arbitrary example for that, in order to demonstrate that the biggest threat is always arrogance and ignorance, even it is based on continued success in the past.



scyrene said:


> However, *if* people continue to buy and use cameras - and in some form or other they certainly will - *then* some company will be making them. At present, there's no sign of a new startup coming along and gobbling up market share, so it's a matter of deciding between the few big names, Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. Since they are all big companies, the same risks apply to all - either too little or too much innovation (and it IS possible to innovate too much to make a decent profit or gain market share).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is what it probably comes down to, at least for me.  I am eagerly awaiting announcements for the new MILC models as well as for the 6D II, because I guess my next camera will be one of them. However, I am always looking into the Fujifilm lineup, especially the X-T1 and the X-Pro2. And I know for sure that I am not the only one.

If many people want mirrorless now, and Canon doesn't respond with appealing products these customers will look elsewhere. The number of such people may not be critical, at the moment, but my impression is that the crowd is growing, and it wouldn't be a smart move for Canon (and Nikon and...) to ignore that (if it is true, but I, like most of us, don't have official, up-to-date numbers backing it). But you said essentially the same, too, above.


gargamel


EDIT: Added a missing quotation clause.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 17, 2016)

gargamel said:


> First of all, I hope for Canon that you and Neuranatomist are not working for them. Otherwise they Canon will be a company of the past in a few years. Luckily they make better decisions than both of you would, up to now.



Seriously? The point is that we are stating Canon is the best at making the decisions for themselves, and you are the one arguing that they are making poor/risky decisions. Still no improvement in metacognition. Get a grip on reality, please. 




gargamel said:


> You may want to read my post again, but I guess you are one of the guys here, who like to produce themselves. My point was: Noone can save a company, whatever the size is or "proven track record of solid business decisios" may be, if the mangement just continues with what was successful in the past. Doing the same thing will yield the same results. And it happens quite often that the management of a company thinks that there is too much risk involved with a radical change (of business model, organizational setup, M&A, new technology). If that happens the fast has the big for lunch.



Who is suggesting they are standing still and 'just continuing with what was successful in the past'? This is a company that is research driven, constnatly developing and investing in new technologies. You may want to try and comprehend reality before you write more posts.




gargamel said:


> The danger for Canon lied in being too conservative and ignoring the appeal of MILC. But as I mentioned in a previous point: I guess they got the message. Otherwise, why would they invest in MILC, if the DSLR market was growing so well? It obviously isn't, at least noone really expects it to be in the long term. It's good for Canon that they obviously acknowledged this.



Oh, as _you_ mentioned in a previous post. Ok, then. That makes it real, now that you have become aware of what others have stated all along.




gargamel said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > gargamel said:
> ...



Yes, and clearly demonstrated such understanding, which sadly appears to be beyond your comprehension. 




gargamel said:


> Really, do expect anyone do read all your posts in all threads of this forum?



Of course not, thus my apology.




gargamel said:


> I just saw that graph, as I am not waiting in front of my screen for a post from you. As you don't provide a link to the original source, I have no real reason to trust the graph, but even if this is not the case, the MILC market has grown, it seems, if only for a small margin. Would you now, have the decency, to add a reference (link or someting) so that we all can verify the authenticity of the data?





neuroanatomist said:


> By the way, here's a quick plot of the *CIPA data* on mirrorless units shipped since they started tracking subsegments of the ILC market in 2012.



Perhaps you should read more carefully, then. I'm truly sorry you are so mentally challenged that you cannot find the data yourself. This may help: http://bfy.tw/3uIk. If not, feel free to ask again, perhaps someone with a higher tolerance for fools and idiots will help you out. 




gargamel said:


> As you try to deride the insignificant growth of the MILC market and their fall from 2012 through 2014, would also present the corresponding figures for DSLRs? I haven't seen any for 2015, so far, so I have no comparison.



Please feel free to use the above-referenced data source to plot the data yourself, if those data interest you.




gargamel said:


> If all was good for Canon and the DSLR market, why would they invest in MILC products, at all? Would this be a smart business decision, then? Which, according to you, they never fail to make.



Of course it is a good business decision. Must we remind you, again, that you are the one questioning their business decisions and suggesting they are making poor ones?




gargamel said:


> Regarding the last paragraph in your post: You close your post with another soliloquy staring at your mirror image, again. Obviously One You Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.



The only mistake I've made so far is continuing this discussion. It's a mistake I will not repeat. Good luck in life, if your posting history here is any indication, you certainly need it.


----------



## LoneRider (Mar 17, 2016)

Interesting discussion, for the most part. Some S/N issues here and there though 

Very good points made about disruptive technologies, MILC is a disruptive technology, but hardly a black swan event. As much as Canon might want to be able to just drop out a flurry of products, marketing and other considerations must be made. As well, they only have a limited amount of resources, and likely want to control their product development budget.

From having worked in a smaller product development team, and currently now a semiconductor manufacture, there are a lot of steps. Mechanical tooling alone for a camera likely costs many $100,000's, possibly more. You have design spins on PCB, testing, and so on. Then add in the design spins on the sensor alone. And in many areas you may only have a single team, so you have through put issues.

Looking at the progression of the sensors from the 70D, 7D-ii, 80D, 1DX-ii, the 5D-iv would be the next sensor in line.

Also, for tracking, I am sure they would want some sort of IR in the FF M camera with DPAF. The IR is of course great aid for tracking people. So that becomes another interesting bit of technology we have not seen on there sensors (to my knowledge)

So, a "M5" maybe in the works, but certainly is has less priority than the bread and butter 1D and 5D models.

For that matter, does a M5 take precedence over the 7D-iii??? Add in the possible tooling for new lens mount and at least a couple kit options.

Now I will admit, I do find it interesting that a 70D/80D sensor has not found its way into a M camera?? It could just be, the delta in sales does not justify taking resources away from other projects to implement the DPAF into the M line product.


----------



## mkabi (Mar 17, 2016)

LoneRider said:


> So, a "M5" maybe in the works, but certainly is has less priority than the bread and butter 1D and 5D models.



I want to ask what happened to the M4, but an "M5" could actually be something.... interesting????

Here is some speculation, well... may be I'm just creating a rumor out of a bunch of other rumors (from this site, and others including canonwatch.com). So take it as CR0.

1) So from another site, can't remember which one, but they said something along the lines of Canon discontinuing the 5D line... I know... I know... ridiculous... but wait for it.

2) Canonwatch said that the 5D3 will be replaced with a 6DII, they didn't put that much credit in it.

3) Canonrumors said that Canon is preparing to upscale or upmarket the 6DII, which coincides with number 2.

4) From mirrorlessrumors, someone (they believe it was Nikon) bought out Samsung's NX line, hence Samsung closing down its camera operations. And, they are still standing behind their claim, not backing down one bit, even after both companies denying it.

So, I think that if there is a FF mirrorless, it may well be called M5, replacing the 5D and modeling NX1 with FF sensor, better AF and EF mount???


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 17, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told that “at least one of the three mirrorless cameras coming in 2016 will feature 4K video recording”, though the size of the image sensor was unknown.</p>
> <p>We’ve heard from a few places that we’ll see a fixed lens mirroress camera along the lines of the Leica Q and Sony RX1 R, but we don’t know what the sensor size would be, one would hope it would be full frame. The other two mirrorless cameras would be a new APS-C model, as well as the introduction of a full frame model, which we assume would be the camera most likely to shoot 4K.</p>
> <p>The current estimate on when such products would be announced is the end of August, in time for Photokina 2016 in Cologne, Germany.</p>
> <span id="pty_trigger"></span>



back to this rumor.

part of me doesn't think this passes the idiot check.

for starters, canon had a terrible time getting 4K into the 1DX Mark II - it has huge heat sink and heat pipes to carry away the heat.

the XC10 uses fans.

so how canon at their current technology going to get 4K in an even smaller camera?


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 17, 2016)

LoneRider said:


> Now I will admit, I do find it interesting that a 70D/80D sensor has not found its way into a M camera?? It could just be, the delta in sales does not justify taking resources away from other projects to implement the DPAF into the M line product.



70D was a 1200 MSRP camera, same with the 80D. the rebels never had DPAF sensors, neither did the M's - I suspect it's from a pure economics point of view.

hopefully with the new sensor tech, they are able to increase the yields, and lower the cost so that we see this in an M or a mirrorless soon.

it could also be compute power.

I recall with the M, not sure about the m3 - but the DiGiC's weren't clocked as fast, simply because of battery / heat performance.

you'd have to think that calculating the distance from 20+ million AF points would be computationally heavy.


----------



## gargamel (Mar 17, 2016)

LoneRider said:


> Interesting discussion, for the most part. Some S/N issues here and there though
> 
> Very good points made about disruptive technologies, MILC is a disruptive technology, but hardly a black swan event. As much as Canon might want to be able to just drop out a flurry of products, marketing and other considerations must be made. As well, they only have a limited amount of resources, and likely want to control their product development budget.
> 
> From having worked in a smaller product development team, and currently now a semiconductor manufacture, there are a lot of steps. Mechanical tooling alone for a camera likely costs many $100,000's, possibly more. You have design spins on PCB, testing, and so on. Then add in the design spins on the sensor alone. And in many areas you may only have a single team, so you have through put issues.



Right. And let's not forget: While software (more accurately: firmware) is and was important for DSLRs, it's probably the key to success for mirrorless. Canon did the best job in industry regarding end-user interfaces. The menu structures of Canon cameras are just well thoughtout. The rather omit a bonus feature than to add it and spoil usability.
But there are certainly additional, new requirements for MILC cameras, where pretty much everything is electronics controlled by software. The EVF, the processing, the shutter, etc. Plus, the software aspect imposes changes on the customer service. One reason, why Fujifilm is profitable with mirrorless cameras is, because they have justified the trust of their original customers by maintaining their initial products for a long time. They are still updating the firmware of some rather old models, continually. This made the customers stick with the brand, and mouth to mouth propaganda did the rest.

Well, you can also assume that they need to update their firmware, because it is flawed, and from a usability standpoint it definitely is.... 

But you are right: A whole ecosystem needs to be built, before Canon can support mirrorless at the same level as DSLRs. Let's be patient...



LoneRider said:


> Looking at the progression of the sensors from the 70D, 7D-ii, 80D, 1DX-ii, the 5D-iv would be the next sensor in line.
> 
> Also, for tracking, I am sure they would want some sort of IR in the FF M camera with DPAF. The IR is of course great aid for tracking people. So that becomes another interesting bit of technology we have not seen on there sensors (to my knowledge)
> 
> ...



Time will tell, and I guess the decision will be made by Canon only shortly before go-to-market.



LoneRider said:


> Now I will admit, I do find it interesting that a 70D/80D sensor has not found its way into a M camera?? It could just be, the delta in sales does not justify taking resources away from other projects to implement the DPAF into the M line product.



Good question, I was asking that myself. Mirrorless cameras just cry for something like DPAF, IMHO. But I'd not be surprised if Canon would come up with a totally new approach to contrast AF, just because they can, and just because they refuse to pay for licensing technology from others. On the other hand: They use Sony sensors in some of their products...

gargamel


----------



## msm (Mar 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > If all was good for Canon and the DSLR market, why would they invest in MILC products, at all? Would this be a smart business decision, then? Which, according to you, they never fail to make.
> ...



And on what basis can you claim that Canon's decisions are the right ones? On unit sales? Do you really think that is the metric on which these companies ultimately measure their success? The fact that Sony don't even pursue it should give you a hint on how high priority that is. It is mostly a fact used by marketing, 1 billion flies can't be wrong....

Unit sales are dominated by the low end. All they mean is that Canon sells alot of low end rebels and eos m which is what? A rebel without a viewfinder? Arguably crappiest mirrorless on the market.

You got one thing right though. The customers which dominate the unit sales does not rely on DR or 4k video. Most rebel buyers probably don't even know what that is and neither is the competition hard in that segment when it comes to 4k.

Could Canon have been more proactive and used their technology taken the market segment Sony was allowed to take in mirrorless? What would it cost them and what could they have earned and how much could they earn in the future if they had done it? How can you know that they did the right thing or not? None of us can know. It is just baseless and worthless speculation on your part as usual.


----------



## gargamel (Mar 17, 2016)

mkabi said:


> [...]
> 
> So, I think that if there is a FF mirrorless, it may well be called M5, replacing the 5D and modeling NX1 with FF sensor, better AF and EF mount???



Probably not. At least, if they stick to their current naming scheme, with lower numbers at the top and bigger number lower end models. If there will be an M5, it's going to be positioned below the M3, but above the M10, meaning that it won't be FF. It may turn out that the original M had no number, at all, on it, in order to leave the top spot open for an M1.... 

gargamel


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 17, 2016)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > gargamel said:
> ...



The whole point of a business is to what? Make money. Right? 

What is Canon doing? Making more money than Nikon or Sony. I'd say that's doing the right thing, don't you?


----------



## mkabi (Mar 17, 2016)

gargamel said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



Ok then 5M or M5X...


----------



## gargamel (Mar 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, I hope for Canon that you and Neuranatomist are not working for them. Otherwise they Canon will be a company of the past in a few years. Luckily they make better decisions than both of you would, up to now.
> ...



Yes, Canon is a research driven company. Their track record of patents In the U.S.A. and elsewhere clearly shows this. But again, you refuse to read, as what I said won't fit into your image of the world. If you would read more carefully, you would have acknowledged that I mentioned DPAF as a great innovation from Canon. Still, looking at it from the outside, their focus appears ot be on old product architectures. Up to now it's only a rumour that Canon ist about to get serious about mirrorless technology. And yes, I think, it would be a good business decision for them, and appreciated by quite a few of their customers if they would change that and finally come up with some appealing MILC products.



neuroanatomist said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > The danger for Canon lied in being too conservative and ignoring the appeal of MILC. But as I mentioned in a previous point: I guess they got the message. Otherwise, why would they invest in MILC, if the DSLR market was growing so well? It obviously isn't, at least noone really expects it to be in the long term. It's good for Canon that they obviously acknowledged this.
> ...



Now you sound completely disoriented. Of course, I was aware of this before I joined this discussion. In fact, it was part of my motivation to join it that I was aware of that. Because, look: This thread is about this very topic, and I am here as I enjoy discussing it and speculating about future Canon products and markets just for the fun of it. That's why I am here. Why are you? Did you lose your way?



neuroanatomist said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You certainly demonstrated a lot of things with your posts in this thread, but knowledge and understanding of anything were not among them, for sure.



neuroanatomist said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > Really, do expect anyone do read all your posts in all threads of this forum?
> ...



Which I had been open to accept, as I am a tolerant, patient sheep at times, until I read the closing of your post.



neuroanatomist said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > I just saw that graph, as I am not waiting in front of my screen for a post from you. As you don't provide a link to the original source, I have no real reason to trust the graph, but even if this is not the case, the MILC market has grown, it seems, if only for a small margin. Would you now, have the decency, to add a reference (link or someting) so that we all can verify the authenticity of the data?
> ...



Perhaps you should do your homework. MILC sales increased by 1.7% in 2015, whereas Canon's total camera sales went down byby much more than that. Read *Canon bleeding market share?*http://www.photocounter.com.au/2015/canon-bleeding-market-share/. In October, 2015, Canon predicted their sales of interchangeable lens cameras to be 14% less for 2015 on y/y basis. Mirror slap in your face? Don't stand so close in front of it.... Non-authoritative source? Provide a better reference!

BTW, somewhere else I read that sales recovered a bit, as the last quarter of 2015 was overall stronger than expected. Still, they would have had been happy, if they only had seen a growth of 1.7% in sales., I guess.

Was it on purpose or did you just feel overcharged by the task to present comparable figures to support your claim that Canon is always making the right steps? Reality is, what I said in my first post: Canon's sales, and therefore their market share is shrinking, more so than I would have thought, and the MILC market is growing, although less so than I would have thought. Now, I hope you don't kill yourself....



neuroanatomist said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > As you try to deride the insignificant growth of the MILC market and their fall from 2012 through 2014, would also present the corresponding figures for DSLRs? I haven't seen any for 2015, so far, so I have no comparison.
> ...



No, thanks. For the points I made only the most recent past is relevant, I don't care about figures of 2014 and before. Because only in 2015 competitive mirrorless products appeared on the market. E.g., EVFs are now much better and a valid alternative to OVFs, which was not the case in 2014 and before. And the figures above support my point. Even more so, when compared to the ones about the MILC market you provided in order to deride statements that it would be good for Canon to invest in MILC technology. Do you still look for something to deride? See above.



neuroanatomist said:


> gargamel said:
> 
> 
> > If all was good for Canon and the DSLR market, why would they invest in MILC products, at all? Would this be a smart business decision, then? Which, according to you, they never fail to make.
> ...



What??? What was it you responded when I suggested that investing in MILC products would be a good business decision for Canon? Wasn't it you who used words like "delusioned" and "dope"?
Again: I don't think Canon made a lot of bad business decisions. I just think they took a bit longer than necessary to acknowledge that they need to invest in MILC technology. And as it is still a rumour that they do so: If they don't that *will* prove to be bad decision. But noone knows, and maybe their considerations and developments have made much more progress than we all know. For my own part, I certainly hope so, but I have to say that as long as no competitive MILC products materialize, I consider Canon a company under pressure, and the figures above are backing this clearly, if they are authentic. At least its imaging division.



neuroanatomist said:


> [...]
> 
> The only mistake I've made so far is continuing this discussion. It's a mistake I will not repeat. Good luck in life, if your posting history here is any indication, you certainly need it.



In the end a mimosa? Adolescence! But don't worry. Once you grow up and overcome adolescence, you'll be much more stable, emotionally, and chances are that by then you will have learned, how to behave as a social being. Unfortunately this will require you to stop looking at the world through a (DSLR?) mirror and mumbling to it....

gargamel


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 17, 2016)

Sometimes these threads turn in to a Seinfeld show.

"Much ado about nothing"


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 17, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> Sometimes these threads turn in to a Seinfeld show.
> 
> "Much ado about nothing"


definitely time for the squirrels!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 17, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> back to this rumor.
> part of me doesn't think this passes the idiot check.



Well, it's certain that some of the posts in this thread about this rumor don't pass the idiot check. 

But that's par for the course around here. :

Here's another one for the nuts...


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 17, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes these threads turn in to a Seinfeld show.
> ...



Nice two way bokeh (did I just coin a word). Or is there a term for this when you have bokeh in front and in back of the subject.

Maybe we can learn something about photography from this thread rather than reading boring post with camera sales figures and marketing graphs.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 17, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > back to this rumor.
> ...



Your bokeh is one sided. Maybe Don can give us a lesson.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 18, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> The whole point of a business is to what? Make money. Right?
> What is Canon doing? Making more money than Nikon or Sony. I'd say that's doing the right thing, don't you?



The while point of a business is to correctly recognize market demand, to keep its existing customer base happy and to win as many new customers as possible. The bettera business does that, the highher its financial success and long-term viability. 

Canon has done many things right in the past. Over the last 5+ years, they were not cutting edge any more in many areas. Less happy customers, more people buying from other companies. Not offering compelling APS-C and FF mirrorless systems is costing Canon a lot of customers and a lot of business. Canon's (and Nikon's) attempts to delay the demise of mirrorslappers does work, but only to some extent and at significant cost to them. 
Oberall it does have a negative impact on their imaging business, even when they are still profitable today. 

No amount of "canon Defense League fanboy denial" which is so prevalent and obvious on our forum here changes that. The future of photography and imaging does not include slapping mirrors. canon better go with it really quick now, otherwise ... Exactly: doom, Nokia, Kodak.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Canon has done many things right in the past. Over the last 5+ years, they were not cutting edge any more in many areas. Less happy customers, *more people buying from other companies*.
> 
> No amount of "canon Defense League fanboy denial" which is so prevalent and obvious on our forum here changes that.



Guess what? If Canon doesn't make the camera _you personally_ think they should, that doesn't they're *******, in fact it doesn't mean a damn thing except to you. 

If the above-highlighted statement were actually true, we would see actual evidence of it, i.e. a significant drop in Canon's market share. We haven't, therefore the objective data demonstrate that your statement is wrong. 

No amount of posting by mirrorslap-addled whiners who are not at all prevalent on our forum changes that.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 18, 2016)

As is evident from the above posts, some of the CR community keep insisting that their complains of Canon products are representative of the entire market, Canon's competitors are way ahead and Canon remaining comatose (allegedly) will spell doom for it. This is also cited as a big reason why people they know are moving to different brands now. 

OK... point taken, but I'm unable to understand that if you've been moaning about Canon cameras for the best part of over 3 years with a "canon is *******" labeled on your forehead and still haven't changed brands, you are either a troll or an idiot, probably both. 

To say that you and your camera hobby club members back home know better than a multi-million dollar corporation that hires incredibly smart people to do their product and market research is just silly. 

Can Canon make better products? sure they can but they will only if it makes business sense to them - whether you agree with them or not.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 18, 2016)

J.R. said:


> OK... point taken, but I'm unable to understand that if you've been moaning about Canon cameras for the best part of over 3 years with a "canon is *******" labeled on your forehead and still haven't changed brands, you are either a troll or an idiot, probably both.



personal attack. foul. unsportmanlike. reported. 

All I am saying, is Canon is unneccessarily losing a lot of sales to Sony and Fuji mirrorless. Especially if Canon indeed were technically perfectly capable to bring fully competitive mirrorless cameras to market - from sensor to AF performance ... as some members of the Canon Defense League here incessantly claim. Without being able to provide any facts or figures to substantiate that claim.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 18, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> personal attack. foul. unsportmanlike. reported.



Please read my comment again ... did I name you anywhere? Or maybe looking at your own posting history you felt that this applied to you and you only?



AvTvM said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > OK... point taken, but I'm unable to understand that if you've been moaning about Canon cameras for the best part of over 3 years with a "canon is *******" labeled on your forehead and still haven't changed brands, you are either a troll or an idiot, probably both.
> ...



My point still stands ... If it bothers you so much, why haven't you switch over to a Sony or a Fuji rather than keep repeating the same argument again and again and again and again and again and again ... ∞


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 18, 2016)

J.R. said:


> My point still stands ... If it bothers you so much, why haven't you switch over to a Sony or a Fuji rather than keep repeating the same argument again and again and again and again and again and again ... ∞



Simple: because I have every right to express my opinion. Just like anyone else here. 

In terms of my gear: Canon 5D II + a few L's. Use it less and less. Too big, clunky, heavy, obtrusive, for me ... most of the time. EOS M (1) plus set of EF-M lenses. Love the size, hate the missing viewfinder. M2, M3, M10 all did not offer enough to upgrade. Still hoping for a decent EOS M Pro, since I cannot get such nice lenses at such low prices from any other maker. And I do npot buy anything retro-styles .. there goes Fuji out the door. 

Would buy both, APS-C EOS "M-Pro" and FF-sensored "EOS M5" - if as capable as my 5D III - plus some native compact short flange distance "EF-X" pancake lenses and a decent compact kit-zoom (24-85/4 or something along those lines)

But again, after being told over and over again by forum members here: I am the one and only person in the world who would ever buy this. Canon is a big corporation, spending lots of money and market research - they know better: all other 8 billion inhabitants of this planet prefer mirrorslappers, because one half of them think they got "Trump-sized hands". ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> All I am saying, is Canon is *unneccessarily losing a lot of sales* to Sony and Fuji mirrorless. Especially if Canon indeed were technically perfectly capable to bring fully competitive mirrorless cameras to market - from sensor to AF performance ... as some members of the Canon Defense League here incessantly claim. Without being able to provide any facts or figures to substantiate that claim.



So, where are _your_ evidence, facts, or figures to support that Canon is losing 'a lot' of sales, or that it's 'unnecessary'? Just more BS spewing from a mirrorslap-confused forum whiner. 

Objectively, we can see that Canon can produce competitive MILCs and are currently doing so. Additionally, they can produce FF sensors and new lens lines so could clearly launch FF MILCs if they choose to do so. 

Objectively, we can also see that Canon has chosen not to invest heavily in the MILC market to date. Sure, it's an assumption that they have valid, data-driven business reasons for that decision – but it's an eminently reasonable and logical assumption. To assume they aren't investing heavily in mirrorless because they can't or are somehow too stupid to do something that would be a sound business decision is ludicrous. But I guess that's what happens when you get slapped around by a mirror until any brains you used to have leaked out of your ears. 




AvTvM said:


> Simple: because I have every right to express my opinion. Just like anyone else here.



Yes, you certainly have every right to continue to express your opinion. By all means, don't let the fact that it's illogical, unsupported by facts or data, and makes you look ever more foolish stop you from expressing your opinion!


----------



## LoneRider (Mar 18, 2016)

Since I've played in this thread, and I think the other rumor about the 5DX is relevant. My post http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29372.msg584831#msg584831

I am now thinking the FF sensor and processing market place is going to get one hell of a disruption. If my slightly educated guess is correct. Canon is going to create one hell of a stir.

That ~28MP FF sensor will become an amazing base for MILC, DSLR and dedicated video cameras.


----------



## LoneRider (Mar 18, 2016)

And one last circle the wagons post.

Since we are comparing Canon to companies who have found the garbage can, and I think one or 2 good ones.

*IF* I am correct with my guess. This ~28MP FF sensor is going to be about as close to a black swan as we are going to get in the Camera market. It could explain why they did not do much behind the M. I would expect a 28M APS-C sensor out at some point when they can get the microlenses small enough.

But, my point, Canon is somewhat behaving like Apple under Steve Jobs. Don't release a product until the technology makes sense. Apple could have released an iPad much sooner than they did. But choose not to until they could manufacture a really good product for a really good price point.

Our guess at a ~28MP FF DPAF equipped sensor was that technology Canon was waiting on. And my guess it is here. Canon has his the Apple criteria for technology introduction.

And to repeat myself, let the product engineering and roll outs commence.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 18, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > The whole point of a business is to what? Make money. Right?
> ...



All of the DATA and FACTUAL information available today, completely disagrees with just about everything you said. It has nothing to do with defending Canon, but rather, having enough brain cells to read data and interpret the data to draw the correct conclusions. What you typed is completely the opposite of that.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 18, 2016)

It is the end of the road for Canon, this is how the imaging branch did last year. It is in decline:

"_Within the Imaging System Business Unit, although total sales volume of interchangeable-lens digital cameras
declined due to currency depreciations in emerging countries and the slowdown of China’s economy, there
were positive signs of a recovery in sales in the U.S. and Japan. Additionally, sales have been strong for such
models as the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R digital SLR cameras, which deliver the highest resolution of any
model in the history of EOS cameras. As for digital compact cameras, while sales volume declined amid the
ongoing contraction of the market, the ratio of more profitable high-added-value models increased owing to
efforts to strengthen the lineup of PowerShot G-series models. As for inkjet printers, although Canon has been
working to expand sales through the Company’s broad product lineup, ranging from home-use printers to
MAXIFY-series business models, total sales volume declined due to the significant impact of shrinking
markets, mainly in Asia. In contrast, sales of consumable supplies enjoyed solid demand. As a result, sales for
the business unit totaled ¥1,263.8 billion, a year-on-year decrease of 5.9%, while operating profit totaled
¥183.4 billion, declining 5.7% year on year._"

Canon's Debt Ration 
15. DEBT RATIO
Total debt / Total assets 0.0% 

Canon's R&D, 328,000 million yen, 8.6% of sales.

Imaging System Operating Profit 183,439 million yen, 14.59% of sales

What can we conclude from this?
Canon sales are dropping like a movie set boulder filled with helium. 5.7% last year.
Selling cameras is a small portion (36%) of their business, yet that branch in declining years has a 14.59% profit margin.

Anyone with any sense can see that if you work less and make more money that is the surest way to go bankrupt. I mean 14.59% profit margin is ridiculous. Since they are not charging up the credit card debt and buying expensive toys how can they consider themselves successful in today's world. Anyone with any sense knows that the debt ratio should be 50 to 100% not 0.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 18, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> What can we conclude from this?
> Canon sales are dropping like a movie set boulder filled with helium. 5.7% last year.
> Selling cameras is a small portion (36%) of their business, yet that branch in declining years has a 14.59% profit margin.
> 
> Anyone with any sense can see that if you work less and make more money that is the surest way to go bankrupt. I mean 14.59% profit margin is ridiculous. Since they are not charging up the credit card debt and buying expensive toys how can they consider themselves successful in today's world. Anyone with any sense knows that the debt ratio should be 50 to 100% not 0.



did i miss the sarcasm?

a debt ratio of 50-100%? so more debt then hard assets?

cameras is less than 36% btw, considering that also includes printers.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 18, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > What can we conclude from this?
> ...



He was making fun of someone who very deservedly needed making fun of.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 18, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > What can we conclude from this?
> ...



Maybe


----------



## J.R. (Mar 18, 2016)

Not sure whether it is commendable or despicable that some posters here don't let facts get in the way of their opinion. Maybe someone smarter than me can help me out here.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 18, 2016)

J.R. said:


> Not sure whether it is commendable or despicable that some posters here don't let facts get in the way of their opinion. Maybe someone smarter than me can help me out here.



A quick definition search might help.

Opinion :a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Fact :a thing that is indisputably the case.

So it would appear by these quick definitions that google pulled up, an opinion does not require a fact. It requires no knowledge either.

To argue fact vs opinion with someone with absolutely no knowledge is at best asinine.


----------



## J.R. (Mar 18, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure whether it is commendable or despicable that some posters here don't let facts get in the way of their opinion. Maybe someone smarter than me can help me out here.
> ...



Guilty as charged ... Thanks ;D


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 18, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...





and i certainly needed more coffee apparently.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 18, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> A quick definition search might help.
> 
> Opinion :a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> 
> ...



Fine, but if a person's _opinion_ is that the Earth is flat or the moon is made of green cheese, sharing that opinion still makes them look like an imbecile.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 18, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > A quick definition search might help.
> ...



My favorite planet's the sun. It's like the king of all planets!


----------



## brad-man (Mar 18, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Shine on you crazy diamond 8)


----------



## msm (Mar 19, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Indeed!



> What is Canon doing? Making more money than Nikon or Sony. I'd say that's doing the right thing, don't you?



They are doing the right thing if they are reaching their full potentional. If they have the potentional to do significantly better then no they are not doing the right thing. Since none of the participants here have any clue if that is the case or not this whole discussion is meaningless speculation from *both* sides.


----------



## gargamel (Mar 19, 2016)

I included this in a previous post, but the post was probably tl;dr for most people here:

Canon bleeding market share?
http://www.photocounter.com.au/2015/canon-bleeding-market-share/

Compare the reduction of roughly 14% of sales of Canon ILC products predicted by Canon in October, 2015, to the 1.7% growth in sales for mirrorless cameras in 2015. Still, DSLRs are a profitable business for Canon, and it may be the better cash cow for now. Still, these figures clearly indicate that the market is going to shift, mainly because DLSR sales are decreasing significantly.

However, as I also said before, I don't know, if the source is credible. Can anyone here judge? Or provide confirmed data?

gargamel


----------



## LoneRider (Mar 19, 2016)

Something I have not seen a lot of discussion about is pent-up demand. It is possible a lot of people are waiting on the 5DX. Canon might have just slightly missed the mark by not adding a touch screen on the 7D-ii. It caused me to pause on the 7D-ii.

It is very possible the 80D, and 5DX will get many people like me to act. Canon is at the far end of a design cycle. Of course their numbers are going to be lower, and with their significant presence in the market, that could bring down the whole market.

The release of the 70D with DPAF, then 7D-ii with its standard AF like has created expectations in a lot more people than just me.

The 5DX must be an out of the park home run. The buzz around it will ring like almost no other camera in at least the last few cameras.

Yeah, the MILC have created buzz, but an out of this world 5D at under $3500 is going to sell like crazy.

I am still wondering how they can get IR out of a MILC for better subject tracking??


----------



## gargamel (Mar 19, 2016)

msm said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



*Are they doing the right thing?*
Let me re-phrase this question in my own words.  Will it pay off for Canon, that they have been developing and improving brilliant technology for traditional product architectures, instead of investing in something new? Why aren't they, with such a track record of innovation, not the front-runners in mirrorless technology?
*
Are they doing right, what they are doing?*
As far as DSLRs are concerned: Yes, they are on the right track again, I guess, as they respond to customer feedback. E.g., the 80D has better AF, a better sensor and, finally, the OVF covers 100% of the image real estate. (can anyone provide the correct English term, please?).

Regarding the M line: No, up to now. The M products so far are half-hearted, and consequently are only #3 in sales rankings,. If Canon had been serious about mirrorless in the past, they could be #1 in that market, by now. But they were too afraid of bringing a MILC product that would erode their DSLR sales.

Driving users who express some disappointment into the arms of other brands, as someone here repeatedly did, is not the answer, of course, as a switch to another brand means sacrificing investments into EOS gear and investing in a new system. So, depending on investments done in the past, individual inertia to switch the camera system varies.

gargamel


_EDIT: Corrected quotation clauses, removed parts from the quotes that are irrelevant for the reply post. Sorry for the mistake._.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 19, 2016)

gargamel said:


> I included this in a previous post, but the post was probably tl;dr for most people here:
> 
> Canon bleeding market share?
> http://www.photocounter.com.au/2015/canon-bleeding-market-share/
> ...



I notice that the article you cite combined data from two different sources (Canon and CIPA) and extrapolated conclusions by comparing those numbers. I'm not saying that's wrong, but it's not necessarily reliable either. Unless you know the details of how each statistic was calculated and can be certain they used identical criteria (highly doubtful) it's risky to merge two different sources like that. 



LoneRider said:


> Something I have not seen a lot of discussion about is pent-up demand.



Yes. Exactly. The story Gargamel cites uses relatively short time frames (quarters) to draw general conclusions. Camera release cycles occur over several years. It's normal for a company's sales to spike following a new release and then drop when they are nearing the end of the life cycle of a major product. That's why it's risky to select a single year or two out of the overall cycle and try to draw conclusions.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 19, 2016)

gargamel said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Being the front runner in MILC is a very, very poor business decision. Demand, relative to other ILC's, is very low. It's very simple and I'm not real sure why this topic is still going. It's a well understood topic and explains very clearly why Canon dominates the market.


----------



## gargamel (Mar 19, 2016)

unfocused said:


> [...]
> I notice that the article you cite combined data from two different sources (Canon and CIPA) and extrapolated conclusions by comparing those numbers. I'm not saying that's wrong, but it's not necessarily reliable either. Unless you know the details of how each statistic was calculated and can be certain they used identical criteria (highly doubtful) it's risky to merge two different sources like that.
> 
> 
> ...



As I said, I don't know how credible the source is. Assuming the figures presented in the article are true, the most relevant point for our discussion here is, where they cite Canon's prediction for 2015 to be down by 14% compared to the year before.

Regarding the long development cycles: You are right, but how would you want to correlate this with sales figures, as shown in the article? Of course, current sales and sales of the past are used as input into the decision making processes for future product roadmaps. But that's a rather indirect correlation, and many other factors go into that, too.

General conclusions for 2015: ILC sales for Canon (and probably Nikon,..., although I have no source for that) decreased. Mirrorless sales increased very slightly.

That's about all the figures we know by now tell us (if they are real).

gargamel


----------



## gargamel (Mar 19, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> [...]
> 
> Being the front runner in MILC is a very, very poor business decision. Demand, relative to other ILC's, is very low. It's very simple and I'm not real sure why this topic is still going. It's a well understood topic and explains very clearly why Canon dominates the market.



I look at it differently, but i do get the point that
- the early bird catches worm, but
- the second mouse takes the cheese.

gargamel


----------



## LoneRider (Mar 19, 2016)

gargamel said:


> Regarding the M line: No, up to now. The M products so far are half-hearted, and consequently are only #3 in sales rankings,. If Canon had been serious about mirrorless in the past, they could be #1 in that market, by now. But they were too afraid of bringing a MILC product that would erode their DSLR sales.



I don't know if this supposition is correct. To be honest, it _may_ just as possible the EOS M is a product line that Canon is very interested in. But top priority is mirrored cameras. If Canon were to delay the 1DX-ii, 5DX and 7D-iii in a significant manor, it would likely hurt them more than the delay in better M cameras.

The 1DX-ii can be looked at as Canon version of the Acura NSX, or even the Ford GT. They know they are not going to sell a lot, but it drives the brands image and stokes the R&D engine. Likely difference is, they probably won't lose money on the 1DX-ii, were Ford will likely lose money on the GT.

I certainly think it is possible the same ~28MP sensor in the 5DX will show up in MILC for a few pesos less than the 5DX. But, unless they have some trickery to get IR sensing in the package its subject tracking won't be as good as the 5DX. The MILC will also likely have less battery life as that FF sensor will always be one when setting up for the shot. Granted, sticking in a bigger battery can fix that.

Trade offs, and simply put. And IMNSHO the 80D, 1DX-ii, 5DX were job 1. And the 7D-iii with new sensor is up there. Possibly with the same pixel count as the 5DX for the same 4K video processing.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 19, 2016)

gargamel said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...



See, here's a problem. Citing a source that you can't even tell is trustworthy yourself, then trying to draw conclusions from it, is just too much of a stretch to maintain a discussion of this kind.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > Except that the Eos M has been competitive (if you look at sales figures).
> ...



I'd just like to know when he's going to get rid of that "Mirror Slapper" he hates so much and go all mirror-less. Why keep crying so much? Just switch! Don't let the door hit ya on the way out either.  Good luck with your new gear.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 29, 2016)

slclick said:


> I never understood the bizarre need to continue to visit a place which brings you so much unhappiness. It's truly unhealthy.



+1
He's afraid to make the switch and wants the herd to do it first. He cannot possibly believe what he says.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 29, 2016)

can't cede this forum to Canon Fan Boy(z) only. ;D

And I am in no hurry to get rid of my 5D IIi mirrorslapper an d L glass, as long as I cannot get an FF mirrorless system that *is perfect* for each and every of my [photographic!] needs, wants, desires and wishes. 8)


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 29, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I never understood the bizarre need to continue to visit a place which brings you so much unhappiness. It's truly unhealthy.
> ...



Several on the forums persist in confusing two, distinct questions: what camera they want to buy, and what cameras Canon wants to make. They want to buy a camera that meets their particular needs; Canon wants to make cameras that will be profitable. Since Canon has consistently been profitable making cameras that don't match their specific needs, the logical assumption is that their specific needs are not the most profitable. Unfortunately, many start with the presumption that their needs are representative, therefore profitable, and then go off into the desert predicting doom for Canon.


----------



## midluk (Mar 29, 2016)

Can't you just continue to post squirrel pictures instead of continuing with this pointless discussion?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> And I am in no hurry to get rid of my 5D IIi mirrorslapper an d L glass, as long as I cannot get an FF mirrorless system that *is perfect* for each and every of my [photographic!] needs, wants, desires and wishes.



So, you will just be keeping that 5DIII until you die, then. Good to know.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2016)

midluk said:


> Can't you just continue to post squirrel pictures instead of continuing with this pointless discussion?



It takes a lot to make the squirrels shut up...


----------



## crashpc (Mar 29, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...


And I thought there is this crisis telling us overal camera sales (volumes) are going down, and those panic-based seminars on what manufacturers do wrong to save them. Hahaha.
I realize I´m not the one who is Canon making their devices for, but if I look around, Only 1% of people are into cameras, and only quarter of these have mirrorslappers of greater MILC. Now, my $$$$ is waiting for usable camera, so They depleted all possibilities for all people I know (myself) wanting to buy new camera. Where do the money come from to them then? :-D


----------



## scyrene (Mar 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > Can't you just continue to post squirrel pictures instead of continuing with this pointless discussion?
> ...



That is adorable.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 29, 2016)

crashpc said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



Would you like to rephrase that in a way that makes sense?

I *think* you're saying that things in camera land are desperate, and they need your money specifically to survive. That is absurd. When times are tough, every decision is more critical - making niche products that appeal to you, but maybe not to the wider market, could be disastrous. It comes back to the same thing ultimately - if your personal needs and desires are unusual, then it's a bad business decision on their part to cater to them.


----------



## crashpc (Mar 29, 2016)

So oou got it.... My needs are not unusual. These are pretty ususual, and other manufacturers are meeting these (bodies only). I don't seese why Canon could not also. C'mon, pathetic burst rates and buffer depth in M3,.poorer image sensor, no serious lens selection. THEY are making it niche, not me.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 29, 2016)

midluk said:


> Can't you just continue to post squirrel pictures instead of continuing with this pointless discussion?


but they must be squirrel pictures taken with a Canon mirror-less camera


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 30, 2016)

Canon would need my business more than I need them. And I know I am not the only one. representative or not does not matter much. Enough people like myself, who are done with mirrorslappers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

Canon needs squirrel butts more than AvTvM's business, and 'people who are done with mirrorslappers' remain a minority of ILC buyers.


----------



## AWR (Mar 30, 2016)

I used to believe that these _AvTvM_ Sony fan boys are just - not the brightest - adolescents dwelling in their "uniqueness". Certainly not real camera owners.

But lately I've started to think, it's the Sony's marketing department. Otherwise this makes no sense.

What an evil company


----------



## scyrene (Mar 30, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Canon would need my business more than I need them.



The epitome of childish cluelessness. "This multibillion-dollar company needs the business of this average (at best) joe more than I need them!" I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.


----------



## Tugela (Mar 30, 2016)

scyrene said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > midluk said:
> ...



Squirrels roar you know. They sound a lot like a crow and can kick up quite a racket when they do it.


----------



## Tugela (Mar 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon needs squirrel butts more than AvTvM's business, and 'people who are done with mirrorslappers' remain a minority of ILC buyers.



A ever growing minority. One day they won't be the minority any more. It is coming. What will you do then? Hide in a cave?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

Tugela said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Canon needs squirrel butts more than AvTvM's business, and 'people who are done with mirrorslappers' remain a minority of ILC buyers.
> ...



Well, the Sun becoming a red giant and destroying the Earth is coming too, but I'm not too worried about that.


----------



## Tugela (Mar 30, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Truth be told, despite opinions otherwise, Canon will do what they have always done, reuse other APS-C sensors in a mirrorless platform. In this case, they can pick on the 80D, which has very good performance. 1080P/60FPS with GOP options is a given since the 80D can do that on DIGIC 6. Throw a EVF in and DIGIC 7 for faster FPS and you've got a serious weapon. It's an 80D in a M form factor that can take the excellent, and smaller EF-M lenses...
> 
> The magical question which this topic covers is 4K. I think there is a strong probability the higher end EOS M, IE replacement to the M3 will be 4K. Also considering the C500 II later next month should be 8k, there isn't need to protect the 4K segment as pro's will adopt 8k if only to downsample.
> 
> ...



The issue with the Digic processors as it stands appears to be their thermal envelope constraints. They should be capable of doing hardware encoding of 4K, but we know that was not enabled in the G7XII (presumably it gets too hot doing 4K), and we also know that the 1DXII used older processors and MJPEG because it would have required a fan if hardware encoding was used (presumably with the Digic 7 doing the job).

The DV5 can encode 4K in hardware, but it requires a fan all the same.

So, IMO it is unlikely that Canon will have 4K in consumer or MILC models any time soon, at least not until they come out with the next generation processor. Historically that is about a 2 year cycle, so probably not before late 2017/early 2018. The processors Canon have available to them is what is holding them back and limiting what they can do.


----------



## Tugela (Mar 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



MILCs ruling the world will happen a lot sooner than the sun dieing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

Tugela said:


> They should be capable of doing hardware encoding of 4K, but we know that was not enabled in the G7XII



But you insisted so confidently that any Canon camera with Digic 7 would shoot 4K video! I must have missed where you admitted you were wrong. 




Tugela said:


> MILCs ruling the world will happen a lot sooner than the sun dieing.



The difference is, we know that the latter will happen, whereas the former is not a certainty.


----------



## Tugela (Mar 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > They should be capable of doing hardware encoding of 4K, but we know that was not enabled in the G7XII
> ...



My error was assuming that Canon would have a handle on the thermal envelope by now, whereas they clearly apparently do not. So it would seem that they are still behind the big boys in terms of technology. That may be OK for DSLRs which have much lower processor requirements, but it won't cut it in mirrorless.

Digic 7 is the same generation as the DV5, and will share most of the same logic, which means that it almost certainly has a 4K H.264 encoder on board. It just has not been activated on the G7XII.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

Yes, well...assumptions are dangerous.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 31, 2016)

Tugela said:


> Digic 7 is the same generation as the DV5, and will share most of the same logic, which means that it almost certainly has a 4K H.264 encoder on board. It just has not been activated on the G7XII.



proof?

or are you just pulling this out of your posterior?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 31, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> proof?
> 
> or are you just *pulling this out of your posterior*?



Like I said – ASSumptions.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 31, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > proof?
> ...



I was always under the assumption that video and regular digics are on two separate development paths.

not to mention DV 5 requires active cooling for 4k h.265.


----------



## Tugela (Mar 31, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



No, the base designs are the same, they are variants of each other.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 31, 2016)

Tugela said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



"Because I said so," isn't proof, and the fact it's apparently all you have to offer as such makes you look like *an*... :


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 31, 2016)

Tugela said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



they've never been released at the same time, and there's more digic's for stills than for video.

so where's your proof of this...

you remind of someone on dpreview that was emphatic that the + versus non - meant stripped down features and the + meant "enhanced video features".


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > And I am in no hurry to get rid of my 5D IIi mirrorslapper an d L glass, as long as I cannot get an FF mirrorless system that *is perfect* for each and every of my [photographic!] needs, wants, desires and wishes.
> ...



I swear you are the funniest guy on the board, and I know you aren't even trying.


----------



## Eersel (Apr 4, 2016)

So 3 different levels.

T6i Equivalent
80D Equivalent
Sony ARII Killer

I wonder if one of those will come branded or designed similar to an AE-1 Program just for kicks?


----------

