# Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market - Share your thoughts



## Josh Denver (Sep 28, 2016)

Where does Canon fall behind the competition? 

Can we make a list of that, that's completely objective and is neither fanboyish nor Sony-is-king-ish?

This list I want to make is comprehensive, meaning starts from the lowest end up to the highest end. And is divided into two sections, Bodies and Lenses. 

Only where the current Canon models are inferior to an existing competitor. 

I'll start with the very low end failure: 

-Canon's cheapest DSLR is very poorly featured compared to Nikon's and Sony's and practically everything else. 

It's the 1300D. Nikon makes a MUCH more compelling camera to draw the first SLR buyer. Their Nikon D3400 has:

-24mp class leading sensor vs the old 550D 18mp sensor with immensely lower image quality. 

-Little known fact, the 24mp sensor in the D3400 up to D7200 produces very sharp HD video with no aliasing and moire. While the 1300D has moire and aliasing and softness.

-Snapbridge blutooth connectivity is very fast and very appealing to today's teen/social media oriented market. 

-The 1300D has the lowest screen resolution in the current world of SLRs. 

-The 1300D comes with the old 18-55mm non-STM lens while the Nikon comes with the newest STM like model. 

-The 1300D is 3fps vs 5fps 

-Aside from poor video, tops at 1080p 30p while d3400 does sharp 1080p 60p. 

-Much lower end AF system

This camera model just needs to be erased or upgraded fast. Cann doesn't realize it's the entry point of the customer, and now on the shelf there's a much superior nikon. 

1- So Canon's first fail is in their first Body, the T6/1300D. 

There is no failing DSLR that I can think of rather than this. Given that 6D is a different line from d750 and is an old release. All Canon bodies from the 750D to 1DxII arw competitive. 

_______________________________________________________

2- 50mm and 85mm lenses. 

Canon were always said to be bought for their superior lenses but now, two of the most important key lenses for photography are surpassed by other manufacturers. Leaving the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.2 L two over-priced and low quality lenses. (This is in relation to Sigma ART lenses and Sony Batis lenses, etc)

2- Second current Canon fail is two lenses: 50mm and 85mm primes. 

__________________________________________________

3- Third failure is the lack of interest in video. For example, all Canon DSLRs starting from a t6 to 80D have horrible moire/aliased soft video by today's nikon and Sony standards. Their lack of interest and fail also comes in the form of Sony A6300 to A7sII cameras which have superior video quality and video features and Even Nikon D3400 to D7200 superior HD (This Canon fail does not include the 1DxII, 1DC which are a different class or 5DIV which is yet to be tested. Everything below that shooting video with a Sony will give you better detail and more aggressive video features like S-Log and peaking and EVFs and if you want to retain canon's pleasing Colours/motion then shooting on Nikons is much better for anything below 5D4. They also make pretty images SOOC)

__________________________________________________

I know the market really well and shot a lot of these cameras and lenses and see that: 

Canon, when analyzed generally (as is whole models not small features) are failing and vastly behind the competition in:

1- Entry Level SLR. T6/1300D
2- 50mm prime and 85mm prime lenses
3- Overall video quality & features 


What do you have to add? 

Remember, this is not a camera vs camera debate, just a general zoomed out look of where Canon is behind in the competing market. 

-Wedding FF camera with tilty/swivly screen? 

Might be a fail vs the D750 but will leave that to you guys. Remember this is not ''what I want from Canon'', it's where are they failing behind rivals?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> I'll start with the very low end failure:
> 
> -Canon's cheapest DSLR is very poorly featured compared to Nikon's and Sony's and practically everything else.
> 
> ...



I'll add that Nikon's 'MUCH more compelling camera' costs $150 more right now on Amazon (body + 18-55), that's 30% more expensive. That is probably one of the reasons the D3400 which you call 'MUCH more compelling' is *#81* in Amazon's DSLR sales ranking, while the T6 which you call a 'poorly featured failure' is *#20* on that list. So it would seem that from the perspective of both buyers and Canon, the T6 is rather successful. 

Incidentally, another Canon 'failure', the 50/1.4, outsells the much cheaper Nikon 50/1.8 and far outsells the Nikon 50/1.4 on Amazon. So when people wonder why Canon hasn't updated this aging lens, there's your reason – it remains very popular.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 28, 2016)

Good lord, man! How many hours did you waste writing this up? 

Repeat after me: Every camera maker makes cameras that take excellent pics. The cameras are all far better than anything made years ago. I am able to enjoy photography like never before in history.

There is so much negativity and whining that kills this forum it is truly disgusting. If you don't enjoy photography with the fantastic cameras that are made today - coupled with the ease of manipulating images on your computer - then you have real problems. 

And by the way, Canon's 1300D is NOT the camera to compare with Nikon's D3400. That would be The 750D. The 1300D is Canon's "budget" model using the older tech from Rebels of a couple generations back. The fact that you are unaware of this basic fact makes your entire argument against it meaningless.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 28, 2016)

I'd focus more in areas like lower performance in sensors WRT DR and noise at high ISO. 
Another aspect is the mirrorless camera offerings, despite the newly announced EOS-M5, which lags behind the market competitors in many aspects and obviously EF-M lenses offerings being very limited with no fast zoom lens at all.


----------



## Josh Denver (Sep 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Josh Denver said:
> 
> 
> > I'll start with the very low end failure:
> ...



What do sales rankings have to do with the quality/performance of a product. So by the site's market sales, I announce the 1300D better than the D3400. 

________________

The 1200D series line compares directly with the D3300 line. The 750D line with a swivle screen compares directly with the D5500 line. So the ''fact that makes my argument baseless'' is a wrong one, 

_____________________

This is a topic for you, using experience from other cameras/lens experience, to list what Canon lacks behind the competition. Not to hate on Canon. In fact if you take time to check my previous posts you'll find me a Canon fanboy 

______________________

4- Mirrorless camera performance and small lens selection 

Thanks Hjalmarg1 for adding No.4


----------



## Tugela (Sep 28, 2016)

I think Canon are not doing too much wrong in general, except that they have badly miscalculated the growth of the hybrid camera in the advanced consumer market, which has opened the door to very vigorous competition. And that door is just staying open longer and longer. Canon's efforts to catch up are just sad and a joke. As a strategic business decision it is just mind bogglingly short sighted.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 28, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> What do sales rankings have to do with the quality/performance of a product. So by the site's market sales, I announce the 1300D better than the D3400.



I don't believe Neuro said 'better' but was pointing out that they are in different price brackets which could well explain why the Canon model you mentioned outsells the Nikon model you mentioned. 
You compared the Canon 1300 and the Nikon 3400 - it is hard to say which is 'better'until you know why the Canon sells more units and price seems to be the main differentiator - people go into a shop wanting a camera at a certain price point, not saying 'I want the best entry level camera in that range'. 


But I disagree with the basic premise of your original post. A manufacturer decides on a price point and then designs/builds the camera to that price point - so the only real way to not turn this into a Canon-beatdown is to ask 'what areas do Canon lag behind and what areas do they do better than the competition' and see if the compromises are justifiable. Cherry-picking the best features from each competitor is meaningless because each manufacturer has their own hot buttons and not all 'best features' will be incorporated into one camera.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 28, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> Josh Denver said:
> 
> 
> > What do sales rankings have to do with the quality/performance of a product. So by the site's market sales, I announce the 1300D better than the D3400.
> ...



Yes, exactly. You could argue 90% of people wouldn't notice any performance difference between the cameras; 99% would notice the 150 saved. 

Because we have to purchase these things with that wretched thing called money you can make a case for saying that if one is affordable and the other not the affordable one is ahead, especially when in reality there is naf all difference in performance to most people.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 28, 2016)

You seem to have an unfounded assumption that it matters to Canon whether the 1300D is "better" than the D3400 by some metric that you happen to find relevant. Newsflash: it doesn't. What matters to Canon is that the 1300D has a feature set and price point that's attractive _to the target audience_. It appears they have succeeded in doing that. The point of entry-level cameras is to sell a lot of units, period. It's totally immaterial what people who wouldn't buy one anyway think about them.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 28, 2016)

BTW, I find it amusing that Canon got flak because the 1300D had so few improvements compared to the 1200D... Well, the D3400 has mostly _removed_ features compared to the D3300


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 28, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> BTW, I find it amusing that Canon got flak because the 1300D had so few improvements compared to the 1200D... Well, the D3400 has mostly _removed_ features compared to the D3300



What? You mean that Nikon indulges in....[cue ominous music]....market segmentation?


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 28, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> What? You mean that Nikon indulges in....[cue ominous music]....market segmentation?



I guess when Nikon does that it's called "streamlining" and "making usability improvements" :


----------



## bholliman (Sep 28, 2016)

This is just another round of Canon bashing. Despite "lagging the market" as you put it in many areas, they continue to be the #1 camera maker in the world and are not losing market share. I'd call that good business. Their overall EOS system is the best top to bottom "system" out there. Sure, they don't have top products in all areas, but would you really expect any company to?



Tugela said:


> I think Canon are not doing too much wrong in general, except that they have badly miscalculated the growth of the hybrid camera in the advanced consumer market, which has opened the door to very vigorous competition. And that door is just staying open longer and longer. Canon's efforts to catch up are just sad and a joke. As a strategic business decision it is just mind bogglingly short sighted.



We can think Canon is "wrong" as much as we like and it won't change their business strategy. They are doing just fine in the market place and that is what matters to corporate leaders and investors. 

The M5 may not have a bunch of bleeding edge technology, but is a very solid mirror less offering based on the specs. It will sell well since its part of the EOS system and has Canon's market leading service and support network behind it.


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 28, 2016)

"Where does Canon lag?" is an odd question for this site. We're all Canon users. We've all weighed up the alternatives and have decided that Canon doesn't lag behind, but, on balance, is the number one choice. And that's why some of us are perplexed. 

You might get more interesting answers asking this question on other forums. It would be interesting to hear why people don't choose Canon.

When people ask me what camera to buy, I can't logically recommend anything except Canon (and I personally shoot Fuji 90%+ of the time.) You can cherry pick details to your hearts content, but even most ardent non-Canon shooters acknowledge that the Canon system is the most comprehensive.

That being said, as a Fuji Fanboi, I'd say Canon lags the market by not having a medium format alternative.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 28, 2016)

If you look at Samsung's NX1, or Sony and Nikon's fiscal reports, it would seem that canon is lagging behind quite a bit on the road to fiscal insolvability.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 28, 2016)

Hi Josh! 

To make it short: I am no Canon fan boy, I try to be as objective as possible and I really can't follow your argumentation. Esp. because it seems to focus mostly on the entry level body. 
For a few bucks more you already get a 100D/SL1 or 700D/Rebel ??. Both still cheaper than the Nikon D3400.

And I can't follow you especially because such Canon bashing threads OPs only show the negative sides and are not willing to weight up the positives at the same time as well. 
And the bashing always ignores the market position of Canon, showing that their overall package is fitting to the customer needs better than other offerings.


When it comes to being more specific about where Canon lags behind, here is my impression:

1. Sensor tech:
Yes! although Canon caught up here lately, other sensors a still a little bit better.
For some this is a deal breaker for a lot it isn't, because in RL photography it seems not that important.

2. Lenses:
Yes! Some lenses seem to be or are outdated but others are upgraded lately and blow the competition out of the water.
*AND:*
When it comes to your mentioned FL of 50 mm you totally ignore the absolutely fantastic value of the 50/1.8 STM.
This lens is 50% or more cheaper than anything comparable from the competition. And this is a great entry level prime lens attracting people into the Canon system (if interested in more than just double zoom kits).
Same to the EF-S 10-18 STM.
This in combination with a cheap entry level body gets people attracted.

3. Video:
I am no videographer, so here I cannot offer detailed arguments. 
But I am very sure that Canon is NOT ignoring that market. 
It seems they have a different market approach than some expect them to do. 


So I would recommend you to be more objective and at the same time mention where the competition lags behind.
And if you find out that there are more points pro than con Canon that maybe you only have to patient until Canon fixes that or the competition is finally able to catch up and then it's up to you to jump ship.

Yours,
Maximilian


----------



## Sabaki (Sep 28, 2016)

So I'm using this thread to throw my own question into the mix

Here's me being super-duper hyper critical here but I'd like to know how Canon's top lenses compare to the comparable Zeiss offerings. 

Zeiss's lenses offer have metal bodies, including filter threads and the image quality just seems that bit better, even if marginally, than what Canon are offering.

So my question: would the average Canon user prefer Canon's lenses were made using more metal and would Zeiss level optical quality delight you more?


----------



## JohanCruyff (Sep 28, 2016)

Canon often seem to lag behind when people read the *specs*. When people *use* cameras, it seems to be a completely different story.


Back to topic:
AA filter removal? Maybe it's time to extend the 5DSR experiment to other models (starting with the 6D Mark II?).
Crop mode (APS-C style) for all the full frame models?


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 28, 2016)

Sabaki, which Zeiss lenses are you curious about? A lot of people are excited by the Otus lenses. But at $4k+ you'd expect them to be good. I'm sure if Canon wanted to sell a $4k 50mm lens, it would pretty good too. Whether anybody would buy it is another question.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> What do sales rankings have to do with the quality/performance of a product.



Why does lacking some features that a competitor offers make a product a 'failure'? My 1D X lacks in-camera HDR...so it's 'lagging behind' my PowerShot S100 and it's a failure, right? 

You're arguing that all those D3400 features you list make the D3400, in your words, "a MUCH more compelling camera." More compelling to who? To you? Who the heck cares? If the D3400 better meets your needs, go buy one. The sales rankings suggest that a lot more people find the T6 to be a more compelling camera that better meets their needs than the D3400. 

Thus, your characterization of the T6/1300D as a 'failure' – along with several of your other conclusions – is clearly at odds with objective reality.


----------



## Coolhandchuck (Sep 28, 2016)

Hillsilly said:


> Sabaki, which Zeiss lenses are you curious about? A lot of people are excited by the Otus lenses. But at $4k+ you'd expect them to be good. I'm sure if Canon wanted to sell a $4k 50mm lens, it would pretty good too. Whether anybody would buy it is another question.



My photography partner uses the 85 1.2 and compared to my Milvus 85 1.4, it's not even close. The Canon is not even in the same category when it comes to shooting wide open, sharpness, contrast or color rendition and the canon cost more. "Oh, but the canon has autofocus", give me a break... be a photographer and learn to take a picture without the computer doing everything for you. My Zeiss is as sharp as the canon when I slightly miss the focus and completely obliterates it when I do. "Legendary 85 1.2" my butt, more like "you got swept up by the hype".


----------



## retroreflection (Sep 28, 2016)

Canon (and others) lag behind by having no cell phones in their portfolio.

However, I am at a loss as to why you expect such an in-depth analysis. Are you pondering an investment in the photography industry (I advise against that)? Are you pondering the stability of Canon's product support long-term? Or, are you in the habit of pondering the inadequacies of others?

Unless one gets a significant job at a camera manufacturer, the perfection of photography equipment's technical capability is an utterly sealed fortress. One can only buy the best of the available products, hopefully staying within one's budget (and understanding that manufacturers have budgets, too).

Then there is the infinite space of learning to use those tools within their technical capabilities.


----------



## Labdoc (Sep 28, 2016)

Canon is doing just fine and will continue to have market share in the future. Competition will keep them on their toes. I think eventually they might get rid of the mirror as soon as the EVF and other logistics get sorted out. The mechanical mirror works but the world tends to go towards solid state and all the benefits of getting rid of moving parts. Having said that, many people, including myself don't care about what goes on in the camera as long as the pictures are good. 

One thing they could do would be to share upgrades in operating systems throughout the line. The 80D has 2 custom modes and re-programmable buttons but doesn't have the choices that the new 5D has with respect to back button focus. This is software issue and could bring new features to the whole line. To me it's different than a hardware difference that sets the different lines apart with respect to cost and would only make Canon more competitive all across the board.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 28, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> 50mm and 85mm lenses.
> 
> Canon were always said to be bought for their superior lenses but now, two of the most important key lenses for photography are surpassed by other manufacturers. Leaving the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.2 L two over-priced and low quality lenses. (This is in relation to Sigma ART lenses and Sony Batis lenses, etc)



It depends on whether you desire a 50mm or 85mm lens that demonstrates field curvature or a 50/85mm lens with a flat field. Of course a lens with intentionally uncorrected field curvature (Hint: Both the EF 50mm f/1.2 L and the EF 85mm f/1.2 L) will score lower on any resolution test that measures acutance from center to edge based on a flat test target. Especially if it weights the acutance at the edge equally with the acutance at the center! But you can't replicate the look a lens with field curvature gives you in the real world using a flat field lens.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 28, 2016)

Personally owning and using extensively the 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 , I'd consider both of them to be excellent lens.
They may well be overpriced .
I've no idea about the Sigma Art lens, they could be better but that doesn't change how good the Canon lens are.
If you can't take good photos with the Canon lens , give up. It's you not the equipment .
I'm not convinced that even half the people who comment on lens even own them.
Go and take some photographs and then express your opinion.
You never see graphical proof.
Where does Canon lag behind?
It's hard to tell with Canon, each camera holds things back.
They level every so often with sensors but not ahead.
They are slow to add electronic features (wifi, GPS etc) but do eventually.
The go for a great overall package that works.
The lens range is superb if you have deep pockets 

What would I like them to do
A) Medium format camera and lens (mirror less )
B) mirror less Full Frame
C) Better dynamic range ability 
D) Better ISO performance
E) Flippy screens like the G12


----------



## rrcphoto (Sep 28, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> Where does Canon fall behind the competition?
> 
> Can we make a list of that, that's completely objective and is neither fanboyish nor Sony-is-king-ish?
> 
> ...



let me know when you start.

TL;DR .. btw. good grief.

complaining about the 1300D which will go down to around 299 or less for the KIT in it's lifecyle .. are you for real? the 1300D will end up around 1/2 the price as it's lifecycle progresses if the T5 versus D3300 is any indication.

this cameras are competing on price, not necessarily on features.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Josh Denver said:
> 
> 
> > I'll start with the very low end failure:
> ...



the usual fanboy sales numbers bullS___...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> the usual fanboy sales numbers bullS___...



The usual crap spouted by those with the business acumen of a bowling ball, who can't seem to grasp that aggregate purchasing decisions – i.e., unit sales – are a major factor in a manufacturer's decisions about what features to include and what products to design and produce.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 28, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Josh Denver said:
> ...



Before working out what the problem is, you need to define whether there is a problem at all. So when Nikon have features that Canon doesn't, and Canon still outsell them then...what is the problem again? Why are you not asking the reverse question: that is, why are Nikon producing 'superior' products and still not #1? If you want fair market competition to keep Canon on the ball, keeping Nikon in the game is essential so you have to answer that question as well.
Any ideas?


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > the usual fanboy sales numbers bullS___...
> ...



yawn...


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 28, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



If for you guys it is satisfactory to know that Canon is selling the most units, for you to justify to yourself to stick to Canon, this is wonderful for you... Apparently not everybody is such a simple mind...


----------



## gsealy (Sep 28, 2016)

Coolhandchuck said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > Sabaki, which Zeiss lenses are you curious about? A lot of people are excited by the Otus lenses. But at $4k+ you'd expect them to be good. I'm sure if Canon wanted to sell a $4k 50mm lens, it would pretty good too. Whether anybody would buy it is another question.
> ...



I have the Milvus 85 1.4. Awesome, and at $1700 it is well worth the money. I agree with your thoughts about it.


----------



## gsealy (Sep 28, 2016)

The 5dIV is underwhelming and it not worth an upgrade from a 5DIII. It is not state of the art. The GH5 coming out is going to be a better video camera at about $1500 less. There is other competition too: the Fuji X-T2 and successors to the Sony A7RII and A7SII. Canon messed up here given that the 5dIV is brand new and is expected to be around for 3 years of so. I expect Fuji will even improve the X-T2 very shortly so that it has improved video specs.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 28, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



It's not being simple-minded. Surely if a company provides what (the majority of) people want at a cheaper price point than the opposition, then that is being ahead ?


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 28, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Yes it is simple minded. It is switching ones brain off and trusting that the masses will be right...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> If for you guys it is satisfactory to know that Canon is selling the most units, for you to justify to yourself to stick to Canon, this is wonderful for you... Apparently not everybody is such a simple mind...



Evidently some of us are such simpletons that we can undestand our own needs and wants for camera gear, while simultaneously putting those needs into the larger context of the reality that we aren't making gear for ourselves, we depend on corporations to make it for us, and those corporations make decisions based on factors outside of our personal control.

But some of us live in our own little world where our own desires trump objective reality. Interestingly, that latter situation is one definition of insanity.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



neuroanatomist said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > If for you guys it is satisfactory to know that Canon is selling the most units, for you to justify to yourself to stick to Canon, this is wonderful for you... Apparently not everybody is such a simple mind...
> ...



Sweet... That was it with words of wisdom for today?


----------



## Harv (Sep 28, 2016)

I suspect the folks at Canon know a lot more about how to provide return on investment to the shareholders than the OP, while keeping the customer well satisfied. If that was not the case, Canon would not have the market share they do. Period.

By the way, if the OP feels Canon is shortchanging him, he has the option of using products from Nikon, Fuji, Sony etc..

P.S. I still don't understand the purpose of this thread being started in the first place.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



romanr74 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



Well, for anyone unable to grasp this simple fact, well-stated by Harv:



Harv said:


> I suspect the folks at Canon know a lot more about how to provide return on investment to the shareholders than the OP, while keeping the customer well satisfied. If that was not the case, Canon would not have the market share they do. Period.



...those words of wisdom are falling on deaf ears. Or more properly put, an uncomprehending mind.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



neuroanatomist said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You're getting ever more credible as a discerning customer, my dear lemming. Canon is very happy to have you guys...


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



romanr74 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



Interesting you were able to work lemming's in to the conversation. It is a rare feat and one I haven't seen on the net before. 

However the reference is similar to the OP's conclusions. It is a myth propagated by the media, where the OP is stating myths propagated by irrational forum posters.

"_In 1958 Walt Disney produced "White Wilderness," part of the studio's "True Life Adventure" series. "White Wilderness" featured a segment on lemmings, detailing their strange compulsion to commit mass suicide.

According to a 1983 investigation by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation producer Brian Vallee, the lemming scenes were faked. The lemmings supposedly committing mass suicide by leaping into the ocean were actually thrown off a cliff by the Disney filmmakers. The epic "lemming migration" was staged using careful editing, tight camera angles and a few dozen lemmings running on snow covered lazy-Susan style turntable._"


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



takesome1 said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yet you got the point...  . 

PS: We both know that whoever is even remotely criticizing Canon is an irrational forum poster... After all, they sell more units than everybody else!


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



romanr74 said:


> Yet you got the point...



You mean that beloved Disney threw lemming's off the side of a cliff for dramatic and artistic effect?
Yes that point is well taken.

When we are discussing Canon lagging behind, in this one situation it does not. The 1D series AF system and the big white lenses would be able to focus and catch the action of the lemmings plunging to their death better than their competitors. 

Maybe we should also be discussing the areas where Canon (arguably) leads the market.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 28, 2016)

Harv said:


> I suspect the folks at Canon know a lot more about how to provide return on investment to the shareholders than the OP, while keeping the customer well satisfied.



As you stated correctly, you only "suspect"...



Harv said:


> By the way, if the OP feels Canon is shortchanging him, he has the option of using products from Nikon, Fuji, Sony etc..



Very much so!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



romanr74 said:


> You're getting ever more credible as a discerning customer, my dear lemming. Canon is very happy to have you guys...



Apparently you are unable to distinguish between people making purchasing decisions based on products with features that best meet their personal needs (and note that 'best meets' doesn't mean 'perfectly meets all needs and wants'), and 'following the herd'. Do you believe that if a product fails to meet _your_ needs, then it doesn't meet anyone's needs? 

I am always saddened to come across people with small, closed minds. But, like the reality of business goals and their impact on product development, I can accept that there are plenty of such people in the world.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



takesome1 said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > Yet you got the point...
> ...



The thing that bugs me in this forum, is that people who want to discuss areas where they feel Canon is lagging behind, are made to shut up by killer phrases like "they sell more units than everybody else. hence they are right. period." I don't consider this a healthy and fruitful discussion culture. There are many areas where in my opinion Canon is blowing minds. And these are discussed here as well. Why is it not possible to have a reasonable discussion on where Canon might need to catch up with competitors?


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



neuroanatomist said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > You're getting ever more credible as a discerning customer, my dear lemming. Canon is very happy to have you guys...
> ...



Not sure you realized, but there was not a single mention about my needs! You fantasize into my statements again... I'm always saddened to come across people who are so occupied with themselves that they are not capable (to even try) to understand what someone else is stating...


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



romanr74 said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



"Catch Up" might be the sticking point. What is the measuring stick? In a capitalist market the measuring stick would probably be the number of units sold.

The title says it all _"lags behind in the Market"_. Units sold and the dollar value mater if we are looking at the _"Market"_.

Perhaps if the OP had posted this title _"Canon's technology lags behind its competitors"_, then we could have the discussion you believe we should have.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



takesome1 said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Come on, you understood where he was trying to get!?


----------



## NancyP (Sep 28, 2016)

Sensor could have more dynamic resolution. Otherwise the Canon DSLR line is pretty darn versatile for stills photographers, and it is hard to find lens categories not well served by Canon (or worth serving - Canon doesn't have an under $1,000.00 supertelephoto zoom, but why bother when the market is covered by Sigma (Contemporary) and Tamron 150 - 600 lenses).

I am not a video photographer and don't know the various brands' strengths and weaknesses. 

Canon 85 f/1.2 seems to be used mostly as a specialty portrait lens with AF, and is 10 years old. Zeiss Milvus 85 f/1.4 is a very recent refresh of a prior design for a manual focus only lens. These lenses likely have different users in mind. I haven't used either. I can tell you that there will always be a market for portrait lenses that render well but may not have corner to corner sharpness. I know this because I look in the mirror - I am young-looking for my age, but nothing will give me the skin of a 20 year old again... ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



romanr74 said:


> I don't consider this a healthy and fruitful discussion culture.



So you believe it's helpful and fruitful contribute to the discussion culture by suggesting that people who choose to buy Canon gear are small-minded lemmings?

:


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



neuroanatomist said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't consider this a healthy and fruitful discussion culture.
> ...



Go read my posts again and try to understand them switching your fantasy off... yes?

PS: My post you selectively quoted was btw an attempt to pacify the discussion but you do not seem to be interested in that...

PPS: And NancyP just before did an attempt to bring the discussion back to the original topic - thank you!


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 28, 2016)

It's fascinating all the time that when the Canon bashers get confronted with rational and more than less objective arguments they withdraw to the same subjective arguments like "fan boy", "must do better or be *******" and so on.

Funny, that the Canon marketing and market model seems to work.
Funny, that in a free enterprise economy we customers have eventually just one scope of influence: to vote with our purse.
Funny, that some people still believe they could have an influence on that by posting on some internet fora.
Funny, they still believe that although market development and market share tells a different story throughout the last few years.

Of course I'd like Canon to built me my customized do-what-I-want camera, offer it to me for free and put a EF 600/4LII as givaway on top, but I am to rooted and realistic to know that this is further away form reality than we are from the big bang background noise. :

Summary:
If someone else has a better offer for you than Canon, please move on. 
But please don't try to evangelize those who have a different point of view.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



romanr74 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



Why don't you read your own posts again. Then google the word 'metacognition'. 



romanr74 said:


> the usual fanboy sales numbers bullS___...





romanr74 said:


> If for you guys it is satisfactory to know that Canon is selling the most units, for you to justify to yourself to stick to Canon, this is wonderful for you... Apparently not everybody is such a simple mind...





romanr74 said:


> Yes it is simple minded. It is switching ones brain off and trusting that the masses will be right...





romanr74 said:


> You're getting ever more credible as a discerning customer, my dear lemming. Canon is very happy to have you guys...


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



neuroanatomist said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Neuro, you really didn't read them... or you didn't understand them. Where do you read from me that people "who choose to buy Canon gear are small-minded lemmings"? What I wrote is that people who use "units sold" as their sole measure to justify buying canon to themselves, are simple minded. To me this is not quite the same. To you?


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



romanr74 said:


> The thing that bugs me in this forum, is that people who want to discuss areas where they feel Canon is lagging behind, are made to shut up by killer phrases like "they sell more units than everybody else. hence they are right. period."


We come back (yet again) to what is meant by 'lagging behind'. 
Every manufacturer has to make compromises in manufaturer of a product. And yes, I do mean 'every manfacturer'
The view of some (notably the videographers) seem to imagine that Canon could (some even insist, should) cover all grounds by exceeding the specs of every other competitor. A small number say that in not doing so Canon are committing commercial suicide, implying they know better than the number on manufacturer how to manufacture and sell cameras. 

So the question is not what technology Canon must introduce but what compromises they need to make to meet the needs of the target market, not every tom dick and harry. It seems that you an others are unable to grasp that concept and when people say they are happy with the compromises Canon makes _at that price point_ you decry them as being fanboys, small minded lemmings or unambitious. 

Sony may make a wonderful videographers tool but there are distinct shortcomings in other areas notable AF as a working tool. Not to mention their after-sales service which, believe it or not, has to be funded by the sales price of cameras. 
And given the financial reports of Sony, do you want to buy a fantastic product from a company whose finances continually raise concern or do you want a company with a long, and profitable history? 
As I say, compromises. 




romanr74 said:


> I don't consider this a healthy and fruitful discussion culture.



Why is continually banging the drum about Canon's financial and technical incompetence any more fruitful than saying 'actually Canon are doing a lot of things right and their sales numbers provide evidence of that'?



romanr74 said:


> There are many areas where in my opinion Canon is blowing minds. And these are discussed here as well. Why is it not possible to have a reasonable discussion on where Canon might need to catch up with competitors?





> What I wrote is that people who use "units sold" as their sole measure to justify buying canon to themselves, are simple minded. To me this is not quite the same. To you?


We have not said that sales are justification for buying it. We said sales are evidence Canon is getting the technological balance right. Quite a different point. 


I have n problem with people saying 'Canon could introduce these technologies'. What is irritating is then extending that to say by not incorporating [what I want] Canon is an incompetent business.

If you recall it was the OP who compared the specs of the C1300 and the specs of the N3400 and said the N3400 was a better entry level camera. We have merely pointed out that if it was a better camera why is is outsold by the C1300 - a question none of the Canon-knockers have even ventured to explain, sticking instead with their 'Canon is ******* to failure' mantra

Fruitful discussions need 2 participants.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



Mikehit said:


> We have not said that sales are justification for buying it. We said sales are evidence Canon is getting the technological balance right. Quite a different point.



And I disagree! There is many (many) more factors which are relevant to market share and units sold than technological balance. Actually the overall "marketing approach" is far more relevant than the technological balance. The technological balance must not be off - and no-one is claiming that it is btw - but it is not the most decisive factor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



romanr74 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



In that case, you should apologize to all those people on CR forums who buy Canon gear solely because Canon sells lots of cameras and lenses. How many people is that, in your opinion? Certainly no one contributing to this thread. So, if your comments here aren't insulting, then they're completely irrelevant. Yet you felt the need to post them anyway.  That says something about you, and not something flattering.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *

I believe the OP had nothing mean in mind when he started this discussion...


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



neuroanatomist said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Neuro you're pathetic...


----------



## dak723 (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



Mikehit said:


> If you recall it was the OP who compared the specs of the Canon 1300 and the specs of the Nikon 3400 and said the Nikon 3400 was a better entry level camera.



If the OP had taken 5 minutes of internet research, he would have realized that these are not comparable cameras. The Canon 1300D is their "earlier generation" camera that is repackaged as a new budget model. The latest entry level rebel is the 750D. So it is hard to take seriously this particular effort to put down Canon and claim it is lagging behind. 

Why do some of us criticize this type of thread? I can only speak for myself, of course, but this type of thread is nothing more than an opportunity to whine. I do not want to listen to whiners who then claim they just are looking for discussion. This is not discussion. Discussion would take the same topic and put it this way:

I am comparing the Canon 750d and the Nikon 3400. I see some areas where the Nikon seems to have better tech. Is there anyone out there who has used both cameras and could compare the two in terms of real-life use?

That's how you begin a discussion. 

As for the endless whining....Why? You do realize that this is not a forum affiliated in any way, don't you? You do realize that cameras are not made for YOU specifically, don't you? You do realize that only children whine about what they can't have - adults deal with it and make decisions to get the best possible alternative. If that means choosing a different camera company, that's the sensible thing to do. Whining on an internet forum is NOT the sensible thing to do. Dwelling on the negative is not healthy nor productive. Dwelling on the negative has a negative effect on others. Dwelling on the negative is unfair to newcomers to the forum looking for real advice who want a fair review of what's available. Funny how we criticize folks at DPReview or DXO for being biased while the negative comments here are biased beyond measure.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



romanr74 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > We have not said that sales are justification for buying it. We said sales are evidence Canon is getting the technological balance right. Quite a different point.
> ...



It seems to me that both yourself and the OP are suggesting Canon shouldn't put a camera into the bottom of the dslr market at (English) £289 because it is theoretically less advanced than one from another company that costs £399. I think there would be quite a few people that can only afford £289 who would disagree with you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



romanr74 said:


> the usual fanboy sales numbers bullS___...



...



romanr74 said:


> Neuro you're pathetic...





romanr74 said:


> I believe the OP had nothing mean in mind when he started this discussion...



But obviously you did when you entered this discussion...and you've followed through on that intent with vigor.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 29, 2016)

Has Dilbert morphed?

Jack


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 29, 2016)

Attached is a market snapshot for high-end full-frame interchangeable-lens cameras as of earlier this month. Class-leading features are highlighted dark green, features close to being class-leading are highlighted light green and disadvantages are highlighted in red.
(Apologies for any errors/omissions)

With the spread of colors I think it is obvious that no camera in the market is perfect.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 29, 2016)

Boy, was that as much work as it appears. Good presentation. 

Just watch the news and consider how fortunate we are to be able to debate the shortcomings in this fancy gear we all have rather than having to worry if we'll be bombed tonight.

I'd like to see a thread where every aspect of the DSLR shortcomings is clearly delineated by illustrative photos but alas I suspect that many posters would have little to show. Armchair quarterbacks? Come on folk, post your photos that illustrate that canon technology is poor, incapable of delivering a good photo. 

I think the many threads of photos being posted daily clearly show otherwise. 

Jack


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 29, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Attached is a market snapshot for high-end full-frame interchangeable-lens cameras as of earlier this month. Class-leading features are highlighted dark green, features close to being class-leading are highlighted light green and disadvantages are highlighted in red.
> (Apologies for any errors/omissions)
> 
> With the spread of colors I think it is obvious that no camera in the market is perfect.


Sony suppose to be winning these spec sheet / chart comparisons by a distance. Surprised it didn't happen.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 29, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Boy, was that as much work as it appears. Good presentation.
> 
> Just watch the news and consider how fortunate we are to be able to debate the shortcomings in this fancy gear we all have rather than having to worry if we'll be bombed tonight.
> 
> ...



OK..... here are three examples of how poor Canon Cameras are.

In the first image, it is obvious that the Canon camera has insufficient dynamic range to capture the sun and the shadows on the back of the tree, and the automatic exposure setting just picked the centre and did not pick an artistic setting....

In the second picture, despite being at sunset and shooting at a 30th of a second, when this heron unexpectedly flew past, the AF system was unable to keep the bird in perfect focus.

The third picture is also an AF problem. Despite the subject being inside the minimum focus distance of the lens, the camera refused to lock on the rodent and instead choose the decking behind it...

Seriously though? Bad pictures? Any camera can take bad pictures.... Any photographer can take bad pictures... Don't make me bring out my iPhone


----------



## unfocused (Sep 29, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Attached is a market snapshot for high-end full-frame interchangeable-lens cameras as of earlier this month...



This reminds me that we all ought to thank either nature or the divinity of our choice for creating obsessive compulsive people. Well done!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 29, 2016)

Hey Don, you came through with flying colors. 

It reminds me of my woodworking that just doesn't compare with that done by many pros. It also reminds me of some of my past bodywork and painting that exceeded what comes out of most body shops. My tools are just run of the mill. There are the tools and then there are the craftsmen and of course this is nothing new. Being new to this hobby I have always blamed myself for my photographic failings but CR is starting to change that and now I'm getting GAS too! 

Still, I think it would be enlightening to have example photos show what the various complaints are relating to.

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Don't make me bring out my iPhone



It has a Sony sensor. Gotta be better.


----------



## Refurb7 (Sep 29, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> Where does Canon fall behind the competition?
> ....
> 
> Might be a fail vs the D750 but will leave that to you guys. Remember this is not ''what I want from Canon'', it's where are they failing behind rivals?



I don't care about any of that stuff. Canon does what I need. I'm not going to spend any time analyzing the camera market, who is falling behind in some detail or other, etc. Analyzing the camera market is neither my job nor my hobby. Happy to let other people spend their time on that.

But I will comment about Canon's alleged lack of interest in video. FWIW, every wedding videographer that I see uses Canon. I see about a dozen wedding videographers at work each year. They all use Canon. All of them. I can't even remember a time when I saw one not using Canon.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 29, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



StudentOfLight said:


> Attached is a market snapshot for high-end full-frame interchangeable-lens cameras as of earlier this month.
> ...


Thank you for bringing back real arguments! (although the OP was focused more on the entry level  )



ritholtz said:


> Sony suppose to be winning these spec sheet / chart comparisons by a distance. Surprised it didn't happen.


No surprise!!! Because that is reality.

But it is already surprising how much those "Sony is so much better! Canon is *******!" folks have already changed the perspective of others just by repeating their mantra over and over again. 
This is how spin doctors and opinion formers work and this is how it is possible that lies become truth - at least in the brains of the masses.

So sad but true, that intelligence decreases with the number of people in a group.

Edit, searching for a positive ending:
Try to stay friendly, try to stay objective.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 29, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



neuroanatomist said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > the usual fanboy sales numbers bullS___...
> ...



Absolutely Neuro, in sharp contrast to you : ! Little hypochrist maybe?



neuroanatomist said:


> The usual crap spouted by those with the business acumen of a bowling ball...





neuroanatomist said:


> But some of us live in our own little world where our own desires trump objective reality. Interestingly, that latter situation is one definition of insanity.





neuroanatomist said:


> Or more properly put, an uncomprehending mind.





neuroanatomist said:


> I am always saddened to come across people with small, closed minds. But, like the reality of business goals and their impact on product development, I can accept that there are plenty of such people in the world.





neuroanatomist said:


> Then google the word 'metacognition'.





neuroanatomist said:


> That says something about you, and not something flattering.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 29, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



Sporgon said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



I don't know where you read that suggestion from me...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 29, 2016)

Market snapshot for 5D-III (when there was basically no competition)


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 29, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> 2- 50mm and 85mm lenses.
> 
> Canon were always said to be bought for their superior lenses but now, two of the most important key lenses for photography are surpassed by other manufacturers. Leaving the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.2 L two over-priced and low quality lenses. (This is in relation to Sigma ART lenses and Sony Batis lenses, etc)



This claim is wrong for three reasons:

1. The uber 50mm f/1.4s (Sigma Art, Zeiss Otus, Sigma 58mm f/1.4G) are not in the same class as the EF 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.2

The EF 50mm f/1.4 is a $350 lens. The uber 50mm f/1.4s are in the $1000-$1500 bracket.

The EF 50mm f/1.2 is a portraiture lens. The uber 50mm f/1.4s are sharpness lenses.

Your comparison is apples to oranges. The ubers are in a new spot, and Canon hasn't made a lens in that spot yet.

2. Canon has plenty of lenses the competitors haven't answered yet, e.g. MP-E 65mm 5x macro lens, TS-E 17mm, and EF 11-24mm.

Its fun saying "canon is behind is this lens", and forget that "the competitors are behind on this lens".

3. You're looking at how things are *now*.

Canon has upgraded a lot of lenses in recent years, e.g. the 24mm-28mm-35mm primes, the 24-105mm kit, the super-teles, etc.

Wait a year, see whether Canon catches up with those two lenses. You can't? Buy Nikon, and remember it works both ways - the EF 11-24mm f/4 is ~18 months old, the TS-E 17mm is 7 years old, and the MP-E 65mm is 17 years old.


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 29, 2016)

re. mirrorslappers Canon and Nikon are almost even, except delta in DR - where Canon has achieved progress to catch up with the last few models. 

Canon's is lagging in 2 major areas in (stills imaging) product lineup:
1. still NO full frame mirrorless system (like Nikon, unlike Sony)
2. not enough push in APS-C mirrorless. 
a) middle-clas camera with EVF comes extremely late. M5 was overdue for at least 3 years. Had Canon launched it in late 2012, Fuj X-system would have probably sold only 50% of the units they did sell during these years. 
b) EF-M lenses. All fine and dandy, but short tele is still missing: EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM. And they could certainly also have added a EF-M 50/1.8 STM IS and a EF-M 35/2.0 STM pancake by now and sold a good number. 

Other than lagging, I see two major areas of opportunity where Canon is not leading, not fully leveraging unique technological trump cards:
1. RT wireless flash system - first to market, works quite well and reliable ... BUT ... 
a) Canon is still not including RT-commander in cameras - should have done so ever since since 5D3/7D II. Different radio frequency laws etc. could be handled exactly as with WiFi - by geographical locks/unlocks of frequencies via firmware. 
b) no small and affordable RT-receiver - to integrate customer's 580EX II's / 430EX II's and studio strobes in radio wireless RT-setups. Now companioes like Phottix are doing the latter. That could all be sales for Canon and keeping their customers happy and in their own eco-system.
c) failure to sell an RT commander with AF assist light 
d) missing update of Canon wireless ETTL protocol to include 2nd curtain sync and remote (manual) control over speedlite zoom reflector. 

2. Eye Control AF v2.0 
not in in any digital Canon camera - neither DSLR nor mirrorless. Would be a major true USP. Highly useful to most customers and in all situations when shooting using viewfinder. 


4k video? Use your iPhone or action cam. Or buy a video camera if your wannabe serious about video. Enough on the market.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 29, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> Josh Denver said:
> 
> 
> > 2- 50mm and 85mm lenses.
> ...


More novel options:
2011 - Canon EF 8-15mm f/4 L USM fisheye
2013 - Canon EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS USM (1.4x Int)
2014 - Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM

And lets not forget to mention lightweight inexpensive options like:
1993 - Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1997 - Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L USM


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 29, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Josh Denver said:
> ...


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 29, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



Antono Refa said:


> ...
> That might help explain why one of the two companies sells more than the other.


You still didn't get it.

This thread isn't about market success and a versatile product portfolio.
This thread is about the (few) shortcomings, deficits, and other flaws Canon has.
Otherwise we couldn't postulate the doom and fail of Canons product portfolio strategy. 
Because this strategy is so wrong that they must fail, as it is missing the needs of the market so much.
At least if I am able to define a one-man market: 
me
[/sarc mode]


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



romanr74 said:


> Absolutely Neuro, in sharp contrast to you : ! Little hypochrist maybe?



I entered the thread with a reasoned post presenting an opinion supported by facts and data. You entered the thread with a snarky, profane one-liner response to my post that added nothing to the topic. Your second post here, the single word 'yawn', was equally pithy and even more worthless. Then you complained about the lack of a 'helpful and fruitful discussion culture'. So, the award for hypocrite of the week goes to you. Congratulations.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 29, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



neuroanatomist said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely Neuro, in sharp contrast to you : ! Little hypochrist maybe?
> ...



Good morning, live happy in your world, restating every second day that Canon is selling more than everybody else, thus adding to the respective topic...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



romanr74 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > romanr74 said:
> ...



Just for some novelty, you could try presenting some data to support you position. Probably beyond you, though, and admittedly difficult because there really aren't data to support your position (anecdotes aren't data!). So I guess that leaves you with snarky one-liners as your best approach. How sad.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 29, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



Maximilian said:


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



Indeed you didn't. You should read the whole post again, except for the sentence you've quoted.



Maximilian said:


> This thread isn't about market success and a versatile product portfolio.



My post wasn't about that. It was about the reasons for that success, which stand in contradiction to your criticism.



Maximilian said:


> This thread is about the (few) shortcomings, deficits, and other flaws Canon has.



Actually, it sounds like the thread is all about "Maximilian bitches about Canon products not beating the competition's products in every possible way at any and all times".


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 29, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



neuroanatomist said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You can continue to be as insulting and mean as you want Neuro if it makes you feel better. That however doesn't make Amazon sales ranks relevant data to discuss the (individual) perception of technical aspects of whatsoever product.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



romanr74 said:


> You can continue to be as insulting and mean as you want Neuro if it makes you feel better. That however doesn't make Amazon sales ranks relevant data to discuss the (individual) perception of technical aspects of whatsoever product.



Oh, and here I read the topic title as, "Analyzing where Canon lags behind *in the market*." 

BTW, who started with the insults? Yeah, that's what I thought. Still no data to share? Sad.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 29, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



Antono Refa said:


> ...
> Actually, it sounds like the thread is all about "Maximilian bitches about Canon products not beating the competition's products in every possible way at any and all times".


Antono, if your post was meant in the same - sarcastic - way as mine about the others complaining about Canon I must admit that I didn't get your humor. Sorry. :-[

If you didn't get mine (humor), I must apologize. Excuse me!


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 29, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



neuroanatomist said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > You can continue to be as insulting and mean as you want Neuro if it makes you feel better. That however doesn't make Amazon sales ranks relevant data to discuss the (individual) perception of technical aspects of whatsoever product.
> ...



We had the topic title discussion yesterday. You must have missed that. No problem...

I'm bored, you don't make progress in this discussion, your in a loop, i didn't expect that from you, i was wrong  

I'm gone...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



romanr74 said:


> I'm gone...



In terms of meaningful contributions, you were never here.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 29, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



Maximilian said:


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



I apologize for hurting your feeling.

To clarify my point:

1. Of course Canon has some shortcomings, deficits, and other flaws. Question is why bother discussing those.

2. Those shortcomings, deficits, etc must be taken in context.

Yes, Canon lags behind Nikon's excellent 58mm f/1.4g. But as one can buy Sigma's or Zeiss' excellent 50mm f/1.4 lenses, its not as bad as Nikon lagging behind some Canon lenses for which there is no F mount equivalent.

To carry things on: if Nikon (or any other 3rd party manufacturer making F mount lenses) didn't bother making a 1-5x macro lens for >15 years, its probably because there's little profit in it. So Nikon lags behind, and loses some sales to Canon.

Whats the point of pointing it out? People who want a 5X macro lens wouldn't understand their only option is a Canon body & MP-E 65mm lens unless its discussed in a CR forum thread? Nikon suddenly change its mind and make one?


----------



## d (Sep 29, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> Where does Canon fall behind the competition?
> 
> Can we make a list of that, that's *completely objective* and is *neither fanboyish* nor Sony-is-king-ish?
> 
> ...



Bold, underlined emphasis mine.

OP claims to want a "completely objective" non "fanboyish" discussion, yet litters the post with words like "inferior" and "failure". Seems their grasp of the meaning of 'objectivity' could be a little "inferior", by their "failure" to properly quantify Canon's so-called deficiencies.

Thanks for contributing such a useful thread, Josh...oh, you don't appear to be participating anymore, I wonder why?


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 29, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



Antono Refa said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...


Thank you for your answer and luckily no feelings were hurt and no apologize needed. 
I was just a bit confused and didn't know, how to understand your answer.



> To clarify my point:
> ...


And to clarify my point:

I'm almost 100% with you! (as I was before, as well)

I think with my first post here (reply #15) I showed my opinion. In brief:

The OPs comparison on entry level bodies was lacking objectivity
he misses the portfolio of good entry level lenses like the 50STM and the 10-18STM
Canon can improve in some points but the competition as well in others
After that this thread began to turn into what it is now, leaving me shaking my head and making some sarcastic posts to make it more bearable. My fault was to use your serious reply #80 and to think it was obvious, that I didn't meant to attack your point of view but to support it in an ironic way.

I hope that made it clear in the end.


----------



## addola (Sep 29, 2016)

You should worry, fanboy or not, about Canon. Canon sells! They have a larger market share in the photo industry. That's true, But...

Do you know who else had a large market share in their corresponding sector? Nokia. Nokia had the lion's share of the mobile phone market for years. Where's Nokia now? 

It's because as you work hard, others are working hard, too. Personally, I have more interest in having a market full of options, innovations & competition. 

We should have a legitimate worry about Canon. I think, like many others do, that Canon worry too much about lower end models cannibalizing their higher-end model. That's why they seem to sort of "cripple" their lower end cameras. Here's are my random thought:

*Updating Camera & Meaningful, Useful Specs*
_SD Cards Slots_
Canon is yet to update the 6D, which has only one SD slot (compared to two slots in Nikon's FF). Also Nikon D7000's have dual slots. Dual SDs are useful in critical shoots like weddings.
_Flash Sync Speed_
My Nikon FE2 had 1/250. My 6D has 1/180. 

*Sensor Technology?*
According to DxOMark, Canon sensors are not as good as Sony-made sensor that are used in Nikon, Sony & Pentax cameras. Canon sensor typically have lower dynamic range at base (and lower) ISO, but kind of higher (if slightly) at higher ISO.
Nikon makes sensor that has weak DR at low ISO, but better DR at higher ISO (like in the Nikon D5)
_Personally :_ I do not care too much about this. I can compensate for the lower DR at base ISO by bracketing my shots if the scene have a challenging DR (highlights & shadows all over the place)

*Lenses*
_Side Note : _ Canon EF mount is larger in diameter, allowing for larger aperture than Sony & Nikon. I heard Canon's 1.2 lenses can not go to 1.2 when adapted to Sony E-Mount. 

Canon is not lagging here. I totally disagree! I love Nikon, but their popular zooms (24-70 & 70-200) lag behind Canon & Tamron’s offering. 
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 & 50mm f/1.2L are relatively old. Canon’s 50mm f/1.8 STM is newer, and have slightly better resolution than Nikon’s newer 50mm f/1.8G 

Similarly with the 85/1.8 & 85L. They are relatively old. Nikon did a great job with their 85mm f/1.8G (introduced in 2012) which is better than Canon 85/1.8 (introduced in 1992, 20 years older)

Use the 35L II as a baseline for what newer L primes from Canon could be. Also compare the older 35L with Nikon's much newer 35mm f/1.4. 

I would bet that an updated 85L would beat the Otus. 

*Video*
Some people complain about video codecs being inefficient, and the ability to shoot 4K at models like 80D. But what Nikon camera shoots 4K other than the D5?

Also lower end, APS-C Nikon cameras do 1080/60p. So they're competing there!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2016)

addola said:


> You should worry, fanboy or not, about Canon. Canon sells! They have a larger market share in the photo industry. That's true, But...
> 
> Do you know who else had a large market share in their corresponding sector? Nokia. Nokia had the lion's share of the mobile phone market for years. Where's Nokia now?



Thanks, I knew it was just a matter of time before Nokia was brought into the discussion. What paradigm shift do you see hitting the ILC market? Because that's the crux of the analogy. Smartphones killed Nokia (and the compact camera market), not a slightly different flip phone. Absent a paradigm shift, Nokia is irrelevant as an analogy.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> addola said:
> 
> 
> > You should worry, fanboy or not, about Canon. Canon sells! They have a larger market share in the photo industry. That's true, But...
> ...



Not really, the name of the thread is _"Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the *market*"_

Nokia's failure in the phone business was due to its inability to adapt and offer a product to match the iPhone and Android. In much the same way this has already happened to Canon and Nikon, as you say _"Smartphones killed Nokia (and the compact camera market)"_. Canon didn't adapt and smartphones are taking over as the compact camera of today.

But wait, now the iPhone 7 has improved low light capabilities and is advertised as shooting 4K video. Obviously this is no threat to the bodies we buy, we buy 1Dx and 5Dxxx and are looking for the highest of quality. But how about the entry level DSLR? A few years ago people who wanted a quality picture of grandkids and family they went to the DSLR. But the same individual today might be inclined to go to an iPhone.


----------



## Baba_HT (Sep 29, 2016)

Canon die-hard to the bone. Will never leave home without my 5dmk3 8)


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> But wait, now the iPhone 7 has improved low light capabilities and is advertised as shooting 4K video. Obviously this is no threat to the bodies we buy, we buy 1Dx and 5Dxxx and are looking for the highest of quality. But how about the entry level DSLR? A few years ago people who wanted a quality picture of grandkids and family they went to the DSLR. But the same individual today might be inclined to go to an iPhone.



I'm still not sure that analogy holds. 
Up to the 1990s anyone who only had a passing interest in photography had no camera at all. In the 2000s the cost of cameras plummeted and many people bought them because they could, even though the camera stayed at home most of the time after the novelty wore off because it was inconvenient to lug them around everywhere - it was this market that led to the rapid inflation in camera ownership. Then came the smartphone and the smartphone filled the niche they wanted - so that in the 1990s I referred to group have gone from no camera to smartphones and the last 15 years or so has been almost an artificial blip forced by lack of choice.
Many of the people who would have owned cameras in the 1990s have today also embraced the iphone and they use it when they would otherwise not bother carrying a camera anyway and this is no threat to Canon in the main because they are using something that Canon cannot compete against - and nor does mirrorless of any description. 

So IMO it is a distraction to look on that market as an indicator as to whether Canon (or any other brand) is doing the right thing within their market sector.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > But wait, now the iPhone 7 has improved low light capabilities and is advertised as shooting 4K video. Obviously this is no threat to the bodies we buy, we buy 1Dx and 5Dxxx and are looking for the highest of quality. But how about the entry level DSLR? A few years ago people who wanted a quality picture of grandkids and family they went to the DSLR. But the same individual today might be inclined to go to an iPhone.
> ...



It doesn't. Smartphones are an extrinsic factor, affecting the ILC market as a whole but not the rankings within it, and the latter is the topic at hand.


----------



## Josh Denver (Sep 29, 2016)

d said:


> Josh Denver said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for contributing such a useful thread, Josh...oh, you don't appear to be participating anymore, I wonder why?
> ...


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 29, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> Where does Canon fall behind the competition?
> 
> Can we make a list of that, that's completely objective and is neither fanboyish nor Sony-is-king-ish?
> 
> ...



The AF systems are virtually identical, they both only have 1 cross type AF point, and I can track birds quite well with the center point on the 1100D.

Canon has NFC where Nikon has Bluetooth, they're comparable enough.

Would I love to have Nikon's 24MP sensor? Sure, but not over the availability of amazing lenses like the 55-250IS STM and very good and insanely inexpensive Nifty Fifty (and the 40mm Pancake, and the 24mm Pancake).
Canon's low end body/lens possibilities are much more compelling than anything from Nikon.
(and lets not forget that Nikon is still selling lenses that don't have an electronic focus motor and are incompatible with low end bodies.)

After owning the 1100D for four years I can say that outside of the lack of wi-fi, I can't find any significant omissions with the camera.
(I would love a tilty screen, but when you can find it for under $400 nothing at that price point has that.)

When I had a 5D2 it was amazing how much similarity there was between the two cameras, so much so that I kept the T3 over the 5D2.


----------



## Refurb7 (Sep 29, 2016)

Baba_HT said:


> Canon die-hard to the bone. Will never leave home without my 5dmk3 8)



I hear you. Analyzing the market seems like a colossal waste of time when you have a camera as good as that.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 30, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



Maximilian said:


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



No need to apologise. You flagged the humour very clearly. You can't be held responsible for people missing it even then.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 30, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Boy, was that as much work as it appears. Good presentation.
> ...



Is the bird out of focus or just motion blurred? Actually I guess it's quite hard to tell by that point


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 30, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...


I believe it is both.... But when it comes to taking bad pictures, it really helps to have the right (wrong?) gear. Full moon as shot with iPhone


----------



## Rocky (Sep 30, 2016)

[q uote autho r=Mikehit link=topic=30940.msg627342#msg627342 date=1475174976]

I'm still not sure that analogy holds. 
Up to the 1990s anyone who only had a passing interest in photography had no camera at all. In the 2000s the cost of cameras plummeted and many people bought them because they could, even though the camera stayed at home most of the time after the novelty wore off because it was inconvenient to lug them around everywhere - it was this market that led to the rapid inflation in camera ownership. Then came the smartphone and the smartphone filled the niche they wanted - so that in the 1990s I referred to group have gone from no camera to smartphones and the last 15 years or so has been almost an artificial blip forced by lack of choice.
Many of the people who would have owned cameras in the 1990s have today also embraced the iphone and they use it when they would otherwise not bother carrying a camera anyway and this is no threat to Canon in the main because they are using something that Canon cannot compete against - and nor does mirrorless of any description. 

So IMO it is a distraction to look on that market as an indicator as to whether Canon (or any other brand) is doing the right thing within their market sector.
[/quote]
I wonder how many people that bought the smart phone in the 1990 have never own a camera. Camera has been around since 1930. Pocket able camera has ben around since 1960.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 30, 2016)

*Re: Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market *



Don Haines said:


> ...
> I believe it is both.... But when it comes to taking bad pictures, it really helps to have the right (wrong?) gear. Full moon as shot with iPhone


Don, that was exactly the right gear for this situation. Because what you see here is not the full moon but the globular cluster M80 right beside the full moon. 
Only the iPhone with its high DR and wonderful digital x1.000.000 zoom could isolate this one from the bright light of the moon. 
(I love the auto star tracker motive mode  ) 
Isn't it brilliant? 


PS.: Due to this difficult shooting conditions the resolution wasn't good enough anymore to display the stars individually in the center of the globular cluster.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 30, 2016)

Rocky said:


> [q uote autho r=Mikehit link=topic=30940.msg627342#msg627342 date=1475174976]
> 
> I'm still not sure that analogy holds.
> Up to the 1990s anyone who only had a passing interest in photography had no camera at all. In the 2000s the cost of cameras plummeted and many people bought them because they could, even though the camera stayed at home most of the time after the novelty wore off because it was inconvenient to lug them around everywhere - it was this market that led to the rapid inflation in camera ownership. Then came the smartphone and the smartphone filled the niche they wanted - so that in the 1990s I referred to group have gone from no camera to smartphones and the last 15 years or so has been almost an artificial blip forced by lack of choice.
> ...


I wonder how many people that bought the smart phone in the 1990 have never own a camera. Camera has been around since 1930. Pocket able camera has ben around since 1960.
[/quote]

I had a bag phone in 1990 and carried a 35mm camera everywhere I went.
How all that relates to each other and the boom of digital cameras after 2000, it probably doesn't. Although I did buy a Nokia because of its camera ability in 2005 (or there about) and was very disappointed.
By today's standards a 35mm film camera was very cheap in 1990. You could buy a 35mm camera and it would last for years, it didn't need to be updated. It was expensive to shoot and learn to shoot a slr because of film development. 

Neuro was correct, the iPhone doesn't matter to the ILC market in the context of this thread.

In the camera market in general it does, and who is to say if the next iPhone will come with an interchangeable lens option.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 30, 2016)

takesome1 said:


> In the camera market in general it does, and who is to say if the next iPhone will come with an interchangeable lens option.



The iPhone 7+ took the approach of adding a second camera with a longer lens.


----------



## Josh Denver (Oct 1, 2016)

Antono Refa said:


> Josh Denver said:
> 
> 
> > 2- 50mm and 85mm lenses.
> ...


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 1, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Josh Denver said:
> ...



You still miss the point. You've got the full list of things in which canon lags behind in the competition in your first post, which must have made you very happy, and got them out of the way. Since then, we're discussing other stuff.


----------

