# Canon Cuts Full-Year Forecast as Camera Users Switch to Phones



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 25, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/10/canon-cuts-full-year-forecast-as-camera-users-switch-to-phones/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/10/canon-cuts-full-year-forecast-as-camera-users-switch-to-phones/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>2013 hasn’t been a stellar year for Canon</strong>

Canon Inc., the world’s largest camera maker, cut its annual profit forecast and predicted its first drop in sales of models with an interchangeable lens as consumers switch to smartphones to take photos.</p>
<p>Net income will probably total 240 billion yen ($2.5 billion) for the year ending December, the Tokyo-based company said in a statement yesterday, cutting its earlier forecast of 260 billion yen. The new projection missed the 250.8 billion-yen average of 21 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg.</p>
<p>Smartphones are eating into digital camera sales as companies such as Apple Inc. and Sony Corp. release new handsets with stronger built-in lenses and sensors to lure shoppers. The value of worldwide camera shipments dropped 19 percent in August from a year earlier, a ninth consecutive monthly decline, according to the Camera & Imaging Products Association in Tokyo.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-24/canon-cuts-full-year-net-income-forecast-as-camera-sales-slow.html">Read the rest of the story at Bloomberg</a></strong></p>
<p><em>thanks Bruce</em></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## gwflauto (Oct 25, 2013)

The facts that Canon predicted its first drop in sales of models with an interchangeable lens is surprising for me and probably it is a big problem, since that is the more profitable part of their camera business.


----------



## bitm2007 (Oct 25, 2013)

Lagging behind the opposition in the mega pixel stakes can't help either


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 25, 2013)

Not releasing anything interesting except the 70D could have something to do with it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2013)

bitm2007 said:


> Lagging behind the opposition in the mega pixel stakes can't help either



Yeah, that makes sense. I mean, it's not like the 5DIII is outselling the D800, or the 6D is mopping the floor with the D600/610, or the Rebel/xxxD bodies are outselling the D3xxx bodies, right? : : :


----------



## sanj (Oct 25, 2013)

Time to innovate _further_.


----------



## preppyak (Oct 25, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Not releasing anything interesting except the 70D could have something to do with it.


Yep. When your competitors are experimenting with new models and new lines, and all you're doing is giving minor updates to your existing stuff, you lose market share. Ask Apple.


----------



## transpo1 (Oct 25, 2013)

So you know where I'm coming from, I'm a filmmaker and producer but I've also worked in advertising and tech. I follow tech developments quite closely, especially Apple and camera news.

In my opinion --

Canon cannot afford to be afraid to protect their higher end markets anymore. Sure, they produce amazing EOS still and EOS cinema bodies but they can't worry about cannibilization anymore. Canon makes GREAT products. Professionals will continue to buy 1D-Xs and C500s even if they sell the same autofocus points in a 7D or a Rebel, or enable RAW video in a 70D.

Canon has high-end lenses, both still and cinema/video, that professionals will continue to buy no matter what. Canon has tons of patents and will continue to innovate. It just has to have the confidence to not worry about those who will stop buying their high-end products. 

Give people what they want- give them RAW video at an affordable price (yet with a healthy profit margin). Apple successfully cannibalizes itself over and over and over. Jobs said it best when he said (and I paraphrase) sell low and go for volume. 

Oh, and in case you're listening, Canon, yes -- I do want you to OFFICIALLY enable RAW in the 5DIII and 1DC and sell them for less. Don't worry, we'll buy more of them.


----------



## hutjeflut (Oct 25, 2013)

People that are satisfied taking pictures with there phones most likely never where in the DSLR market to begin with.
Thats just the social pic snappers people that like good quality pics will always want a DSLR but hey its recession/crisis. My free spendable income keeps going down as insurancen, Food and everything keeps going up in price and my income isnt going up.
so i simply do not have money for thoustant dollar bodys and multi thousant dollar lenses.
The last generation canon lensen have had some seriously absurd price gains which most normal non professionals simply can no longer afford.

Like the 70-200 F2.8 IS that lens wwas 1350 euro the new IS II is a whopping 50% more expencive at 2086 euro.
The same happend with all other new lenses so canon just like any other greedy company in this time of recession is doing this to itself.
A normal wise company would lower prices which upps sales and helps the economu but for some reason in this crisis all companys seem to upp prices which lower sales and then bitch about it.
The greed has gone to there heads.
We the consumers dont have the money for your insane prices anymore ajust to it or see your sales drop even more.


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 25, 2013)

preppyak said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Not releasing anything interesting except the 70D could have something to do with it.
> ...



Did you not read what neuroanatomist said above? Canon's competitors, who supposedly have superiorproducts, are having a *worse *time of it!


----------



## sanj (Oct 25, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> preppyak said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Where does he say *that*?


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> bitm2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Lagging behind the opposition in the mega pixel stakes can't help either
> ...



don´t confuse the whiners with facts. they like to complain and no fact will change that.




> Yep. When your competitors are experimenting with new models and new lines, and all you're doing is giving minor updates to your existing stuff, you lose market share. Ask Apple.



where in this article is writen that canon is losing market share in the ILC market?
what´s your source?

it´s not as if the other companys have a better time selling ILC´s....

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/08/08/nikon-cuts-forecasts-due-to-poor-mirrorless-sales-in-us-and-europe.aspx/

olympus has cut it´s forecast in april.

2012 canon was doing better then all others.

http://www.canonrumors.com/tag/marketshare/

so do you have a source for the claim that canon has lost market share in 2013?


----------



## photonius (Oct 25, 2013)

hutjeflut said:


> People that are satisfied taking pictures with there phones most likely never where in the DSLR market to begin with.
> Thats just the social pic snappers people that like good quality pics will always want a DSLR but hey its recession/crisis. My free spendable income keeps going down as insurancen, Food and everything keeps going up in price and my income isnt going up.
> so i simply do not have money for thoustant dollar bodys and multi thousant dollar lenses.
> The last generation canon lensen have had some seriously absurd price gains which most normal non professionals simply can no longer afford.



I agree here, it's not the smartphones eating into the dSLR market, the smartphones kill the P&S cameras.
I think several things come together for dSLRs:

1) the dSLR market is quite mature now. In a decade, a remarkable improvement happened in sensor technology, so there was incentive to switch from film to digital, there was incentive to upgrade to a new model dSLR. So, there was a big "bubble" so to speak of pent up demand that could be satisfied. Many people that would buy a dSLR have one by now probably. Now, I think the market will return more to a level situation where you go through normal replacement cycles. People will think twice before they buy a new body, "does it really give much more than what I already have?" That's why Canon and everybody is also pushing the video area, to keep adding new features and thereby a market sector not yet saturated. Even that is not enough anymore, as camera makers are looking into medium format, and security camera businesses. 
Pushing more megapixels (D800) down the throat of people is probably not giving the huge sales increases hoped for - many people realize that files get huge and the improvement in quality is minimal if one doesn't invest time and effort to get the maximum out of the sensor. And most images are viewed on screens that don't have such a high resolution. Likewise, the dynamic range wars (whether 12 or 14 stops) are incremental gains that will not cause a huge boost to the market.
Of course, there will always be pros, and tech users that go for the top - as with computers, where gamers build their own customized ultimate gaming machines, but this is a limited market.

2) As pointed out, weak economy, people need to save.

3) Maybe less newcomers to the market. There tend to be fads of what's a hot hobby, maybe the hype for pictures is somewhat dying down, people being oversaturated with images flooding the web.


So, the only way to get a lot of people to buy new cameras is with a substantial innovation in sensor technology.


----------



## Lawliet (Oct 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> bitm2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Lagging behind the opposition in the mega pixel stakes can't help either
> ...



At the same time every sold 5D3 means a potential buyer less, thats until you offer an upgrade path.
And we could get a nice step forward for both still and motion picture by blending a 5D3 with a 70D(+some up to date processing)... 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2013)

sanj said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > preppyak said:
> ...



In my first post in this thread. Ok, I didn't say it explicitly...and silly me, I forgot the sarcasm tags. So, let me try that again:

*<sarcasm>*I mean, it's not like the 5DIII is outselling the D800, or the 6D is mopping the floor with the D600/610, or the Rebel/xxxD bodies are outselling the D3xxx bodies, right?*</sarcasm>*

All better now? 

The point is, Canon's forecasts are lower because the dSLR market as a whole is contracting. Canon is still the leader of that market, and nothing I've seen indicates that they're losing market share relative to their competition. People on forums can whine about incremental updates, poor DR, etc., but Canon is still doing what they've done now for many years - sell more dSLRs than their competitors (even if the total number they'll sell next quarter is less than they initially predicted). 



Lawliet said:


> At the same time every sold 5D3 means a potential buyer less, thats until you offer an upgrade path.



What makes you think there's not an upgrade path?


----------



## Lawliet (Oct 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> What makes you think there's not an upgrade path?


Just asking for more money doesn't make it an actual upgrade. Out of the box its a sidegrade, and for quite a few people even a downgrade once you figure ML in. Which makes not exactly the strongst motivation to transfer that cash to Canon.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 25, 2013)

It might be good to remember the scale of things here. Canon is an order of magnitude bigger than their nearest competitor. Cut the company in half and they would still be the market leader by a wide margin.
Given that the competition is still pumping out a lot of fantastic products, I'm pretty sure that small adjustments to Canons forecast have practically zero affect on the cameras we buy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2013)

Lawliet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > What makes you think there's not an upgrade path?
> ...



LOL. Thanks for giving me a chuckle to brighten my day.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> What makes you think there's not an upgrade path?



I'd consider the 1Dx a downgrade from just about every camera Canon makes, primarily because the portrait grip isn't removable, and I don't need or want it. It's why I've never seriously considered any 1-series camera, nor will I in the future until and unless they go back to the 1V-style removable grip.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 25, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > What makes you think there's not an upgrade path?
> ...



Strange ... That has to be the first ever comment I've seen of someone complaining about the inbuilt grip on a 1 series body but I guess it is a personal preference. 

BTW, both my 5D3 and the 6D are gripped. Never taken the grip off them


----------



## J.R. (Oct 25, 2013)

Strangely enough, Canon doesn't change it's forecast for the compact sales it expects. It has cut its forecast only for the interchangeable lens cameras. Doesn't reconcile with the title of the Bloomberg article at all ???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Strangely enough, Canon doesn't change it's forecast for the compact sales it expects. It has cut its forecast only for the interchangeable lens cameras. Doesn't reconcile with the title of the Bloomberg article at all ???



Sure it does. Megapixels are what matters. Everyone is ditching their 18-36 MP dSLRs for the 41 MP Nokia phone.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Strangely enough, Canon doesn't change it's forecast for the compact sales it expects. It has cut its forecast only for the interchangeable lens cameras. Doesn't reconcile with the title of the Bloomberg article at all ???
> ...



;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 25, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Strangely enough, Canon doesn't change it's forecast for the compact sales it expects. It has cut its forecast only for the interchangeable lens cameras. Doesn't reconcile with the title of the Bloomberg article at all ???



+1

The same article had rather different titles on other forums.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 25, 2013)

sanj said:


> Time to innovate _further_.



Yes, time to wake up from the Q&A they gave over half a decade ago in Europe where they kept going on about how they were the kings and had no need to push forward or do anything since they were the kings and nobody would be close to them for at a decade or two for FF, etc. etc. 

And sit back and milk old sensor lines and play marketing games with silly little things like MFA and AutoISO and smearing native 5D3 video is mostly what they did (although they did give the 5D3 amazing video HW even if took ML to make that apparent and did drop 1 series AF into the 5 series).


----------



## dadgummit (Oct 25, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I am in the same boat. I just don't want the huge camera body, too heavy and akward. I feel the 5d3's battery lasts a long time and it really only takes like 5 seconds to change it when it gets low. I would much rather have an extra battery in my pocket than a large hunk of magneseum hanging off the bottom of my camera just to double the battery capacity.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 25, 2013)

bitm2007 said:


> Lagging behind the opposition in the mega pixel stakes can't help either



Last i checked, it's lesser quality, lesser mp's that are winning here - cell phones are the thing eating into sales, not nikons new bodies. It's the convenience factor - convenience and accessibility. No one that's thinking, should I get a powershot or just use my iphone is thinking, but there's that d800...lol


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 25, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> preppyak said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



love how people pretty much read the title here and filled in the blank with what seems obvious to THEM ---it must be the D800... but both canon and nikon are getting their buts kicked by cell phones.

So if you want innovation, it's time for canon and nikon to cut their P&S offerings and start making at least parts for cell phone, if not their own cell phone. Either of them could design and manufacture sensors and little lenses for cell phones, so that would probably be the smarter path rather than trying to pry peoples galaxies and iphones from their hands.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 25, 2013)

sanj said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > preppyak said:
> ...




food for thought --- http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/08/us-nikon-earnings-idUSBRE9770EH20130808


----------



## unfocused (Oct 25, 2013)

I just want to bang my head against the wall and scream when I read comments following stories like this. It's as if only Neuro, Chuck and a handful of others actually read the stories.

Photonius had a decent analysis but then pulled a conclusion out of thin air that I'm still scratching my head over.



photonius said:


> So, the only way to get a lot of people to buy new cameras is with a substantial innovation in sensor technology.



Was that intended as sarcasm or a joke?

Something not discussed here, but having a big effect: Canon's strategy for the past several years has relied on the emerging Chinese market for much of their growth. Recent changes to the government monetary policies were cited in an earlier Canon earnings report as having a major negative impact on that market.

As Photonius did point out, DSLRs are now a mature market. There is not going to be the growth in that market that there was in the first decade of the century. It's clear Canon understands that and has taken steps to manage that leveling off (with their major push into video at all levels and with their latest emphasis on security -- which is where the growth will be for the next decade or so). 

That slowdown was surely not unexpected by Canon. However, they were most likely hit by external factors beyond their control and not generally predicted – the U.S. and European economies have not rebounded as well as expected and the Chinese market is under performing. 

On the upside, if you take a look at Canon's reports from two years ago or so, you'll see that the office products division was being hammered by the worldwide recession and the imaging division (cameras) was subsidizing the losses in office products. This new report indicates that the office products division has recovered and can once again make a significant contribution to the company's bottom line. That's good news for Canon and good new for photographers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2013)

dadgummit said:


> I would much rather have an extra battery in my pocket than a large hunk of magneseum hanging off the bottom of my camera just to double the battery capacity.



It's not so much about battery capacity as it is about ergonomics, and better balance with larger lenses. After a day of shooting with a 70-200/2.8 or 100-400 on a non-gripped body, my hand hurts. With a gripped body, it does not - And the integrated grip of the 1-series bodies makes them more comfortable to hold than other bodies with an accessory grip.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dadgummit said:
> 
> 
> > I would much rather have an extra battery in my pocket than a large hunk of magneseum hanging off the bottom of my camera just to double the battery capacity.
> ...



Yeah, 
i have been shaking my head at the posts regarding the grip... LOL guess weather sealing ...whgo cares about that right, lets make the grip removable and expose some parts to moisture that wouldn't have been exposed with an integrated grip....ugggg


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 25, 2013)

photonius said:


> hutjeflut said:
> 
> 
> > People that are satisfied taking pictures with there phones most likely never where in the DSLR market to begin with.
> ...



Agreed! Well, mostly agree - "it's not the smartphones eating into the dSLR market, the smartphones kill the P&S cameras." A product gets replaced when either A something better comes around, or B, it gets broken, lost, stolen, you baby pukes on it, you brother drops it in the pool, - or you use it all the time and it's just time to replace it, etc etc etc. If when you leave the house you look at your little slr bag say 90% of the time, i don't want to lug that around then it's gonna be used less, less miles = less wear and tear, less chances for it to be broken and or stolen, or any of the other calamities mentioned above. If you use it less, then the need to upgrade is less, and while yeah there are obvious benefits of going from like a rebel to a 70d, or a 6d, etc etc, is there a need when my cell phone seems to do just fine and hell, i can bring my cell phone anywhere ---

And this is a biggie here --- think of how many awesome events people would love to bring their cameras too but can't because the venue does not allow pro gear (which most venues describe as anything with an interchangeable lens). Stuff like that leads to a lot of leaving the camera at home...

this i do think would lead to less people taking the leap into the slr market - which leads right to where I totally agree --- the slr market is a mature market, less people are jumping in. Last year both canon and nikon released pro bodies and people bought them, that buying frenzy has slowed and we're now between product cycles. Yeah, there's a new rebel and the new 70d, and nikon has their equivalent models --- and if you ask me, that's the market that will suffer from the growing use of cell phones.

Let's face it, the marketing side is based off of the upgrade path:

1 - wow, loving taking pics on my cell phone, but want more control
2 - nice, bought my first P&S
3 - lost it, just bought the next model up
4 - the limitations are frustrating me - time to upgrade - first slr
5 - now it's time to buy lenses

that was the basic path, you can add step 6 and 7 and 8 for those that want to take the next step --- but for the bulk of the consumer market. But now we are in the social network age, and this is where cell phones jack everything up. the average consumer cares more about instant access than quality. Yeah, the slr shot can be printed huge, but does that get my picture to facebook any easier? Adding wifi to slr's does help on this side, but, I think slr's at least in the consumer bracket need a more robust web interface if they are to compete with cell phones in that market.

Of course, then there's the pro market, which will care about quality, which will whine about DR, banding, all the stuff we hear all the time here. But the pro market would be the mature part, the part that will only upgrade where it makes sense - and other than a few lenses, there's not much new and interesting going on - and - one should point out that there shouldn't be - pros don't want to be recycling camera bodies every year - for most pros the natural 3-4 year cycle is about how long we want to be using a body. Other than that, it's lenses, and with L lenses we all know they hold their value and they don't degrade in quality as fast as a camera body - so new lens sales don't happen as often (unless they do kick ass rebate, just snagged me a 24mm 1.4 new because with the 4% back from B&H and the $200 rebate, that's close enough to used cost to make the leap).


----------



## cornish (Oct 25, 2013)

Might get shot down in flames but:
I agree with some of the earlier posts, the costs of the new Canon products are 2x the costs of the outgoing, this will have knock on effects in a difficult market/climate, considering most are just upgrades and nothing revolutionary, what do they expect? I have upgraded the 70-200 28 IS and the 24-70 2.8 recently to the MKII models and have been pleased but the costs, even with cash back offers, to be honest were really not worth it! I have not bothered with the 5D III, as friends have had issues and again apart from the focus system and dynamic range (maybe noise improvements) don't think its worth the price increase over my 5D II, I have a 5D MK II and 7D, so most things will be covered by these as far as bodies go... most Canon full frame users in my local camera club have moved to Nikon (using the D800 and lenses from Nikon, especially wide angle) this is because they feel Canon have lost the plot, when it comes to pricing anyway... Just out of interest and following the last few posts, both bodies are gripped and I have never taken then off either. Glyn


----------



## photonius (Oct 25, 2013)

unfocused said:


> I just want to bang my head against the wall and scream when I read comments following stories like this. It's as if only Neuro, Chuck and a handful of others actually read the stories.
> 
> Photonius had a decent analysis but then pulled a conclusion out of thin air that I'm still scratching my head over.
> 
> ...



no, just some unfinished thought left standing. I meant if you want to get existing owners to upgrade (and thus create a new purchase cycle, ( like in the past from 4 to 10 MPs or whatever), you really need some mouthwatering new features, e.g. a new sensor that is a serious jump over all current products, or some other neat feature that's not just a gimmick. Live view was a pretty neat feature when it came.
Of course sensors are very mature at this point, so it's difficult to see how that could improve a lot, but the dual pixels of the sensor in the 70D could be a precursor to a whole bunch of things.


----------



## hutjeflut (Oct 25, 2013)

i have a canon 450d now but the only 2 reasons i would upgrade is mature video features (wheres my 120 fps mode on 720p?) and a serious improvement in iso preformance which i dont see hapening.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dadgummit said:
> 
> 
> > I would much rather have an extra battery in my pocket than a large hunk of magneseum hanging off the bottom of my camera just to double the battery capacity.
> ...



The 1D grip hurts my hands from shot one. It's too large and too heavy to hold comfortably. My 5D fits my hand perfectly and fits in my waist pack as well, which a 1 series body never will with the grip attached.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 26, 2013)

photonius said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I just want to bang my head against the wall and scream when I read comments following stories like this. It's as if only Neuro, Chuck and a handful of others actually read the stories.
> ...



Ha! Now I understand. 

I was confused because your post was so thoughtful and rational and then all of a sudden it seemed like you took a peculiar turn. I certainly agree with the basic premise. Just his week I succumbed to a 5DIII. I hesitate to say an "upgrade" from the 7D, because I still love the 7D and intend to keep using it. 

I debated long and hard between a 6D, waiting for the 7DII and pulling out, what for me was, all the stops and going for a 5DIII. Part of my justification was that it is so good I think it will satisfy me for years to come. I think a challenge facing all camera makers, but especially Canon and Nikon, is that their products are now so good that there is little reason for buyers to jump to the next generation. 

So, I guess I agree with the premise that it will take some "mouth watering" new features to get many current owners to upgrade. Personally, I'm not sure that for full frame sensors there is much that can be done to entice current owners. I'm amazed at how well the 5DIII sells (check out Amazon's best selling DSLRs). It's incredible to me that a $3,000 camera is selling as well as $500 cameras. I've got to think that many of those buyers are like me – rationalizing it as a camera that will satisfy them for the next 10 years or so.

With APS-C I think there is still sufficient room for improvement to entice current owners to upgrade. If the 7DII makes some significant improvements in the sensor, I'll have a hard time resisting. But, I'll also want 5D quality autofocus and a few other goodies. 

Frankly, I think another challenge all manufacturers face is not only that the technology has matured, but the customer base is aging out. I think it is going to be very hard for Canon and Nikon to attract younger buyers and I think some of the their recent models show they are pretty desperately trying anything they can think of, but don't seem to be having much success. 

The best hope for Canon and Nikon (at least temporarily) may be an expanding world economy. If the economies in the currently underdeveloped world improve, they may get a temporary boost, as they have with China. Other than that, I'm guessing all manufacturers will have to learn to live with a market that is growing at a much slower pace than in the past several years. 

Canon and Nikon may actually be the best positioned to adapt to the changing market, because until the explosion of digital technology, I'm pretty sure the growth in the film and SLR market was pretty modest.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 26, 2013)

We should all just switch to the Nokia 41 MP phone, because it's better than a D800E !! It has more resolution and therefore, more dynamic range!! It even has more reach advantage...and more crop flexibility, according to the tv ads I've seen. Makes perfect sense.

If the premise of this "news" is really that people are using phones rather than DSLR's...well those people are not serious photographers anyway, so they're better off not wasting their parents' money asking for DSLR's as gifts, etc. Far better for the parents to spend $300 a month on their phone data plans for their kids and themselves...money well spent : Definitely not annoying at all for kids to be texting 24/7, and while driving...yep that's just fine with me! As long as I'm not driving near one...

It's easy to see why Canon would be pursuing medium format digital, as previously rumored...perhaps this will put an end to the "rebel" line eventually? There need not be an "entry level" DSLR, if nobody wants to enter.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 26, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dadgummit said:
> ...



It's not so much the grip, it's the weight of the 1 series. I got a cheap grip for my 6D, and it can be used with only one battery if I want. It's very light, but not very rigid. It works fine though.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 26, 2013)

unfocused said:


> photonius said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Very good points -especially the bit about the economy in general shrinking.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 26, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Very good points -especially the bit about the economy in general shrinking.



At some point you run out of other people's money.


----------



## dgatwood (Oct 26, 2013)

Canon's biggest problem is pretty much the same as Apple's right before Steve came back. Their R&D is spread across too many products that are poorly and inconsistently differentiated, and there's no single product that is clearly and unambiguously the best. The supposedly top-of-the-line 1D series clearly wins in terms of most of the pro body features, but loses to the 5Dmk3 in terms of sensor size (limiting its ultra-wide-angle use). The 5Dmk3, in turn, kills the 6D in autofocus but doesn't compare in low light noise or in end-user features like GPS and Wi-Fi. And so on.

Canon needs to drastically simplify their body lineup to at most four cameras—a consumer crop (70D, presumably), a pro crop (7D), a consumer full-frame (6D), and a pro full-frame (1D with a bigger sensor). Every camera should have features like Wi-Fi and GPS. The pro bodies should have additional features like more autofocus points. Other than crop factor, the two pro bodies should have similar features to one another, the consumer bodies should have similar features to one another, and every single feature on either of the consumer bodies should be available on both of the pro bodies.

Oh, and dump the mirrorless line. It was a failed experiment. Or at best, make it electronically identical to the consumer crop body, just in a different case, with the mirror box headers unpopulated, and with slightly different firmware.

Canon also needs to update their products in pairs. Update the consumer products at the same time, then the pro products, with each line getting an annual bump. This should be made more feasible by dropping the Rebel line entirely and merging the 5D and 1D lines.

Just my $0.02.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 26, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> The supposedly top-of-the-line 1D series clearly wins in terms of most of the pro body features, but loses to the 5Dmk3 in terms of sensor size (limiting its ultra-wide-angle use).



The sensors are the same size, but perhaps you meant ultimate image size in pixels? Probably you did not. There is no more aps-h (1.3x crop), so not sure why you think the sensor is smaller on the 1DX.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_1d_x#Specifications

"Image Format Approx. 36 mm x 24mm (35 mm Full-frame)"

Not sure I completely agree with your strategy. Things will change over time to the product line and differentiation, no doubt. Again, Canon are interested in medium format...so that throws another wrinkle in. The future will be interesting, and very likely, expensive.

The problem with the 1 series now, is there is no studio model, there's only a catch-all model that is mostly for sports. As has been said many times by many people, Canon were miffed that the 5D2 cut heavily into, if not partially killed...sales of the 1Ds III, back in 2008. So it's kind of understandable that they weren't in a hurry to build another 1 series studio camera. They will, though. The problem is the sensor.


----------



## noisejammer (Oct 26, 2013)

[rant]
I am delighted with this news!

Here's why. I have something like $30k in EF mount lenses. Some are Canon, some are not but they are all premium offerings. I have a couple of cameras - a 1D4 and 5D2. I didn't really see much point in upgrading last time around because I don't need faster autofocus. 

I'm trapped, I really resent Canon's unwillingness to compete where it matters to me. If I sold my lenses I'd be down around $10k... and anyway, Nikon does things backward. 

Here is my message ... I NEED LESS NOISE ...

I'm not going to spend kilodollars on a camera that's just like the one I have. Nevertheless, in nine months or fewer, I will own a $3k, high resolution, low noise camera that carries my lenses. It's up to Canon to decide whether they build it.

Finally, I think that blaming the declining sales on economies is limp-wristed face-saving. Many of the world's economies are doing quite fine. The real issue is well earned customer apathy.

[/rant]


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 26, 2013)

noisejammer said:


> [rant]
> I am delighted with this news!
> 
> Here's why. I have something like $30k in EF mount lenses. Some are Canon, some are not but they are all premium offerings. I have a couple of cameras - a 1D4 and 5D2. I didn't really see much point in upgrading last time around because I don't need faster autofocus.
> ...



Spend half that on a 6D now, sell the other two, and rent a 1DX...and tell me it doesn't have lower noise than the 1D4. It does...and has better autofocus. As I said above, Canon will bring you a high megapixel studio camera with low noise, but be prepared to pay big for it. If you'd rather use Nikon for the here and now, certainly a D800 is a cheaper and quicker alternative to waiting for a Canon studio camera. They've sold the D800 new as low as $2600 recently, and may again...I personally will pass.


----------



## jd7 (Oct 26, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Canon's biggest problem is pretty much the same as Apple's right before Steve came back. Their R&D is spread across too many products that are poorly and inconsistently differentiated, and there's no single product that is clearly and unambiguously the best. The supposedly top-of-the-line 1D series clearly wins in terms of most of the pro body features, but loses to the 5Dmk3 in terms of sensor size (limiting its ultra-wide-angle use). The 5Dmk3, in turn, kills the 6D in autofocus but doesn't compare in low light noise or in end-user features like GPS and Wi-Fi. And so on.



I have no idea about Canon's R&D budget is spread out, but after watching for the last 10 years or so I've come to the conclusion Canon might, just might, have some idea about making mass-market cameras! The don't always have the very best of everything (think sensors at the moment!), and they often don't have the best specifications in their class (for example, as far as I can tell, Nikon's comparable cameras nearly always have "better" numbers - more zones in their metering matrix, etc, etc), but the Canon cameras still turn out to be great photographic tools ... especially in the context of Canon's overall system. Take the 6D. Many people (including me) were underwhelmed by its specs sheet ... but now the 6D seems to have developed a pretty good reputation and be selling well ... and I'm one of its buyers. Certainly it has its limitations, but it's a good camera which can satisfy the needs of a lot of people. And it seems to be doing better at that than many of its competitors, whatever their spec sheets may say.

I also think Canon has very clearly differentiated its cameras - certainly its 35mm sensor ones. The 1Dx seems unambiguously the "best" because of its ability to deal with the widest range of conditions and speed requirements. The 5DIII has a higher resolution sensor, but overall seems a clear step down - by all reports the files aren't as flexible, it's FPS is much slower, by all reports the AF isn't quite as good even though the systems are similar. And of course the 5DIII ergonomics are quite different, particular the smaller body - a positive for some and a negative for others. Anyway, the choice is clear - if you want a smaller/lighter camera than a 1Dx, or more resolution is a critical requirement, the 5DIII is your choice (I'll ignore cost issues for now). And then there's the 6D. If you can live with a more limited AF system for tracking moving subjects and focusing on off-centre targets, and the x-sync speed - or smaller and lighter is critical to you - it will give great images and at a significantly lower cost. And I think the reality for a lot of people is they can live with those limitations because, as much as they might like to have a camera with fancier specs, in practice their photography doesn't really need it. And Canon threw in a few bells and whistles too, such as wifi and GPS, presumably to help attract some of the upgraders - but I doubt there are too many 5DIII who are coveting a 6D just because of wifi and GPS. (I'm sure there are some 5DIII owners who'd be happy to have the features, I'm just saying I struggle to believe the majority of 5DIII owners would rate wifi and GPS as that important, at least in comparison to the advantages the 5DIII over the 6D.)



> Oh, and dump the mirrorless line. It was a failed experiment. Or at best, make it electronically identical to the consumer crop body, just in a different case, with the mirror box headers unpopulated, and with slightly different firmware.



The EOS M does seem to have a been a bit disappointing, even if the firmware upgrade helped a bit. I find it interesting Canon hasn't really gone after the mirrorless market, but the question is why haven't they? Is it really as simple as not wanting to cannibalise their DSLR sales, or is there more to it than that? Perhaps Canon thinks mirrorless won't really deliver the promise/hope of a significantly lighter/smaller system (including lenses) unless the sensor size is reduced (like m4/3) but thinks the IQ possibilities of larger sensors are more important to the market it's going after? Perhaps Canon doesn't think mirrorless offers enough genuine benefits over a DSLR (at least mid to high range DSLRs) as a photographic tool, that it's worth it at this point? Will that change in future with advances in technology like EVF, batteries (to drive the EVF!), and AF (and the 70D sensor tech hints Canon could be working on that one, at least)? Perhaps I'm giving Canon too much credit?!  Anyway, I look forward to seeing what the camera landscape looks like in the next year or two - will 35mm mirrorless be taking over, or will be a short term fad which ends up a niche player but fails to push out DSLRs? I've got to say the attraction of the OVF (for many people, I believe) means I'm not convinced DSLRs are going to die out that quickly, but we'll have to see.



> Just my $0.02.



With my $0.02, we're up to $0.04 now I guess


----------



## photonius (Oct 26, 2013)

unfocused said:


> photonius said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



customer base is aging out.
Yes, that's what I sort of was thinking of also with my point 3 - no newcomers. Older people grew up in an age without digital devices. Snapshots where taken with polariod, or Instamatics, later P&S cameras. A bit more serious users would have had to get an SLR. But the sensor was exchangeable (film - no upgrade incentive for the body), and once you had a decent body, it could last a long time. AF was a technological breakthrough, leading to be an upgrade cycle. So, the old-time SLR customer base is certainly one that can be catered to with dSLRs.
However, young people of the P&S variety (what would have been a polaroid/instamatic customer base etc. in the past) are satisfied with their smart phones now. I don't think most of these would ever have been customers of SLRs in the past either. The customer segment that sticks with smart phones nowadays might perhaps be larger than the comparable instamatic customer segment of the past, because of the following points: 
The display devices and the internet. In the past, for high quality stuff, people would often use slides, to be projected and viewed, perhaps with friends. This is now superseded by monitors and TVs, which presently deliver much less resolution than what cameras deliver. Further, images are quickly spread via internet. So, on the one hand you don't need supergreat resolution, because most display devices don't handle it. Second, you can look now at so many good pictures on the internet, we are virtually flooded by it. 
So, a newcomer might think "Do I really need a dSLR" to take yet another picture of a duck or the New York skyline - I'll never compete with what's out there, so I shoot mostly for memories, and the phone will do. So, overall, the incentive to step from a "good enough" to dSLR might be less than in the past, because of all the new technologies.

Seriously, for all the ones clamoring for a D800. How many high-tech landscape images do we need? 99.9 % of people view on monitors or tv, so 36 MPs is mostly overkill. Large prints? How many are really printed big and hung on the limited wall space there is? So, the final market for the full capabilities of a D800 is actually rather limited.


Expanding world economy. 
Yes, this is a classic practice for hundreds of years, if your home market is saturated, expand. That's why there was this push for the global economy, to expand markets, to keep the growth model. Alas, who are you going to sell to next? The martians? So, an alternative (taken by e.g. Apple) is innovation - but there is only such much innovation until some technical limitation hits (e.g. how much can you still improve an iphone, it's a similar problem to dSLRs), which requires then a breakthrough again. For many portable devices a real bottleneck is the battery that is limiting, because that limits how much processing power you can stick into the device. Even in a dSLR, if you had more processing power, you could probably jack up many things, providing more precessing power for various features, including imaging processing, i.e. frame rate, automatic lens correction, diffraction reduction, noise reduction, etc.


----------



## gwflauto (Oct 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> bitm2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Lagging behind the opposition in the mega pixel stakes can't help either
> ...



Did anybody publish numbers for sales of single models? That would be quite interesting!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> Canon's biggest problem is pretty much the same as Apple's right before Steve came back. Their R&D is spread across too many products that are poorly and inconsistently differentiated, and there's no single product that is clearly and unambiguously the best. The supposedly top-of-the-line 1D series clearly wins in terms of most of the pro body features, but loses to the 5Dmk3 in terms of sensor size (limiting its ultra-wide-angle use). The 5Dmk3, in turn, kills the 6D in autofocus but doesn't compare in low light noise...
> 
> Just my $0.02.



Apple's biggest problem before Jobs came back was that their market share was dwindling down from it's already minuscule level, and their revenues were in the toilet. Clearly, that's not Canon's biggest problem.

As pointed out above, you're obviously confusing sensor size with MP count, or you have not been paying attention to product releases for the past couple of years - the 1D X, 5DIII, and 6D all have the same size sensor. MP count has absolutely no effect on the angle of view with a given lens mounted - Your statement about limiting UWA use is complete BS. Both the 1D X and the 6D deliver very slightly better noise performance than the 5DIII at the highest ISO settings (6400 and up). That's a far cry from, "Doesn't compare in low light noise."

Sorry, but your 2¢ worth of revisionist history and incorrect facts isn't even worth face value.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Oct 26, 2013)

preppyak said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Not releasing anything interesting except the 70D could have something to do with it.
> ...


 ???


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 26, 2013)

photonius said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > photonius said:
> ...



again, great points. I don't think it's as bleak and growth starved as you though - for instance, following your model - boy meets girl, boy and girl go out, now during the day time that cell phone gets you great shots, but once the sun goes down, all those shots are blurry (one day that will even change as they push to make smaller sensors take in more light). Girl gets frustrated. Boy buys girl a nice camera (a dslr).

I know your not saying the dslr market is dead, but, yeah, it is narrowing down to mostly the upgrading crowd, but there are still going to be newcomers - just not as many as in the past decade.

I think cell phones also face the same issue as slr's - just like lots of websites, the drive to innovate a product that's already innovated leads to a lot of marginal upgrades, or upgrades that just don't make sense, or upgrades that do make sense but not with the general consumer client. Take that d800, it's a monster on paper, but, unless you need that kind of power are you taking the leap? Of course, some will buy it because it's a monster on paper, and rarely use it, kind of like the good old i need a nicer car than the neighbors idea, its a status symbol. Either way, cell phones face the same issue, what else do you do that isn't a marginal upgrade? Of course, it's harder to say no to cell upgrades because they aren't really designed to last for more than a year and a half - and thats one thing i am glad for --- even rebels have a decent shelf life. It is one of the things that surprise me about the cell phone market actually, how easily we are all duped into buying these things that break so easily (it's cheap if you can make your phone last that 2 years...heehaw...cheap upgrade ---but if it dies in a year...your coughing up close to an slr's $$$ on a phone!!!)

Either way, there is still a market for slr's. I said it before - we're between product cycles on upper end models. And the entry level bodies, those are the ones people are stepping into less and less due to cell phone silliness. It should be interesting to see what these #'s do in 2014 - with Canon putting the 7d2 on the market, and maybe the big mp beast, and whatever nikon has on the release table. If these models do kick ass, then canon will have a turn around in 2014, then a slow 2015 as they ramp up for the 5d4 and the 1dx2


----------



## noisejammer (Oct 26, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> noisejammer said:
> 
> 
> > ...Here is my message ... I NEED LESS NOISE ...
> ...



Rather than write another boring complaint, I guess I need to spell out why I'm delighted Canon's ILS sales are down. 

It means the board will have words with the camera executives. Even if the market size is decreasing, the board will want to minimise the loss of earnings. Canon will try to grab a bigger slice of the pie, which means more interesting products and less drip feed. From my perspective, this cannot be bad.

Unfortunately, they seem determined to let others grab the pie first. This cannot be good.


----------



## dgatwood (Oct 27, 2013)

jd7 said:


> And then there's the 6D. If you can live with a more limited AF system for tracking moving subjects and focusing on off-centre targets, and the x-sync speed - or smaller and lighter is critical to you - it will give great images and at a significantly lower cost. And I think the reality for a lot of people is they can live with those limitations because, as much as they might like to have a camera with fancier specs, in practice their photography doesn't really need it. And Canon threw in a few bells and whistles too, such as wifi and GPS, presumably to help attract some of the upgraders - but I doubt there are too many 5DIII who are coveting a 6D just because of wifi and GPS. (I'm sure there are some 5DIII owners who'd be happy to have the features, I'm just saying I struggle to believe the majority of 5DIII owners would rate wifi and GPS as that important, at least in comparison to the advantages the 5DIII over the 6D.)



I considered both the 1DX and the 5D Mark III, but decided GPS was more important to me than AF performance or megapixels. I haven't regretted that call, and I've found Wi-Fi to be a lot more useful than I would ever have guessed, too. Either way, if Canon had introduced those features consistently across their line, I'd probably be using an upgraded 1D or 5D series model instead of the 6D.

(Okay probably not the 1D series, because until just now, I didn't realize they had switched from being a 1.3x crop to a full frame, and I didn't have much interest in a crop body that would still force me to upgrade all my EF-S lenses. But still....)

So the question you should be asking is not how many 5D users consider GPS or Wi-Fi important (because they made that choice clear with their buying decision), but rather how many 6D users would have considered spending the extra money for the 5D or 1D series if they had not lacked those features. The answer might surprise you.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 27, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > And then there's the 6D. If you can live with a more limited AF system for tracking moving subjects and focusing on off-centre targets, and the x-sync speed - or smaller and lighter is critical to you - it will give great images and at a significantly lower cost. And I think the reality for a lot of people is they can live with those limitations because, as much as they might like to have a camera with fancier specs, in practice their photography doesn't really need it. And Canon threw in a few bells and whistles too, such as wifi and GPS, presumably to help attract some of the upgraders - but I doubt there are too many 5DIII who are coveting a 6D just because of wifi and GPS. (I'm sure there are some 5DIII owners who'd be happy to have the features, I'm just saying I struggle to believe the majority of 5DIII owners would rate wifi and GPS as that important, at least in comparison to the advantages the 5DIII over the 6D.)
> ...



for me personally, I had zero interest in both gps and wifi. I'd rather have a magnesium core. I had a truck, a chevy s-10, and it had a metal bumper... and i was hit a few times in the rear... and once at only 5 or 6 miles per hour, the guys hood and bumper looked ravaged while I didn't even have a scratch. I know the polycarbonate core is strong, but give me the feel, strength, and reliability of a magnesium core... just in case.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> I considered both the 1DX and the 5D Mark III, but decided GPS was more important to me than AF performance or megapixels.
> 
> ...how many 6D users would have considered spending the extra money for the 5D or 1D series if they had not lacked those features. The answer might surprise you.



A simple add-on accessory provides GPS tagging to the 1D X and 5DIII. I highly doubt that many people opted for the 6D over the 5DIII for built-in GPS, rather, the overwhelming majority made that choice because the 6D costs much less. 

As for someone who 'considered the 1D X' but didn't even know what size sensor was inside it... :


----------



## jd7 (Oct 27, 2013)

dgatwood said:


> I considered both the 1DX and the 5D Mark III, but decided GPS was more important to me than AF performance or megapixels. I haven't regretted that call, and I've found Wi-Fi to be a lot more useful than I would ever have guessed, too. Either way, if Canon had introduced those features consistently across their line, I'd probably be using an upgraded 1D or 5D series model instead of the 6D.
> 
> (Okay probably not the 1D series, because until just now, I didn't realize they had switched from being a 1.3x crop to a full frame, and I didn't have much interest in a crop body that would still force me to upgrade all my EF-S lenses. But still....)
> 
> So the question you should be asking is not how many 5D users consider GPS or Wi-Fi important (because they made that choice clear with their buying decision), but rather how many 6D users would have considered spending the extra money for the 5D or 1D series if they had not lacked those features. The answer might surprise you.



I have to say I'm surprised! And intrigued. What sort of photography do you do that means you were willing to pay for the features the 5Diii has over the 6D but nonetheless inbuilt GPS was even more important to you? I'm assuming it involves a lot of travel, but I'm guessing there is something more involved(?).


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 27, 2013)

it is very simple. Canon and Nikon are being punished for not having brought to market DSLRs that are both affordable and interesting to regular-income photo enthusiasts. Lack of interesting products ... less sales. 1 Million less incrementally boring DSLR-iterations ... hahaha, I love it. Customers are king, after all. 

Two years ago (late 2012) Canon and Nikon missed the boat. No compelling and affordable APS-C DSLRs. No D400. No 7D II. Pricing closer to USD 1000 than to 2000. Of course with built- in GPS, Wifi, and in Canon's case EX-RT radio flash trigger. And fully articulated LCD (not just tilt!). For Canon the old 45-point 1 AF system plus a kick-ass 24MP APS-C sensor, half a notch better DR and Hi-ISO than the Nikon D7100 sensor. Nikon would have easily gotten away with the D7100 sensor and AF system (Multicam 3500DX). 

And today, CaNikon are missing the boat again, because they have no mirrorless FF MILCs ready now and it looks they will not even have one ready within the year. 

These days, only a few budget-restricted, conservative die-hards insisting on OVF are willing to swallow marketing-crippled FF DSLRs (6D, D610) still priced at more than 1500. All others are buying Fuji APS-C instead and/or are will be buying innovative and more affordable FF-mirrorless cams.

CaNikon are in for a lot of punishment. Well deserved.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 27, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> it is very simple. Canon and Nikon are being punished for not having brought to market DSLRs that are both affordable and interesting to regular-income photo enthusiasts. Lack of interesting products ... less sales. 1 Million less incrementally boring DSLR-iterations ... hahaha, I love it. Customers are king, after all.
> 
> Two years ago (late 2012) Canon and Nikon missed the boat. No compelling and affordable APS-C DSLRs. No D400. No 7D II. Pricing closer to USD 1000 than to 2000. Of course with built- in GPS, Wifi, and in Canon's case EX-RT radio flash trigger. And fully articulated LCD (not just tilt!). For Canon the old 45-point 1 AF system plus a kick-ass 24MP APS-C sensor, half a notch better DR and Hi-ISO than the Nikon D7100 sensor. Nikon would have easily gotten away with the D7100 sensor and AF system (Multicam 3500DX).
> 
> ...



Punished??? The whole market is down! It is the economy that is under tremendous punishment which is translating into lower sales of consumer goods.

Just because you need EVF and mirrorless doesn't necessary mean everyone wants them. BTW, how much profit did the fan favorite Sony with its EVF and high DR churn out??? : : :

Additionally, late 2012 was last year ... not two years ago : : :


----------



## J.R. (Oct 27, 2013)

To put things into perspective, the following extracts from the Bloomberg report - 



> The value of worldwide camera shipments dropped 19 percent in August from a year earlier, a ninth consecutive monthly decline, according to the Camera & Imaging Products Association in Tokyo.





> Operating income at the imaging system division, which handles cameras, rose 8.2 percent to 56.9 billion yen in the quarter ended Sept. 30 as revenue gained 8.2 percent.





> The decline in demand for interchangeable lens cameras stems from sluggish economies especially in Europe and Asia, Chief Financial Officer Toshizo Tanaka, told reporters in Tokyo yesterday. “It’s a temporal decline and we expect demand to pick up next year as the global economy recovers.”



But as is the case at CR, people always claim to know better ... even it is means ignoring facts staring at them in the face.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> And today, CaNikon are missing the boat again, because they have no mirrorless FF MILCs ready now and it looks they will not even have one ready within the year.



Nikon just stated that the bloom is off the mirrorless rose, and sales of their MILC line are falling - and faster than expected based on the economy. The boat you refer to might just be the Costa Concordia. 



AvTvM said:


> These days, only a few budget-restricted, conservative die-hards insisting on OVF are willing to swallow marketing-crippled FF DSLRs (6D, D610) still priced at more than 1500. All others are buying Fuji APS-C instead and/or are will be buying innovative and more affordable FF-mirrorless cams.



Amazing how the 'few budget-restricted, conservative die-hards' seem to outnumber the 'all others' buying Fuji APS-C...



J.R. said:


> But as is the case at CR, people always claim to know better ... even it is means ignoring facts staring at them in the face.



+1


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

can´t believe the amount of nonsense in this thread.

no wonder so many photographers struggle doing business when they are so bad at grasping economics. 

this is not about canon being punished for not being "innovative enough".
this is about a situation that affects all brands.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 27, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> no wonder so many photographers struggle doing business when they are so bad at grasping economics.



;D ;D


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 27, 2013)

"Nikon MILCs" ... of course Nikon gets punished. Because their ill-fated dwarf-sensored 1-system does not sell any longer. Even japanese schoolgirls have stopped buying them, despite pink and gold painting. 
Truth is simply: end of 2013 
* Nikon has not a single MILC worth buying. Only boring me-too consumer-level APSC DSLRs (e.g. D5300). One marketing-crippled FF-DSLR (D610) plus expensive lenses to go with it. D800 is excellent, but most people wanting one, got one by now. 
* Canon .. exactly the same. Just insert "EOS-M", "Rebel XXS", "EOD 6D" and "5D III". 
Too liittle innovation. Too much drip-feed iteration. Too high prices (for what it is). 

Therefore CaNikon are both receiving their well-deserved punishment.


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 27, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> it is very simple. Canon and Nikon are being punished for not having brought to market DSLRs that are both affordable and interesting to regular-income photo enthusiasts. Lack of interesting products ... less sales. 1 Million less incrementally boring DSLR-iterations ... hahaha, I love it. Customers are king, after all.
> 
> Two years ago (late 2012) Canon and Nikon missed the boat. No compelling and affordable APS-C DSLRs. No D400. No 7D II. Pricing closer to USD 1000 than to 2000. Of course with built- in GPS, Wifi, and in Canon's case EX-RT radio flash trigger. And fully articulated LCD (not just tilt!). For Canon the old 45-point 1 AF system plus a kick-ass 24MP APS-C sensor, half a notch better DR and Hi-ISO than the Nikon D7100 sensor. Nikon would have easily gotten away with the D7100 sensor and AF system (Multicam 3500DX).
> 
> ...



Depending on specs and performance I'd be willing to pay as much as $300 for a FF mirrorless Canon.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Therefore CaNikon are both receiving their well-deserved punishment.



ah and who exactly is the new star on the camera sky?

olympus, fuji, panasonic or sony? ;D

i guess we will see when they show their numbers......


----------



## danski0224 (Oct 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> A simple add-on accessory provides GPS tagging to the 1D X and 5DIII. I highly doubt that many people opted for the 6D over the 5DIII for built-in GPS, rather, the overwhelming majority made that choice because the 6D costs much less.



It would have been nice if this GPS was included in the upper end bodies.

Maybe there are technical reasons why it wasn't. 

On the surface, it seems that there is significant intentional fragmentation within the Canon lineup with features that should be common within the line. This could be one of those features and WiFi is another that comes to mind.

I would have far more interest in either of those features than the movie capacity that is included in the camera bodies.

Choosing a camera body for GPS features means I give up many possible AF points that I find useful for off-center composition. There is a huge price gulf between the 6D, 5DII/III and the 1DX or future rumored 1DXs. I would suspect that the number of off-center picture composers outnumber the camera users that really and truly need all those AF points for action shooting.

Going from the 5DIII to the 6D to pick up internal GPS features seems very unlikely (excluding other revolutionary changes, 5DIII to "5DIV" for internal GPS is also unlikely- at least for me). So much is given up in other areas. I can understan product differentiation through sensor size, megapixels, ISO range, viewfinder, AF points/speed, metering and so forth. If internal GPS and/or WiFi was available across the 6D, 5D and 1DX lines, would this feature really cannibalize sales?

From my perspective as a product user, keeping GPS and/or WiFi out of the mix makes no sense- I realize that I have no knowledge of legit technical issues or product development timelines that may have excluded internal GPS or WiFi features. My phones have had GPS and WiFi for a long time without an external add-on, so the exclusion of this tech from an expensive camera is especially baffling. 

I do not own the GP-E2, nor have I seen one in person. Based on a quick search of online reviews, the device is either connected to the hotshoe or to the camera via a cable. Either seems to pose potential pitfalls compared to having the GPS internal to the camera body: no flash or snag the cable on something. There also seems to be some issues with the type of files generated by the Canon GPS unit, but this may have been "fixed" with later versions of 3rd party programs such as Lightroom.

I would be interested in feedback concerning the GP-E2.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 27, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Therefore CaNikon are both receiving their well-deserved punishment.
> ...



None ... the poster however in this case has a fascination for the new Sony cameras and with all the gushing emotion probably he is oblivious to the fact that sales of cameras are on the decline worldwide and not just because Canon has not come up with a mirrorless FF. 

If this were the auto industry you would be forgiven to believe that it has been receiving its "well deserved punishment" because they haven't innovated enough to make a car that flies!


----------



## Ruined (Oct 27, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Bad analogy, as I think people actually want and would buy a flying car.

Mirrorless sales, on the other hand, are doing even worse than DSLR sales and going in the wrong direction. As cameraphones continue to get better (look at Lumia 1020), I believe they will eclipse mirrorless as the portable high quality camera. You can't get much more portable than being with you all the time, and mirrorless almost always makes some sacrifices in quality or functionality for the small size. Pros will use DSLR, consumers will use cameraphones, mirrorless will have little market left IMO. Sales data appears to support this is already happening.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 27, 2013)

Ruined said:


> Bad analogy, as I think people actually want and would buy a flying car.



Not really ... the point I was trying to make is that the auto-makers were struggling because the economy was in bad shape and not because they were not innovating enough.


----------



## Ruined (Oct 27, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> "Nikon MILCs" ... of course Nikon gets punished. Because their ill-fated dwarf-sensored 1-system does not sell any longer. Even japanese schoolgirls have stopped buying them, despite pink and gold painting.
> Truth is simply: end of 2013
> * Nikon has not a single MILC worth buying. Only boring me-too consumer-level APSC DSLRs (e.g. D5300). One marketing-crippled FF-DSLR (D610) plus expensive lenses to go with it. D800 is excellent, but most people wanting one, got one by now.
> * Canon .. exactly the same. Just insert "EOS-M", "Rebel XXS", "EOD 6D" and "5D III".
> ...



Ah, yes, Sony had a much better idea by coming out with a dwarf full frame camera that requires full frame dslr-sized lenses. Therefore completing negating any advantage of a small body, and actually making it a disadvantage as the lenses become too large and heavy to grip on a tiny body. Handling a big lens on a micro camera is going to be a mess, no pro would want that. Heck I wouldn't even want a big lens on a rebel, nevermind anything as small as an a7!

But sure, you can say "Hey look at my little nifty micro camera," then observe the awkward look on people's faces when the a7 looks like a fat guy in a little coat once you strap on a zoom lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Therefore CaNikon are both receiving their well-deserved punishment.



By all means, don't let your opinion blind you to the facts. Canon is still outselling Nikon, and Nikon is still far outselling FuSonOly. Your implication that Canon and Nikon are being 'punished' *by* FuSonOly is unfounded, bogus...and also completely wrong. 

This thread is about Canon cutting their FY2013 forecast by 7.7%. Included in that is a projected drop in sales of dSLRs/lenses of *3%*. Olympus predicts a drop in PEN sales of *12%* - four times the relative decrease of Canon (of course, in absolute terms Canon's 3% drop may well represent more cameras than Olympus even sells!). 

So, who is punishing who? :

Actually, the answer is the global economy is punishing everyone. Your assertion that FuSonOly is punishing Canon would be like saying Canon's camera sales are the cause of Fuji's announced cut in the forecast for Subaru car sales. 

Feel free to peddle your doom-speak and unfounded, biased opinions somewhere else...might I suggest DPR?


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 27, 2013)

It's so obvoius... Don't you guys see it?

• Canikon get punished for making uninnovative market-differentiated, crippled ever-so-boring dslrs and crappy milcs (canon: too sluggish, nikon: speedy enough but midget-sensored)
• oly and mFT get punished for using quarter-sized sensors in full-sized bodies and trying to charge APS-C price for it. Plus all the retro-styling crap. Thats limits their market to a smaller than necessary segment. 
• fuji is not doing as well as they could. They have painted themselves into the retro corner as well. And limit themselves to exotic APS-c transx sensors. Plus crop lenses at prices that will get you decent ff lenses as well.
• sony is in a mess, with all a-lenses, e-lenses and bodies, everything in aps-c and in ff. And while they are to be commended for bringing ff-milcs, they are coming up just a bit shy of a home run. Ibis, better af, better battery - and they would have scored really big time.

And, read my lips: i no fanboy for any brand. I will post here as long as i please. And i will not spend my money on any inadequate camera system. And neither should you.


----------



## justsomedude (Oct 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Therefore CaNikon are both receiving their well-deserved punishment.
> ...



Considering that many outfits are posting record profits, your "global economy" argument is actually the one that is unfounded. Just because Canon writes "negative impact of economic deterioration" in a quarterly report, does not make it fact. Many businesses are booming right now, selling luxury items at high costs (see Google, Apple iPhones/laptops, Sony Playstation, Xbox, etc.).

The reality is simple: consumer trends are changing, and Canon has not tacked to follow those market shifts. Many people have complained here in recent months/years (me being one of them), often times to the chagrin of the "long term" forum members. See your own post, for example: "might I suggest DPR?" You and the Canon-faithful are welcome to employ a dismissive attitude towards consumer complaints, but this is where it gets you; a deteriorating company stuck in a rut and unable to quickly respond to market factors. Here we are, almost two years out from the D800 launch with no competing body in sight!  That is shameful. And just ask Microsoft how well an entrenched/consumer-unfriendly mentality is working out for them with Windows8.

In the post above, AvTvM really nailed it - these companies simply decided to ignore consumers, and now they are suffering as a result. The companies that evolved and innovated are thriving - even in a less than ideal global economy. Those that don't implement dramatic shifts in corporate direction will either stagnate or wither and fade away. Only time will tell.

For me, I remain a Canon enthusiast. I'm well invested in glass and have three bodies that serve me well on a professional level (5D3, 6D and 60D). However, for my recent overseas travel adventure, I just picked up a Fuji x100 on eBay. I must say it has forced me to re-evaluate my position regarding brand-loyalty. As long as other camera users (both professionals and enthusiasts) continue to evaluate competing equipment, and as long as Canon refuses to accept the incredibly competitive marketplace, they will only further erode their position as leader in the dSLR sector.

I hope they can right the ship.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> It's so obvoius... Don't you guys see it?
> 
> • Canikon get punished for making uninnovative market-differentiated, crippled ever-so-boring dslrs and crappy milcs (canon: too sluggish, nikon: speedy enough but midget-sensored)
> • oly and mFT get punished for using quarter-sized sensors in full-sized bodies and trying to charge APS-C price for it. Plus all the retro-styling crap. Thats limits their market to a smaller than necessary segment.
> ...



sorry, but you sound like that ankorwat guy with your constant repeats. 

no we don´t agree with your points about canon being punished.. how often we have to repeat that?

posting your opinions over and over will not change the facts or our opinion.



justsomedude said:


> The companies that evolved and innovated are thriving - even in a less than ideal global economy.



mhm....aha.. and which CAMERA maker would that be? 
leica? ;D 



justsomedude said:


> The reality is simple: consumer trends are changing, and Canon has not tacked to follow those market shifts.



so you think canon should start making smartphones? 

at one point the market for DSLR cameras is saturated.
there is no two digit grow anymore, not even a status quo... sales will decline.
after a decade this point seems to be reached now.

i would not buy a P&S anymore.. but i have in the past.
my parents (over 60) would not buy a DSLR or any expensive camera, because their smartphone cameras are good enough (for them). my father was shooting with an AE1 and T90 before.

NO INNOVATION FROM CANON (that some geeks wish for like a 40+ MP sensor, 14.4 stops of DR) WOULD CHANGE THAT!

40+ MP and more DR is stuff only a minority wants anyway.
that´s something you people here don´t get. 
this forum has a few thousand members.... but there are millions of rebel owners out there who don´t care.

canon would sell more cameras if the rebels had a "direct-to-facebook" connection and an android like OS.
nobody outside some geek forums cares about 40+ MP and 1 stop DR more or less.

my niece loves to take photos but she would never carry a DSLR or any other camera around.
even a small m43 camera is an extra piece she has to carry. her samsung galaxy does everything she needs. and here photos are instantly uploaded to facebook.

do you think she is interested more in sharing here pictures easily..... or having a 40+ MP file transfered to facebook?

on the other side people who are a bit more interested in image quality already have a camera.
my uncle has a D90 and no intention to upgrade.
there are not many people out there who pay 2000-3000 euro every 4 years for a new camera.

before smartphones... my parents and my niece would have bought a dedicated camera to take pictures.

so yes times are changing.. but the problem is... the innovations you guys want will not solve the problem.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2013)

justsomedude said:


> Many businesses are booming right now, selling luxury items at high costs (see Google, Apple iPhones/laptops, Sony Playstation, Xbox, etc.).



Of the products you highlight, only Apple laptops exceed the price of entry-level dSLRs. Not a terribly valid economic argument. 



justsomedude said:


> You and the Canon-faithful are welcome to employ a dismissive attitude towards consumer complaints, but this is where it gets you; a deteriorating company stuck in a rut and unable to quickly respond to market factors. Here we are, almost two years out from the D800 launch with no competing body in sight! That is shameful.



The reality is simple: the 5DIII *is* the competing body to the D800, and it's outselling the D800 by a wide margin. Consider that with many lenses, the D800 barely outresolves the 5DIII, and once you take it off a tripod, it's actually worse. If MP mattered most to the market, everyone would ditch their dSLRs for Nokia phones with 41 MP. Want to be the first of us to make the leap into the brave new world?



justsomedude said:


> In the post above, AvTvM really nailed it - these companies simply decided to ignore consumers...



Well, they're ignoring him, anyway. I find that my needs are being met just fine. 

Are the days of the dSLR numbered? Quite likely...someday, cell phones will have 10 gigapixel 3D lightfield cameras that record continuously at 120 fps, and images will be instantly processed with though-controlled Photoshop Mobile. That's a ways off, though. In the meantime, that innovative replacement to the dSLR, the MILC, is seeing sales drop faster than dSLRs, despite their lower prices.


----------



## justsomedude (Oct 27, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> so yes times are changing.. but the problem is... the innovations you guys want will not solve the problem.



I agree with you on many of your points, Lichtgestalt, but the problem is one of Canon (and the entire dSLR industry's) own making. Cranking out an "updated" camera every three years at an exorbitant price-premium with minimal, if any, feature changes, is not a way to run a business or get brand loyalty. Yes, it's worked for Apple, but they are the lone wolf in this regard and can run their business that way due to their rabid fanbase. dSLR users by nature, are a much more finicky bunch that won't be duped by minor spec improvements. The "check out our new dual-pixel AF!! Now give us 1,200 of your hard earned dollars!!" marketing approach just doesn't work on the majority of us. We're simply not that impressed by the cost per feature. And as you stated, many of us already have dSLRs and the image quality is fine, so getting us to shell out $3,200 for the next FF consumer model is a tough sell. Heck, the 8 year old 10MP 40D is still more than plenty for the average enthusiast, and one of the first bodies I recommend to new dSLR shooters.

That said, I still think massive innovations can be made. I, for one, am still clamoring for a sensor that mimic's the dynamic range of film. I don't need 40+ MP, but having better shadow performance would be something I would gladly pay for. (and something I am still envious of regarding the D800)

But this is all nit-picking silliness that only demonstrates the point I think we all agree on... the dSLR manufacturers are on an unsustainable trajectory. Without major shifts, and I'm not sure what those shifts should be, they will only hasten their own loss of market share.


----------



## Orangutan (Oct 27, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> It's so obvoius... Don't you guys see it?





justsomedude said:


> In the post above, AvTvM really nailed it - these companies simply decided to ignore consumers




OK, let me see if I understand you: you seem to be saying that consumers are punishing Canon (and others) *not* by buying a similar product from a competing brand, but rather by not upgrading frequently and enthusiastically, regardless of brand? I.e., consumer says "70D isn't a big enough upgrade from the 60D, I'll keep what I have for another two years" rather than "I'll go buy a D610 and Nikon lenses?" 

If that's your point at least it's remotely plausible, but it would take some serious market research to show it to be more than speculation.

Edit: I should note that this happens to be true for me: the 70D did not offer enough to make me upgrade from my 60D. However, I'm only one example, so this says nothing for the market as a whole.


----------



## justsomedude (Oct 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of the products you highlight, only Apple laptops exceed the price of entry-level dSLRs. Not a terribly valid economic argument.



Given that the entire article points to consumers using $600 iPhones in place of $600 entry-level dSLRs, I think it's an incredibly valid point. And one that I'm sure Canon's market strategist won't be as quick to ignore.



neuroanatomist said:


> The reality is simple: the 5DIII *is* the competing body to the D800, and it's outselling the D800 by a wide margin.



That's all fine and dandy, but the 5D3 still can't hold a candle to the dynamic range of the D800. Sure, when you throw in DUAL-ISO hacks you can get there, but out of the box shadow performance is far from equal.



neuroanatomist said:


> Well, they're ignoring him, anyway. I find that my needs are being met just fine.



That's fine, I just don't think ignoring those who are not 100% satisfied by Canon is a logical approach. And telling them to go to another forum seems downright condescending and rude. I think the best use of forums is to discuss opposing viewpoints, not banish them. 

It would behoove you to understand the mentality of the dissatisfied user base. For there are many of us who still continue to use Canon loyally, on a daily basis as part of our business. We just find their approach to their product line "evolution" to be somewhat, how shall I say this, disingenuous with respect to the advanced shooter.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

justsomedude said:


> Heck, the 8 year old 10MP 40D is still more than plenty for the average enthusiast, and one of the first bodies I recommend to new dSLR shooters.



yep.. a decade ago most people could only dream to have a digital SLR (i was one of them).
i was shooting film for a relativ long time. i switched to digital at the end of 2008.

today most who are interested in a DSLR have one .. or two..or three.. or.. 

and as you wrote, 10x15cm prints from a 8 year old camera don´t look much different then from a 1D X. 

and that´s what most people do... 10x15cm or 13x18cm prints. if they print out photos at all.
that´s why my uncle is still happy with his D90.

this market can´t grow forever.

im also not really interested in a mirrorless DSLR.
not yet... i have seen all the latest EVF and im still not 100% happy with them.

the size advantages of a mirroless is not that important for me.
the current canon DSLR´s have the right size for my hands. 
handling feels natural. i don´t want a tiny camera body.

and when i want a camera i can carry all day in my pocket, all mirrorless FF cameras would be to big anyway.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 27, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> it is very simple. Canon and Nikon are being punished for not having brought to market DSLRs that are both affordable and interesting to regular-income photo enthusiasts. Lack of interesting products ... less sales. 1 Million less incrementally boring DSLR-iterations ... hahaha, I love it. Customers are king, after all.
> 
> Two years ago (late 2012) Canon and Nikon missed the boat. No compelling and affordable APS-C DSLRs. No D400. No 7D II. Pricing closer to USD 1000 than to 2000. Of course with built- in GPS, Wifi, and in Canon's case EX-RT radio flash trigger. And fully articulated LCD (not just tilt!). For Canon the old 45-point 1 AF system plus a kick-ass 24MP APS-C sensor, half a notch better DR and Hi-ISO than the Nikon D7100 sensor. Nikon would have easily gotten away with the D7100 sensor and AF system (Multicam 3500DX).
> 
> ...




?????? i think your asking for a miracle here and I think your wrong on a bunch of levels --- innovating the $1000 level bodies I think at this point is a death wish - the $1000 body segment of the market is exactly the folks saying why spend money when my phone can do the trick. You can't draw blood from a stone - and i said this before - even cell phone makes will suffer from this too because what else can you do at this stage that's revolutionary???? DR, it's been done, it's been argued, it's been the dead horse beaten and you know what.. an increase in DR may be a major improvement for the pro/ serious enthusiast crowd .... 

But, the $1000 body crowd is gonna be falling in line with that cell phone crowd...and they don't need DR, they don't need mp's...they need that easy way to facebook it.. Many of these users will love that wifi, they may even shoot in raw, but, right after shooting use the picture viewer on the phone, then use some phone based editing software, then instagram and faebook it. Pros and entusiasts are looking for different things (i have to wonder at some here, the whole lack of gps in a 5d3 crowd, that i think is not the norm - but hey, a sale is a sale, for every person buying the 6d for the gps wifi, there is another person buying it for the good FF sensor and basic interface).

And then there's the whole mirrorless thing? Mirrorless is a new market finding its way, it may become a dominant format, or, it may go the way of betamax ---- and, let me get this right, you want revolutionary DSLR's and Revolutionary mirrorless - i say pick one or the other and put your resources there...

ohhh and sorry, maybe some casual users/ entusiasts/ people looking for a decent camera to bring on vacation are going for the Fuji APS-C and or olympus models --- but, I have not seen one pro/semipro/emerging pro show up to any kind of event with one of those. 

In summation, I just don't understand where your coming from...


----------



## justsomedude (Oct 27, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > Heck, the 8 year old 10MP 40D is still more than plenty for the average enthusiast, and one of the first bodies I recommend to new dSLR shooters.
> ...



So, your argument is what, then... there's no innovation left? dSLRs are dead? That sounds like what you're saying since you're not offering any alternatives. 

And do you really want to argue that some markets can't grow forever?

You might want to talk to Apple about that. There has been no major change in their phones in ages, yet they crank them out at top tier prices and continuously break sales records. If they start stealing dSLR market share with a handheld 1/8" sensor mirrorless "camera" that's built into a mobile phone device, you'll be darn tootin' that Canon will be right there with a new product to compete.

I think there is plenty of innovation left, Canon just chooses to rest on its laurels.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> ohhh and sorry, maybe some casual users/ entusiasts/ people looking for a decent camera to bring on vacation are going for the Fuji APS-C and or olympus models --- but, I have not seen one pro/semipro/emerging pro show up to any kind of event with one of those.



zack arias maybe.. he seems to love the fuji.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

justsomedude said:


> So, your argument is what, then... there's no innovation left? dSLRs are dead?



not for us enthusiast and pros.
but there will be diminishing returns we will have to face.
who really needs 80MP cameras? only a very small percentage.
and of course there will be some pixelpeeper who even buy a gigapixel camera. 

DR can be improved and that´s something i like to see.
but most consumers don´t care much about DR.
it´s again the enthusiast and pros who are interested in better DR.

but i guess the low end is pretty much dead in a few years, yes.




> And do you really want to argue that some markets can't grow forever?



yes. history proves me right. 
smartphones are pretty new... they will see their decline too.
at some point there will be a new technology replacing traditional smartphones. 

and i think you can not really compare communication technology to cameras.
we all have an urge and need to communicate.. but not everyone is a photographer.

ps:
and apple is a status symbol for some.. as crazy as that sounds.
it´s not rational. they feel bad when they don´t have the latest and their colleagues have.

it reminds me a bit on the 80s when i was in school.. some kids where "hip" because of their trainers.... :


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

bassfield said:


> barely outresolves? Strong words.
> http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings, there are no Canon lenses in the top





> It is hard to get a real comparison when Canon has no high end resolution camera



ah... a glimpse of understanding.

the results are not lens results.. they are LENS + SENSOR results.

to have lens results you best have an infinite resolving sensor.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 27, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> justsomedude said:
> 
> 
> > So, your argument is what, then... there's no innovation left? dSLRs are dead?
> ...




wow...so the automobile must be dead too because there have been no earth shattering upgrades in decades!!!!

just because we've hit diminishing returns that doesn't mean people won't buy, it's just buying on a different schedule. I mean, is there anything reallly oh god ground breaking between that 2002 toyota corrola and the 20010 toyota corrolla you just bought? A few bells and whisltles, but, its the same size, handles the same, ohh..the old one was blue tand this one is green...did you trade in that 2002 corrolla because oh my, i need that reverse camera? or, was it because the 2002 needed a new exhaust system, and the suspension was shot, and the check engine light was on, and it was topping 175,000 miles....

When tech is in a growth mode, yes, we see lots more sales because each new product cycle does have a more tangible benefit ---but, what's more to do other than marginal upgrades? Hell, I'd even take that ...screw sensor design, lets find a way to increase the sync speed for FF shutters....I'd love that, it would rock, but is it revolutionary? No, it's a marginal upgrade. 

the car example is just one of what we see and use and buy regularly ---- LOL --- by the logic of it must revolutionize or the market dies...it's true, yeah (sarcasm), this is why hammer sales are down, I mean, when was the last revolutionary upgrade to the hammer! 

As another poster stated --- the dslr market has matured, and that means we are now gonna be buying stuff because we need it more than because oh my it's got all these bells and whistles...AKA, my body is hitting the edge the shutter's lifespan, gee, maybe it's now worth it to just have a new shutter installed????? Is that really such a bad thing that maybe we can find ourselves with less disposable tech????????


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

bassfield said:


> understanding or not, there is no Canon lenses in the top along with 5dmk3



well... but if you look at what the 5D MK3 actually can achive with it´s 22 MP... it doesn´t look that bad uh?


http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-500mm-and-600mm-f-4G-ED-VR-lens-reviews-legendary-performers-in-the-range/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-500mm-f-4G-ED-VR-fights-off-both-Canon-and-Sony


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> wow...so the automobile must be dead too because there have been no earth shattering upgrades in decades!!!!



apples and oranges as usual when someone brings a car analogy.  



> the car example is just one of what we see and use and buy regularly ---- LOL --- by the logic of it must revolutionize or the market dies...



i guess you quoted my post but the argumention is aimed at justsomedude?
because i fully agree here.

stop growing does not mean dying. 

but cars are a status symbol. more then rebel DSLR´s.
it doesn´t look good when you drive a rusty 2002 corrolla. 

and are their new alternatives to cars? 
has the car market seen a competition like cameras have with smartphones?
notice i wrote cameras not DSLR´s. 

i don´t see how the camera market can grow when the wide base (low end DSLR and P&S) is breaking away. 

as i wrote i don´t think DSLR´s will be dead.
even with smaller technological steps there will always be people who want a DSLR (or fullframe interchangeable lens system).
it´s just that i think low end DSLR will get less attractive.




> As another poster stated --- the dslr market has matured, and that means we are now gonna be buying stuff because we need it more than because oh my it's got all these bells and whistles...AKA, my body is hitting the edge the shutter's lifespan, gee, maybe it's now worth it to just have a new shutter installed?? Is that really such a bad thing that maybe we can find ourselves with less disposable tech??



it´s sure not a bad thing.
and a reason you can not expect the 10% increase per year to go on forever.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 27, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > wow...so the automobile must be dead too because there have been no earth shattering upgrades in decades!!!!
> ...




Realize that your end statement only proves not only my point, the point of a few others here --- 

There was a big balloon in digital imaging, that balloon has pretty much hit it's apex, now the balloon is settling into a more natural state... which means sales are slowing....as you said..."10% or more growth can't go on forever." The market will contract, and or, is contracting. We saw it with computers too, tech goes in waves, new tech hits, new things get the bubble effect until you hit a point where the upgrades are marginal. 

You say my car anaology doesn't rwork...apples and oranges...most car analogies here are trying to say this model is like a toyota and this is like a BMW ---all i am saying is this isn't a matter of product a being better than the other product:

As many have said - camera bodies are tools to get a job done. We've been in the ballon, now the ballon is contracting...so the updates will not be revolutionary, they will be marginal --- the decision to buy a new camera body won't be because my business will be harmed because the other guy has better tech, but like any other tool - you replace it when needed...that's the car analogy too, your not buying the same model car but a newer version for the feature set, your buying it because the old one was worn out!

with that said, even though the bubble is contracting, I am betting we will see improvements that are slightly more than evolutionary, but nothing earth shattering.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> There was a big balloon in digital imaging, that balloon has pretty much hit it's apex, now the balloon is settling into a more natural state... which means sales are slowing....as you said..."10% or more growth can't go on forever." The market will contract, and or, is contracting. We saw it with computers too, tech goes in waves, new tech hits, new things get the bubble effect until you hit a point where the upgrades are marginal.



well that´s exactly what i wrote before, yes. 

it´s just that cars have a different "dynamic" then cameras. 
thats why you still see the market grow after all the years.
and new envolving markets like china help.

a car is not only a object of utility, it´s a social status symbol.
and cars have not seen a real competition since they exist.
subways, airplanes, trains don´t count. they are not made as individual driving vehicles.

that´s why i think it´s apples and oranges.
even when i agree with the points made about cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2013)

justsomedude said:


> Given that the entire article points to consumers using $600 iPhones in place of $600 entry-level dSLRs, I think it's an incredibly valid point.



Well, that was the point of the first paragraph, anyway. 



justsomedude said:


> That's all fine and dandy, but the 5D3 still can't hold a candle to the dynamic range of the D800. Sure, when you throw in DUAL-ISO hacks you can get there, but out of the box shadow performance is far from equal.



Oh, ok. Has that helped the D800 outsell the 5DIII? No. While it's true there is a small group of vocal forum posters DRone incessantly about DR, having more DR hasn't helped Nikon outsell Canon in any dSLR market segment. Clearly, you're in the minority. Or maybe not...I believe you said you're a Canon user, if so, why haven't you switched to Nikon for the better DR?



justsomedude said:


> That's fine, I just don't think ignoring those who are not 100% satisfied by Canon is a logical approach. And telling them to go to another forum seems downright condescending and rude. I think the best use of forums is to discuss opposing viewpoints, not banish them.



Condescending and rude to call someone on blatant misrepresentation of facts, repeatedly and in several threads? I'm not going to apologize for that. Maybe I should apologize to DPR forums, though...



justsomedude said:


> It would behoove you to understand the mentality of the dissatisfied user base. For there are many of us who still continue to use Canon loyally, on a daily basis as part of our business. We just find their approach to their product line "evolution" to be somewhat, how shall I say this, disingenuous with respect to the advanced shooter.



Constructive criticism is fine. Unfortunately, much of the microcosm of the Canon user base represented on this forum is under the mistaken impression that Canon must respond to their individual, disparate needs. Canon's goal is to sell cameras and lenses. The fact that they are selling more cameras than their competition, and even still able to sell to apparently disaffected people such as yourself, suggests that they're doing a pretty good job at achieving their goal.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2013)

bassfield said:


> barely outresolves? Strong words.
> http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings



Thanks for sharing that useful information. Useful, that is, to anyone who shoots only in lighting like that found in a dimly lit warehouse. Maybe you didn't realize that their Scores have little to do with overall optical performance, but rather are based on performance at 150 lux? Or that my statement was based, in part, on data and an article from DxOMark (but not the Biased Scores - abbreviated BS - which you highlighted). It's unfortunate that so few people bother to actually *read and comprehend* what a 'Score' actually means (at least to the extent possible, since some aspects are often undisclosed by the testing organization).


----------



## Ruined (Oct 27, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> it´s just that i think low end DSLR will get less attractive.



If people don't buy a DSLR, they generally will use their phone... And there isn't much that Canon can do about that, because an extra device is always going to be less convenient than 2 devices. No matter how small your camera is, a cameraphone + camera + lens is always going to be more bulky than a cameraphone alone.

As for mirrorless, companies are now disguising them in DSLR bodies because they sell better that way!
http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxycamera/nx/

My thought?

Consumers will continue to shift to cameraphones as they get better, if they want something more serious they will buy DSLR because that is what they know.

Pros will continue to buy no-compromise DSLRs simply because they are the best overall, no sacrifices made for small size. Not to mention a tiny body can be a big disadvantage with a big full frame lens due to lack of control.

Mirrorless may end up disguised as DSLR like we see with the Galaxy NX or take some other hybrid form factor. But that is about as much as we can hope IMO... They simply aren't catching on in general - people are ambivalent to them.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 27, 2013)

justsomedude said:


> I agree with you on many of your points, Lichtgestalt, but the problem is one of Canon (and the entire dSLR industry's) own making. Cranking out an "updated" camera every three years at an exorbitant price-premium with minimal, if any, feature changes, is not a way to run a business or get brand loyalty. Yes, it's worked for Apple, but they are the lone wolf in this regard and can run their business that way due to their rabid fanbase. dSLR users by nature, are a much more finicky bunch that won't be duped by minor spec improvements. The "check out our new dual-pixel AF!! Now give us 1,200 of your hard earned dollars!!" marketing approach just doesn't work on the majority of us. We're simply not that impressed by the cost per feature. And as you stated, many of us already have dSLRs and the image quality is fine, so getting us to shell out $3,200 for the next FF consumer model is a tough sell. Heck, the 8 year old 10MP 40D is still more than plenty for the average enthusiast, and one of the first bodies I recommend to new dSLR shooters.
> 
> That said, I still think massive innovations can be made. I, for one, am still clamoring for a sensor that mimic's the dynamic range of film. I don't need 40+ MP, but having better shadow performance would be something I would gladly pay for. (and something I am still envious of regarding the D800)
> 
> But this is all nit-picking silliness that only demonstrates the point I think we all agree on... the dSLR manufacturers are on an unsustainable trajectory. Without major shifts, and I'm not sure what those shifts should be, they will only hasten their own loss of market share.



A few posts back you were complaining that Canon etc. weren't listening to consumers, but here you're telling us that "many of us" are satisfied with the cameras we have and that you recommend an old model to novices. What does *that* tell Canon etc.?

(And if better shadow performance is something you would "gladly pay for", and since you're envious of the D800 (and presumably D600/610, whose DR is about the same), why don't you gladly jump over to Nikon? It's not difficult to switch, and except for camera bodies bought new there's little loss involved.) 

For all we know, Canon *does* listen to customers - it could be that, notwithstanding the complaining here, most customers just don't care about DR (if they really did care, wouldn't they have jumped to Nikon by now?) and, to the extent they want to buy dslrs, are quite happy with what Canon provides (its sales may be down, but its market share isn't, is it?). What are the demands of camera customers that you and that other chap think the companies are ignoring? Are there marketing surveys we can read or is this all just empty speculation? (We do seem to know that lots of people are quite happy to use smartphones exclusively; what that tells Canon and Nikon etc. isn't so much that they have dslr demands that aren't being met but that they have no interest in dslrs - maybe Canon and Nikon should start making phones....)

And just how important is "listening to customers" anyway? Is that what drives innovation? Or is it more a case of supply creating demand?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 27, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > There was a big balloon in digital imaging, that balloon has pretty much hit it's apex, now the balloon is settling into a more natural state... which means sales are slowing....as you said..."10% or more growth can't go on forever." The market will contract, and or, is contracting. We saw it with computers too, tech goes in waves, new tech hits, new things get the bubble effect until you hit a point where the upgrades are marginal.
> ...


the car is just one example. the bicycle is another...the stove, the fridge, the sink, plumbing.. or go the other way, power drills, circular saws. Or we could take it even in another direction, musical instruments. I guess no one plays the violin any more because what there have been no revolutionary changes in the design. 

Markets will continue when there is a NEED for a product - and back to the car thing - a car is not a status symbol in all cases. Yes, certain cars are - but unless your rich, its a utility, it gets you to work in the morning and home at night - and once it stops serving that need as well, it gets replaced. The boom in the digital world that we've seen over the last decade is because we went from 2 MP camera's that did not stand up to the original film camera's in any way. We've gone from that to what we have now in a short time. And until the next big tech shift comes, we're gonna be dealing with a more stabilized market --- which isn't necessarily a bad thing...


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 27, 2013)

> (And if better shadow performance is something you would "gladly pay for", and since you're envious of the D800 (and presumably D600/610, whose DR is about the same), why don't you gladly jump over to Nikon? It's not difficult to switch, and except for camera bodies bought new there's little loss involved.)



as i wrote before... i don´t see the D800 numbers translate into better image quality.
i have looked at many D800 images but i just don´t see the additional 14MP making a big difference. 

thought... what i do see is the cleaner results when pushing shadows.
that´s one thing i like to be improved on canon sensors, besides better DR.
i mean... when i buy the 5D MK4 i like to see some improvements or i could stick to my 5D MK3... right? 
and those are the improvements i would like to see.

when i can expose for the highlights and then be able to push the shadows that´s often worth a lot. the cleaner the results the better. and i have to say the D800 has the edge here.

does it make me lose sleep... sure not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2013)

sdsr said:


> For all we know, Canon *does* listen to customers - it could be that, notwithstanding the complaining here, most customers just don't care about DR (if they really did care, wouldn't they have jumped to Nikon by now?)...



Indeed. The aforementioned minority of DRones notwithstanding, almost no one complained about the 5DII's sensor IQ. Canon's 'budget' FF customers complained about the AF, the responsiveness, the lack of dual card slots, etc. Canon addressed those complaints quite effectively with the 5DIII, and anticipated the concerns of the reasonably-sized group of customers who would want an updated FF body at a cost lower than the 5DIII, and launched the 6D soon thereafter, to address those concerns. 

That's the kind of _listening_ that has kept Canon in their market-leading position.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 27, 2013)

justsomedude said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > so yes times are changing.. but the problem is... the innovations you guys want will not solve the problem.
> ...



What feature would be so dazzling then? ISO's have been pushed from a usable 1600 to a usable 12,800 or higher....not dazzling. Pixel peepers here will always site the Exmor DR, but in all the ad's I see for nikon, the selling factor is more like "look, ashton kutcher uses a nikon - he's cool, you want to be cool, buy nikon." I don't see many ads saying...14 stops of DR.... dual pixel AF...a nice development - but again, mind blowing it isn't.

If this is true - "Heck, the 8 year old 10MP 40D is still more than plenty for the average enthusiast, and one of the first bodies I recommend to new dSLR shooters," then isn't it safe to say we don't even need the marginal updates. the 8 year old 40d is enough, so why bother putting all that R&D money into developing anything? 

Also, if this 8 year old tech is still more than plenty for most then how can you say this - "But this is all nit-picking silliness that only demonstrates the point I think we all agree on... the dSLR manufacturers are on an unsustainable trajectory. Without major shifts, and I'm not sure what those shifts should be, they will only hasten their own loss of market share." Time will tell, if i am right then this is just a market correction, we've had the bubble now things can level out. Or, is the threat f the cell phone so big that it will cause the whole damn market to crumble? I highly doubt it, but realize this ---if my theory is right then don't expect mind blowing changes....


----------



## Woody (Oct 28, 2013)

Although most folks attribute this lowering of profit margins to users switching from cameras to to camera phones, the reality is that Canon market shares for DSLRs (STILL outselling mirrorless cameras by a ratio of 4:1) has dropped in the USA. According to Thom Hogan, Nikon has nearly caught up with Canon DSLR market shares in USA. Not a good sign for Canon if this is true.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 28, 2013)

Woody said:


> Although most folks attribute this lowering of profit margins to users switching from cameras to to camera phones, the reality is that Canon market shares for DSLRs (STILL outselling mirrorless cameras by a ratio of 4:1) has dropped in the USA.



Some folks have already noted other reasons for that, some of which are not Canon's (or any other manufacturer's) fault, e.g. economy in large, and cameras becoming sufficiently mature for the market to pay for lot less upgrades.



Woody said:


> According to Thom Hogan, Nikon has nearly caught up with Canon DSLR market shares in USA. Not a good sign for Canon if this is true.



Indeed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2013)

bassfield said:


> Lichtgestalt said:
> 
> 
> > bassfield said:
> ...



Ahhhh, so Nikon's 500mm f/4 VR _isn't_ a good lens. :


----------



## Ivar (Oct 28, 2013)

I might be in complete minority, but personally I find/found the Canon recent offers so uninspiring that I switched.
That said I miss some Canon qualities like the handling feel and the lenses, though in overall I'm at the time being more happy with what I have now. Still open to any future propositions, I have a feeling for some great announcements happening at Photokina next year, from all the makers.


----------



## sanj (Oct 28, 2013)

I have been trying to gift my daughter the 1000D camera for a while now. She outright shows disinterest. She says she is very happy with her old point shoot camera and even the camera on her ipad. She is 16. She takes photos all the time and posts in face book, instagram etc. 
She sees me buying top cameras all the time... 

I am sure there are lots other like her.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 28, 2013)

sanj said:


> I have been trying to gift my daughter the 1000D camera for a while now. She outright shows disinterest. She says she is very happy with her old point shoot camera and even the camera on her ipad. She is 16. She takes photos all the time and posts in face book, instagram etc.
> She sees me buying top cameras all the time...
> 
> I am sure there are lots other like her.



That is exactly what is happening. More and more photos are being pushed online and on FB people are getting less and less concerned about the IQ. The photos have turned into record shots to be shared with everyone. 

For any special occasion you will be invited with a caveat - "make sure to bring your camera along"


----------



## J.R. (Oct 28, 2013)

bassfield said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > bassfield said:
> ...



why haven't you sold all your Canon gear and moved over to Nikon?


----------



## Grumbaki (Oct 28, 2013)

J.R. said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I have been trying to gift my daughter the 1000D camera for a while now. She outright shows disinterest. She says she is very happy with her old point shoot camera and even the camera on her ipad. She is 16. She takes photos all the time and posts in face book, instagram etc.
> ...



Disregard for quality will bite them back in the ass. In a few years (display upgrades), it will bite them back in the ass like knock off polaroid film made some family memories disapear.

Their loss. (as long as it doesn't bankrupt or misguide Canon).


----------



## J.R. (Oct 28, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I'm somehow convinced that the general public couldn't care less for image quality insofar as FB photos is concerned. I've seen (and I guess you must have too) mug-shots getting over 400 yikes likes.

Most people who have been shooting with a phone / compact keep all their photos on a single laptop which goes bust once in three to four years resulting in zero photographic memories. Regardless, they never learn!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2013)

bassfield said:


> Nikon and Canon 500mm are so similar they could be regarding a real MTF test . The distance that DXO uses when they measuring up cameras and lenses plays an important role when these lenses are optimized at a certain distance.



I see. Can you point me to some data showing that Nikon and Canon 500mm f/4 lenses are optimized for _different_ distances, or that DxO tested them at different distances? Or perhaps some other explanation for why the Nikon lens shows a disproportionally much greater IQ decrement compared to the Canon lens?

I stand by my earlier statement - the increased MP count of the D800 over the 5DIII does not offer a benefit commensurate with what the numbers would suggest. To realize something close to that full benefit, you must:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Pick the right lens. Note that the correct choices don't include such lenses as the 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8 (popular pro/wedding lens), or the supertele lenses.
[*]Use a tripod and MLU (always fun with Nikon's poor implementation of Live View), or have enough light for at least ~1/(~4 x focal length) shutter speed without needing to raise the ISO too high (or kiss the DR benefit goodbye)
[*]Apparently (according to your post), know the subject distance for which your lens is optimized, and shoot only at that distance (if you know it - where is that specified, exactly?)
[/list]

Choosing wrong on #1 means you might just end up with lower resolution than with a 5DIII and comparable Canon lens. Failing to apply #2 will give you motion-blurred toss-away images (Canon users who upgraded from the 40D to the 7D learned that lesson the hard way, many thought their old 40D was sharper). I'm still not sure that #3 can even be met, it's hard to always shoot at the optimal distance for your lens without knowing that distance. 

It's amusing when people take some aspects of DxOMark's information at face value, but come up with complex, often undocumented reasons to explain how the information that doesn't fit their expectations isn't applicable; or when people link to Scores that don't mean what the poster thinks they mean, and ignore being called on it.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 28, 2013)

bassfield said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > bassfield said:
> ...



yeah whatever it is that makes you sleep well at night.

ignore the test you don´t like... but keep on posting the test you don´t understand. :


----------



## Vagabondman (Oct 28, 2013)

Cameras in smartphones have all but replaced point & shoots. Canon & other camera makers will have to really entice the average consumer now to get them to buy a DSLR.


----------



## Vagabondman (Oct 28, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> preppyak said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



NOT true! Many many avid DSLR shooters have opted for their iphone. Its a GREAT street photography camera, and an awesome travel camera. In fact, many professionals are using them more and more. Will it replace the DSLR for everything? No of course not. But to just say all serious photogs use DSLRs is definitely not true.


----------



## Tristan944 (Oct 28, 2013)

If Canon would make reasonably priced gear, more people would buy.


----------



## photonius (Oct 28, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> photonius said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



"Boy buys girl a nice camera (a dslr)" & the facebook (smartphone) crowd... 
Well, maybe we will soon see the Rebels that will come with a Facebook (mind you, configurable to twitter, etc. via the menu) button (maybe instead of the "print" button). It might work to capture a bit of the new crowd, but it won't overcome the fundamental obstacle that a dSLR is big and clunky compared to a smartphone. The big sensor just has no workaround for that. An EOS M with a 22mm lens is not bad though.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 28, 2013)

Tristan944 said:


> If Canon would make reasonably priced gear, more people would buy.



wow.. that´s genius.... they should give it away for free then. :

break even point.. all that economic nonsense they teach on universities around the globe.... useless... just make it cheaper so people buy more and your company will blossom.

of course keep the quality up while you make it cheaper.
please someone tell leica and hasselblad!!!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 28, 2013)

Tristan944 said:


> If Canon would make reasonably priced gear, more people would buy.



Maybe canon and nikon should do what cell phone companies do --- go with the contract system and give people ridiculously cheap upgrades every 2 years, but then jack up the price as a standalone device. Cell phones aren't exactly cheap anymore. People tend to forget that if they are buying one outside of the upgrade period, it's $500-700....

Also, I guess nikon is so much cheaper because it's only canon that needs to make more reasonably priced gear.... (sarcasm)


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Oct 28, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Also, I guess nikon is so much cheaper because it's only canon that needs to make more reasonably priced gear.... (sarcasm)



or 1100 euro for a m43 camera with a mediocre kit lens.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 28, 2013)

sanj said:


> I have been trying to gift my daughter the 1000D camera for a while now. She outright shows disinterest. She says she is very happy with her old point shoot camera and even the camera on her ipad. She is 16. She takes photos all the time and posts in face book, instagram etc.
> She sees me buying top cameras all the time...
> 
> I am sure there are lots other like her.



At the risk of being attacked, I feel I have to state the obvious. It might just be partially a female thing. Women are generally not very fascinated with machines of any kind. This is true often of pro female photographers using pro DSLR's. I know because this is what I gather from their attitude when I talk to them. They immediately gloss over or brush aside even the most simplistic technical aspects, and attempt to focus on the end results...and that they like them...and don't care how they got them.

When you combine the above with the age of 16...well surely you can see what's happening. A 16 year old female, does not see the world as you do. Things that are trivial and silly to you, are the most important things ever, to her. She takes the technical side for granted, and only focuses on end results...It's also possible her interest in taking pictures will die away as she grows up, so be prepared for that. Literally every teenager of either gender, takes pictures and posts online daily (or even hourly) for their friends to see. This does not make them photographers. It makes them children who are obsessed with trivial, shallow things, that even they themselves will be embarrassed about in a decade or less from now (even at that time when they are still very young adults with very similar attitudes to teens. It's a scientific fact that the brain does not fully develop until the age of 27 or 28).


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> bassfield said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon and Canon 500mm are so similar they could be regarding a real MTF test . The distance that DXO uses when they measuring up cameras and lenses plays an important role when these lenses are optimized at a certain distance.
> ...



Am I to assume that you feel DXO's tests are fair and accurate? Because if you think they are, that would amuse me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Am I to assume that you feel DXO's tests are fair and accurate? Because if you think they are, that would amuse me.



DxO's _Measurements_ are fair, useful, and usually accurate (with a few noteable exceptions, such as their initial testing of the Canon 70-200/2.8L IS II...data which were subsequently and silently replaced). As I've said before, their *B*iased *S*cores are a useless, steaming pile of...well, you get the idea....and anyway, real BS is good fertilizer, making it more useful than DxOMark's Scores.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Am I to assume that you feel DXO's tests are fair and accurate? Because if you think they are, that would amuse me.
> ...



Why can't someone with the means and the time, make their own website that tests equipment, especially Canon equipment, fairly?


----------



## sanj (Oct 29, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



"Quality" is so so subjective.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 29, 2013)

sanj said:


> Grumbaki said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Haha... exactly my point ... most users of FB are the - "couldn't care less" variety!


----------



## sandymandy (Oct 29, 2013)

they should just present something new and not just relabeled sensors and smaller camera bodies. why still no affordable mirrorless?? could easily dominate the market but yeah...


----------



## msm (Oct 29, 2013)

bassfield said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



So you are saying the nikon is only sharp at a certain distance? That's pretty crap for a $8k+ lens in my opinion. My 300 IS II is razor sharp from the 2m MFD to infinite.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 29, 2013)

sandymandy said:


> they should just present something new and not just relabeled sensors and smaller camera bodies. why still no affordable mirrorless?? could easily dominate the market but yeah...



If it could so easily dominate the market, then why aren't the other mirrorless offerings dominating?

I think that both canon and nikon are on the right track, they know that if the winds turn towards mirrorless they could easily bang a few models out there. But in the meantime, focus on the side of things they know they have a market for - like video and mirror based still camera's. then see what happens. 

Unfortunately though, as most have pointed out here - with the emphasis for mirrorless being smaller and lighter unless you want to live in a world where your focal length maxes out at 135mm, then this new thing will be a niche market at best. The only other way this goes down is for a mirrorless system to be designed that DOES NOT require current dslr users to ditch all their lenses. Create a mirrorless body with the same size as a current slr, and keep the damn mount the same - EF lenses...no silly quality killing adaptors, then mirrorless may have a chance because it will be a lot more viable for pro work. 

But ---what's the point then? why recreate the wheel? Other than draining batteries faster, not seeing much reason for mirrorless - it's not revolutionary, it's not even evolutionary ---it's kind of a backstep when you consider all the glass that goes into the garbage

I don't bank on that though.


----------



## Lawliet (Oct 29, 2013)

msm said:


> So you are saying the nikon is only sharp at a certain distance?



It happens - the Nikkor 200-400 is a poster child for this misbehavior. Better get within 50-75m/200ft of your subject.


----------



## pharp (Oct 30, 2013)

transpo1 said:


> So you know where I'm coming from, I'm a filmmaker and producer but I've also worked in advertising and tech. I follow tech developments quite closely, especially Apple and camera news.
> 
> In my opinion --
> 
> ...



+1 I think the 6D was a good idea, EXCEPT for the crippled AF - that was a mistake.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 1, 2013)

pharp said:


> +1 I think the 6D was a good idea, EXCEPT for the crippled AF - that was a mistake.



It wasn't so much a mistake as a pricing strategy for a new product category, an entry level full frame DSLR. If they had used a 7D-based AF sensor, the price and overall performance would have been too close to the 5D3...other than a 1.5 fps "crippling". Enough people have bought the 6D to tell Canon it was actually a resounding success, it seems to me. Nobody is overjoyed with the AF, but it can be made to work if you recognize its faults and work around them. For most every type of shooting I do, I prefer it to the 5D3. The 5D3 costs 50% more and has far worse luminance noise. If all I did was hold the shutter button down all day in multi-shot mode, I would be less happy. But Canon knew most people who would buy something like the 6D, would be able to use it as is. It's not as if they weren't very happy with the 5D2 and it's very similar autofocus system for over 4 years...and they were happy to pay 35 to 40% more for it to boot! They would even come on forums and brag about how good their 5D2 was, and how it was the best camera they ever owned. Imagine what they would have thought if the 5D2 had cost only $1600 (rather than $2700) and had even better image quality! Well, that's the 6D for ya.


----------



## J.R. (Nov 1, 2013)

Sony stock headed for the biggest drop in five years after it unexpectedly lowered its full-year profit forecast by 40 percent on stalling television and digital camera demand and box office flops. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-31/sony-cuts-annual-forecast-amid-stalling-demand-for-tvs-cameras.html


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 1, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Sony stock headed for the biggest drop in five years after it unexpectedly lowered its full-year profit forecast by 40 percent on stalling television and digital camera demand and box office flops.
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-31/sony-cuts-annual-forecast-amid-stalling-demand-for-tvs-cameras.html


Companies that drop product lines, leaving its customers without product support (and still charge premium for their products) will end up like Sony ... putting a 20.7 megapixel camera in their Xperia Z1 handset or a full frame sensor in 2 mirrorless cameras and hoping that its gonna "propel" them into profits is not gonna help ... *commitment* to a given product line and good customer service is what's gonna help Sony ... the only product I see Sony being truly committed to is Play Station. Compound all this to the fact that Sony has lost the art of stealing/copying ideas from other manufacturers (Shamesung is doing a great job of it these days).


----------



## ewg963 (Nov 1, 2013)

hutjeflut said:


> People that are satisfied taking pictures with there phones most likely never where in the DSLR market to begin with.
> Thats just the social pic snappers people that like good quality pics will always want a DSLR but hey its recession/crisis. My free spendable income keeps going down as insurancen, Food and everything keeps going up in price and my income isnt going up.
> so i simply do not have money for thoustant dollar bodys and multi thousant dollar lenses.
> The last generation canon lensen have had some seriously absurd price gains which most normal non professionals simply can no longer afford.
> ...


=1


----------



## docsmith (Nov 1, 2013)

ewg963 said:


> hutjeflut said:
> 
> 
> > People that are satisfied taking pictures with there phones most likely never where in the DSLR market to begin with.
> ...



Two quick comments:
1. While 90% of the time I believe you are correct and that those using camera phones will never buy a dSLR, I have to think to some degree increasing the number of people snapping pictures, posting pictures and ultimately participating in photography will eventually increase the number of dSLR owners. The slice of the pie may shrink, but the size of the pie may be growing. 

2. For people that can't afford a Luxury lens (L is for Luxury), have you noticed the new 55-250 STM, or the newer 18-55 lens. Honestly, they are getting pretty darn good optically. Canon also cut prices on the 17-55 and the 15-85, which are optically very good. So Canon does have an improving "value" product. Not surprisingly at all, their top of the line, Luxury, products, aren't aimed at their "value" customers. They are aimed at people that will pay a lot more for something that is a little better. Your complaint is analogous to someone that can afford a Honda but angry that a Mercedes isn't more affordable. Honda is a good car (I drive one). But it isn't Luxury.


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 1, 2013)

docsmith said:


> Two quick comments:
> 1. While 90% of the time I believe you are correct and that those using camera phones will never buy a dSLR, I have to think to some degree increasing the number of people snapping pictures, posting pictures and ultimately participating in photography will eventually increase the number of dSLR owners. The slice of the pie may shrink, but the size of the pie may be growing.
> 
> 2. For people that can't afford a Luxury lens (L is for Luxury), have you noticed the new 55-250 STM, or the newer 18-55 lens. Honestly, they are getting pretty darn good optically. Canon also cut prices on the 17-55 and the 15-85, which are optically very good. So Canon does have an improving "value" product. Not surprisingly at all, their top of the line, Luxury, products, aren't aimed at their "value" customers. They are aimed at people that will pay a lot more for something that is a little better. Your complaint is analogous to someone that can afford a Honda but angry that a Mercedes isn't more affordable. Honda is a good car (I drive one). But it isn't Luxury.



+1.

I eventually migrated to a dSLR from a point and shoot and camera phone.

Tried a couple of different point and shoots, and they never gave me what I was looking for.

Current camera phones are equal or better than my P&S cameras, with similar limitations. However, the phone camera can do things like email and messaging, which are valuable functions not available on my P&S or dSLR cameras.


----------



## J.R. (Nov 1, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> Current camera phones are equal or better than my P&S cameras, with similar limitations. However, the phone camera can do things like email and messaging, which are valuable functions not available on my P&S or dSLR cameras.



For this I find the 6D to be quite fun. Pair it with the iPhone and push it on to the net while on the move


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 1, 2013)

J.R. said:


> For this I find the 6D to be quite fun. Pair it with the iPhone and push it on to the net while on the move



Unfortunately, Canon chose not to provide such features on the 5DIII. I haven't really given serious thought to selling the 5DIII to get a 6D.

Can the 6D link to Android devices directly, or will they link through an existing WiFi network only?


----------



## J.R. (Nov 1, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> Can the 6D link to Android devices directly, or will they link through an existing WiFi network only?



Yes the 6D links to the devices directly. For this purpose you have to set up, lets say, a private Wi-Fi network between the phone and the camera.


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 1, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Yes the 6D links to the devices directly. For this purpose you have to set up, lets say, a private Wi-Fi network between the phone and the camera.



I have tried this in the past with a demo thermal imager and an Android phone.

It didn't work unless the imager and phone were paired on an established WiFi network. The two devices could not communicate directly even though each device was visible to the other. I didn't have a tethering/hot spot feature on my phone (well, really on the monthly bill), so I couldn't test that.

On the other hand, the imager could link directly to an iPad without going through an established WiFi network.


----------



## J.R. (Nov 1, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Yes the 6D links to the devices directly. For this purpose you have to set up, lets say, a private Wi-Fi network between the phone and the camera.
> ...



Works perfectly with my Android phone without an existing WiFi connection


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 1, 2013)

Cool. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 1, 2013)

ewg963 said:


> hutjeflut said:
> 
> 
> > People that are satisfied taking pictures with there phones most likely never where in the DSLR market to begin with.
> ...



I know from the casual users perspective L stands for luxury, and yeah theres the honda mercedes analogy - but --- in this field its a bit more complex than that as in the car world luxury is really just that - a luxury - a honda or a mercedes perform the exact same function, it gets you to and from work. L lenses on the other hand are designed for pro work, and are priced according. 

Canon doesn't update it's L's as often as other glass or other systems too - the v1 was releases in 2001, v2 in 2010. So that's a 9 year cycle. oh, and at launch, the v1 was at $1999 USD. Not that much cheapers than the v2 at all. 

Now lets think of the other end --- canon won't be upgrading this lens to the v3 for what, another 8-9 years. So Canon had to make this new 70-200 not only great in the here and now, but they had to design the optics to last for a decade - AND - knowing the road map to bigger mp's, it had to be a lens that had future proofing - a lens that works great in the 18-22 mp area, but, could also resolve for more MP's as that is the trend. 

Also, buy this lens today and you won't have a need to replace it until the next version comes out, and you won't be replacing it because of issues, (the lens will be fine unless you smashed it or something), it will be because the v3 is better!

To add more perspective - I am using the older version - the non IS 2.8 - release date of 1995, and this one won't get refreshed. Owned it for 2+ years. I bought it used, so I have no clue how old the thing actually is. It continues to be my workhorse. I will be updating it to the v2 because it is such a workhorse and I think adding IS could help me out in certain circumstances - plus it is better optically than the older one. Only reason I have waited to upgrade is because I do love my non IS version, and I needed to fill out other areas of my kit. Oh, andt he release price of the non IS version was $1450

the point is (or rather points are) - would you rather canon just push out new lenses that aren't new at all every year and make them cheap, but also disposable? Or, would you rather them put the time and effort necessary fort he product to withstand a decade of being on the market? 

Lastly -- if cost is the issue for you but you want L ---save $$$ and buy used!!!!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 1, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > Two quick comments:
> ...



Actually, it may not at all change the # of people that move to dslr's ---just the path to dslr's --instead of cell phone to P&S to slr---people will skip the P&S step and go right to slr


----------



## celliottuk (Nov 1, 2013)

I'm a bit late to this thread, so this is a reaction to the original post.
A long established UK high street chain-Jessops Photographic went bust a year ago. They blamed the rise of the smart/cameraphone that was killing off their business in the sub £150 compact camera market, which was their daily cash cow.
I can remember when I had to take a phone, a camera, an MP3 player plus loads more when I was going out. Now I take my phone. The death of compact cameras as they are at the moment is inevitable. The case for £200 plus cameras is less obvious. If I want simply to shove up a picture on Facebook, my phone does the job, for anything else I have decided that I need a tool that has more capabilities(Sometimes a micro 4/3rds camera, sometimes a heavy and expensive SLR)
As the capabilities of phones increase, the mid-market will be eroded, and with it the profits that pay for the R+D needed on high end cameras. That, surely, is the risk that Canon need to consider, and if I were them I would start to invest in technologies that would create a new low-end market. Things like cheap 3d cameras, or cameras with huge zoom capability that would be difficult to implement in a phone form factor come to mind.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Nov 1, 2013)

Last thing to say on this topic for a bit ---part of this whole debate involves trends. Right now everyone loves the instant gratification of snap upload, watch as the comments and likes pour in. Who says this trend is the new tomorrow? Right now, everyone wants to share everything and everyone loves everything that everyone is sharing. But will that be the case in 2015, 2016, 2017...etc etc. this is whats happening now, but, what's happening now is a trend - maybe this trend will change. what happens when the likes stop for your duck face in the mirror photo? What happens when no one cares that you posted a pic of your dinner plate. What happens when instant upload is considered, "that's so 2013, gawd, no one does that anymore."


----------

