# The Empire Strikes Back - How 5Ds fits Canon's plan for a DSLR turnaround



## Maiaibing (Jan 31, 2015)

Canon is finally acting on their deep DSLR sales troubles and have initiated a declared turn around by looking more at what buyers want. The high megapix cameras are the first steps in regaining Canon's lost ground. Equally exciting is the promise to "comprehensively" improve image quality.

But there is more. Because for once Canon has actually said a lot about how they see their market position, what's hurting their DSLR sales and what they intend to do about it (once again they have to note a double digit collapse y/y - this year by a staggering 17%). 

This has naturally lead Canon Camera division to make some heavy soul searching - also trying to explain to owners and board what they intend to do about this.

So here is the story as Canon sees it:
*
The problem:

2014 DSLR sales down 17% after they originally announced the ambition to have flat sales through 2013/2014.
*
___

*The analysis:*

Factors entry users considered important at the time of purchase (Based on a survey conducted by a third party firm)

*Top Priority Factors*
•High image quality/High resolution

*Factors Increasing in Priority*
•Improvement in auto focus, speed, etc.
•Usability
•Size and weight
•Wireless communication

___

*The turn around:*

*Products*
•Launch new DSLR and Mirrorless cameras
•Enhance lineup of interchangeable-lenses
•Strengthen network affinity (Ex. Connect Station)

*Marketing*
•Expand photography workshops
•New users
•Users looking to upgrade to next level
•Rollout tailored marketing strategies that effectively reach targeted customers

_*) Note: hope Canon does not think Connect Station is the networking we want to see..._

___

*The details:*

_"Demand for interchangeable-lens digital cameras continued to face harsh conditions due to the economic slowdown."

"...although sales volume of interchangeable-lens digital cameras declined owing to the shrinking market—in Japan as a result of the reaction following the rush in demand prior to the consumption tax increase, and in Europe and other markets due to worsening economic conditions—the advanced-amateur-model EOS 7D Mark II achieved healthy growth, enabling Canon to maintain the market’s top share."

"demand for interchangeable-lens digital cameras is expected to recover gradually"

"For cameras, efforts will be made to comprehensively raise aspects such as image-quality, visual expression, and operability. At the same time, Canon will work to further strengthen the network capabilities of these products."_

___

*My notes from the conference call:*

Plan to introduce more DSLR camera models than previous years to stimulate additional demand in this segment.

Contributing factors to the double digit sales drop aside from weak market:

1. Heavy camera inventory stock in beginning of 2014. Difficult to reduce because of severe price competition. Have tried to keep prices up in spite of this.
2. Also last year Canon only introduced one new DSLR model which was not enough to stimulate demand.
3. Technological innovation was driven by pixel count competition. User needs have at the same time diversified.

These factors account for our double digit decline in units sales.

Still some bright spots such as healthy 7DII sales. Giving Canon confidence that innovative products can stimulate demand.
___

*
Interesting times ahead!
*


----------



## Eagle Eye (Jan 31, 2015)

This sounds like a real cracker jack conference call where no one from Canon was actually involved. Introduce more cameras than last year? Let's see, they introduced two cameras last year and two SLRs are about to be announced, so it's a little late for that discussion. Obviously a Rebel is going to arrive. Addressing factors that contributed to lower sales, apart from the market? Umm... there were no factors. Canon maintained its hegemony in dSLRs even as sales across the board constricted.


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Jan 31, 2015)

Really Canon?
You needed to hire a third party research firm to discover all of that.
Hell, you could just read this forum for free to find out that and much more. SMH :


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 31, 2015)

Eagle Eye said:


> This sounds like a real cracker jack conference call where no one from Canon was actually involved. (...)?
> 
> Umm... there were no factors. Canon maintained its hegemony in dSLRs even as sales across the board constricted.



You must have missed what I wrote. 

Every single word above was said and presented by Canon's top executive during the last earnings call. And believe me: Every word he said during the conference has been very, very carefully vetted by managers, accountants and laywers to be 100% acurate 

I suggest that in stead of believing what you would like to be true visit Canon's home page to look at and listen to the presentation. Its obvious that he during the call recognises that the difficult market is only one of several factors leading to the dramatic drop in their DSLR sales. In fact he does not focus on the market situation during the call itself talking more about what Canon needs to do to strike back - esspecially when it comes to offering a high pixel count camera.


----------



## gsealy (Jan 31, 2015)

It's very interesting to get a glimpse of marketing strategy especially in view of challenging conditions. Canon is a big time company and they are not stupid. It seems to me that the new products that are coming out are targeted at specific market segments and are specialized tools for specific applications. This falls into their strategy of offering more products as mentioned in the original post.


----------



## bmpress (Jan 31, 2015)

There is another factor here, and that is the cameras in the hands of amateurs and professionals are...good enough. We are at the point where only incremental benefits may be achieved. So at this time, nobody really needs to upgrade anything. This is indeed a mature market in the strict sense, and sales will continue to go down, and down. Life is tough. The glory days are over.

On the other hand, if some company could figure out how to make an equivalent DSLR that weighs less than a half pound, including L lenses...tada! sales will really go up.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Jan 31, 2015)

I think you're correct. I would add that mobile phones/selfies/social-media have had a HUGE impact on traditional camera manufacturing, as had the shift from making images for images sake to sharing images as a personal experience. I'm thinking of the billions of low-quality images that are shared every day around the planet.

To me, the first one to figure out how to network a small light high quality imaging system will be around a few years more to continue to sell their products. This, after ALL the pro-photogs have been set out by the curb by the big media houses and there's no one with deep deep pockets left to buy up all that great pro-level super-heavy brick-sized DSLR gear. 

Hmmm.... hold on... I think Sony and Samsung may well have done just that.

May we live in interesting times.



bmpress said:


> There is another factor here, and that is the cameras in the hands of amateurs and professionals are...good enough. We are at the point where only incremental benefits may be achieved. So at this time, nobody really needs to upgrade anything. This is indeed a mature market in the strict sense, and sales will continue to go down, and down. Life is tough. The glory days are over.
> 
> On the other hand, if some company could figure out how to make an equivalent DSLR that weighs less than a half pound, including L lenses...tada! sales will really go up.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 31, 2015)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> ...the shift from making images for images sake to sharing images as a personal experience. I'm thinking of the billions of low-quality images that are shared every day around the planet.



Good point. Being a more proficient blogger would certainly do more for my 10 mio.+/Y viewer count than trying to increase my picture iq - not that there's any room for improvement here... ;D


----------



## agierke (Jan 31, 2015)

i wont challenge the points being offered up through the conference call but i will contest the notion that introducing new higher megapixel cameras will do anything but be a temporary salve in a declining market.

how will a mega resolution camera which essentially fulfills only small niche needs and likely come at a high end price thus being out of reach to a majority do anything to change the nature of today's market? canon might experience a relatively brief reprieve in declining sales but will end up in exactly the same place it stands today...which is a position it shares with all camera companies.

the market is simply oversaturated and expendable income is still becoming increasingly difficult to find for your average consumer. i expect that we are seeing a natural return to consumption models closer to what they might of been in the film days where investment in gear wasnt a 2-3 year turnover but rather several more years over that.

on a personal level, i simply have no interest upgrading every 2-3 years for anything. not my cameras, not my lenses, not my computer, or my software, or even my phone. i'm sick of all of it to be honest....i'm upgrade fatigued. i have a few spots that i still feel will significantly benefit from an upgrade but after i take care of those i intend to stretch that investment well past the 5+ year mark for cameras, phone and computer and 10+ years for lenses. 

this will be the challenge camera makers will face. the past 15 years was an anomaly brought on by a radical change in how we did things. digital grew fast and we all raced to keep up. i welcome the maturation of digital and with it a much slower product cycle.

in no way what so ever will the introduction of these 2 cameras or anything else canon (or any other camera company) introduces the rest of the year will change the nature of what the market is now.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 31, 2015)

agierke said:


> i wont challenge the points being offered up through the conference call but i will contest the notion that introducing new higher megapixel cameras will do anything but be a temporary salve in a declining market.



Canon's idea of a high megapixel camera isn't much higher than the 41 MP cell phone camera that came out two years ago.....


----------



## Bruce Photography (Jan 31, 2015)

DarkKnightNine said:


> Really Canon?
> You needed to hire a third party research firm to discover all of that.
> Hell, you could just read this forum for free to find out that and much more. SMH :


+1. I like it.


----------



## zim (Jan 31, 2015)

agierke said:


> on a personal level, i simply have no interest upgrading every 2-3 years for anything. not my cameras, not my lenses, not my computer, or my software, or even my phone. i'm sick of all of it to be honest....i'm upgrade fatigued. i have a few spots that i still feel will significantly benefit from an upgrade but after i take care of those i intend to stretch that investment well past the 5+ year mark for cameras, phone and computer and 10+ years for lenses.



You and me both! especially phones the upgrade cycle on these things are simply ridiculous. Remember the 10 year F1 promise? DSLR tech has got to that point, shareholders haven't.


----------



## crashpc (Jan 31, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > i wont challenge the points being offered up through the conference call but i will contest the notion that introducing new higher megapixel cameras will do anything but be a temporary salve in a declining market.
> ...



Well, it would have higher resolution even at 41Mpx compared to 41Mpx Nokia phone, not to say about AF speed, general speed, burst speed and duration, and so on...


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jan 31, 2015)

At their peak, SLR shipments hit 4.4 million/yr. They grew to that volume due to introduction of electronics over a several year period (sometimes led by Canon)--intelligent metering, autofocus, "Program" mode, etc. Each evolution made cameras easier for the common person to use and get good results. Plus mini-labs on every corner made seeing those results more efficient and rapid. Then digital hit the scene with the advantage of near zero operating cost - no film, no processing, no printing - and further steps in ease of use. Growth was fantastic as those who were hooked bought each progressively more sophisticated generation - faster auto-focus, more MP, better metering, instant "chimping" results. Now the market is more mature, Many users struggle to understand how added features make upgrading worthwhile. Plus, they realize that smartphones are often good enough and even faster to distribute their results -- write off any low end P/S sales. Average viewing times for photographs must be about 2 seconds. Hard to justify expensive gear for 2 second viewing.

Add to the mix the superzooms and users don't really need several lenses to cover a huge FL range. CIPA data shows the average user has 1.6 lenses. (Probably not a CR Forum member!)

Look for stable shipment levels to drop from 14-15 million in 2014 (DSLR + MILC) to more like 10-12 million in the next couple years. Fixed lens, superzoom cameras may cut that even more. MILC shipments have been fairly stable, it's the DSLR's that are taking most of the hit.

At some point smartphones will hit a similar scenario. The technology S-curve and market maturity are very predictable.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 31, 2015)

DarkKnightNine said:
 

> Really Canon?
> You needed to hire a third party research firm to discover all of that.
> Hell, you could just read this forum for free to find out that and much more. SMH :



The reason they use a study is that Canon does not want to take any responsibility for this research being "true". Its an investor call - everything needs to be 100% accurate or they may suffer financially.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 31, 2015)

The long-term SLR / DSLR sales average per annum is 8.8M globally. The market peaked in 2011 at 16.8M. If factors like global population growth, global wealth are taken into consideration the average moves to somewhere between 10 - 12M but certainly not over 16M. Worst still high end / high value cameras account for a small percentage of overall sales (the ratio of Rebels to non-Rebel) although this number is more stable. 

The iPhone generation represent an "opportunity" but they need to be convinced that there is life after uploading to Facebook, Snapchat or Flickr.


----------



## mkabi (Jan 31, 2015)

My thoughts:
As per the "Analysis" which is looking at "Factors entry users considered..."
The keyword being *entry users*, _not_ longtime users, enthusiasts, prosumers and/or professionals.

-High image quality/High resolution
From what perspective? From our colored perspective? i.e. anything better than the usual 18/20MP and 11 stops of DR. But from entry level perspective... anything better than their cell phones and/or P&S.
A rebel with a fast prime should be more than sufficient to do that...

-Auto Focus, speed, etc.
From what perspective? From our colored perspective? i.e. anything better than 11/19 AF pts and 8fps?
Do entry level people even know what that even means, coming from a cell phone/P&S camera background?
May be those that are well informed, did their research and/or those that know an enthusiast, prosumer and/or a professional photog... else...

Now, I will whole-heartedly agree that most people look at usabilty, size, weight and connectivity...
But see how they ignore "price" in a period of "economic slowdown."

Forgot to add that no matter what, the market is saturated even amongst the entry level peeps. If only 3% of DSLR owners buy something other than the kit lens, chances are they don't find the need to have something better than their current DSLR. So no matter what new camera they pump out there... the other 97% of DSLR owners is not going to upgrade either.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 31, 2015)

old-pr-pix said:


> Now the market is more mature, Many users struggle to understand how added features make upgrading worthwhile. Plus, they realize that smartphones are often good enough and even faster to distribute their results -- write off any low end P/S sales. Average viewing times for photographs must be about 2 seconds. Hard to justify expensive gear for 2 second viewing.
> (...)
> At some point smartphones will hit a similar scenario. The technology S-curve and market maturity are very predictable.


Lots of challenges for sure. 

However. DSLRs are already and will remain a very niche market. 14 mio. units for X billions of people is not a lot. 

That niche can grow if the camera companies understand to nurture it. One thing I know they are looking at is new high-end buyers from emerging market countries as income levels grow. Especially China (like everyone else these days). 

This is also where Canon's marketing strategy may come in e.g. their idea to have active user groups etc. Make it an "experience" to own a DSLR. You go to Hawaii with your 5Ds and Canon will offer you a select nature shot adventure tour with a pro. 

They should think Apple and find new ways to tie in their customers. Propriety lenses was one way to do that and it works. But it will not change anything as its already used. And as we know a glorified picture site will not work. (You do all remember Canon recently launched a dedicated picture site for all of us - uhh no?? Sorry I forgot the name. Maybe you can google it?).


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 31, 2015)

Canon may get more DSLR sales from emerging markets, but it won't be enough to overcome the decline in their present markets. Non-phone camera sales will continue to decline. And camera phones will continue to get better.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 31, 2015)

c.d.embrey said:


> Canon may get more DSLR sales from emerging markets, but it won't be enough to overcome the decline in their present markets. Non-phone camera sales will continue to decline. And camera phones will continue to get better.



but I think as has been said that they're different markets. The P&S users, which did bring a lot of revenue to the camera makers have now gone to smartphones. I'm sure most people on this forum use theirs similarly, and only when they want to do more, will they turn to more capable devices.

And to follow up on a point made earlier, I still have a iphone 4 and changed from the ipad 2 to the mini retina because the size is more convenient. There's nothing compelling to make me change until either of them breaks.

Tom Hogan (bythom.com) believes that much of the problem is the lack of understanding around the workflow. I think this is some of the story, but only part. I concur that for many people, the quality of their phones exceeds their criteria. It captures the moment, does it well, and is always with them.

I can understand that the Canon are focusing on what the enthusiasts and above want, and targeting specific sectors with specific bodies, although they need to be careful as forcing people to have too multiple bodies may backfire. On the one hand, I think a modular system would be good, allowing you to make incremental upgrades for less cash, but on the other I think what would be the cost of the "body" and what part of it would stay static enough ie does modular not work as you have to replace almost everything except for the lcd, batteries and the lens mount?

The differentiators which attracts me to a mirrorless or dslr will i think separate the smartphone users from the camera users, and I dont think there is huge opportunity to change that - maybe I'm not being innovative enough, but I cant see anything which compels the average user to want to carry a second device, just to capture a snap of a moment.

I think Canon should focus on those that want to do more with photography - I think the step change from a smartphone to a mirrorless or dslr is too great, both cost & complexity and if they want to capture these users, they have to focus their efforts better

- Ease of use - there is an order of magnitude difference. The smartphone user doesnt want to understand AV/TV/Camera shake, aperture. To attract them we need to change the terminology and way of selecting it. What they want is a system that guides them, and allows them to take better pictures. Auto ISO should be beefed up based on the lens, the light, and what they're shooting for instance. They should be shown styles of photos and the camera sets it based on this (and Im thinking better than the simple picture modes). We love learning that stuff, I'm not sure they do. Make it easier so they can take some better shots and I think it would help.

- workflow as Tom says, is indeed part of that. Break them gradually into getting their pictures into a format which they can share. Dont force them to have to buy lightroom to get the best. But I dont think the workflow needs to be for the Pros ie with sophisticated "batch features". Time saving is important, but I dont think the workflow will be complex, it just needs to work reliably and simply.

- lighter. If they're gonna use it, with either a built in lens or an add-on lens, then it's gotta be not much larger / cumbersome than the 5" smartphones. Given what a smartphone can do in the size it is, how much would it be to come out with a device of a similar dimension (perhaps not such a big screen), but with features like a zoom lens, image stabilisation, a better flash and better controls?

Bottom line, I dont think it has to be an order of magnitude better than a smartphone, i think if it could do the more (ie it is tailored for photography, with a decent AF), can integrate with their phone for workflow then they might stand a chance. Smartphone manufacturers will add these features in future, camera makers I think could beat them to the punch.

In parallel, they need to focus on what would indeed make photographers happier. It would be interesting to know what would make people upgrade their bodies, change their lenses. And if there's not enough in that, then maybe Canon needs an SW ecosystem which offers another revenue stream, so you can do more with your current body until you're prepared to upgrade or it dies. Again, I think they need to be careful that for the users with only "1.6 lenses", as they're more likely to swap brands when it comes around to replacing their body than those more invested in lenses. Maybe that ecosystem could be the stickiness, and it doesnt just have to be Canon doing it, other ISVs would help.

Finally, I think they need to listen to both Pro's and Consumers. I think having something in the camera which helps monitor what you're doing and how you're doing it would help provide feedback. I think more surveys and more dialogue on what they find would be useful, but only if they did something with the information. Of course there's a risk that people would not be balanced with their feedback and then get disillusioned even if they were completely unreasonable.

I think they do need to show more what cameras can do, and how it can be as easy in the camera as it is with the software on their smartphone. But don't compete in the facebook pic space, smartphones have won that. Compete where they cant and get that message out there. Show the comparisons, show what smartphones cant do. I think reducing ignorance and having something to offer akin to a "smartphone" size device but with more features might slow down the rot. Especially if costs less than the smartphones do  

Just my 2c


----------



## Sarpedon (Jan 31, 2015)

I just hope Canon doesn't think they can price these the way they priced the old 5D models and still pump up sales over the long-term. $3500-plus is too much for that.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 31, 2015)

Sarpedon said:


> I just hope Canon doesn't think they can price these the way they priced the old 5D models and still pump up sales over the long-term. $3500-plus is too much for that.



I think it is quite complex in terms of figuring out how much the market will take, depends on the target market ie the 5Ds they're aiming for. Balancing the need of Pro's and Amateurs must be difficult - especially given the comments about that how each generation leap is getting smaller. If they sold it cheaper, sure they would get some good sales, but would it impact upgrade cycles, devalue other product lines. I still chuckle at the price that the iphone sells at, yet look how many buy them.

It'll be priced higher than the Nikon 810, so I think it will be closer to €4k....


----------



## Sarpedon (Jan 31, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> Sarpedon said:
> 
> 
> > I just hope Canon doesn't think they can price these the way they priced the old 5D models and still pump up sales over the long-term. $3500-plus is too much for that.
> ...



It's too bad it'll be priced higher than the D810, since the D800 undercut the 5D III with a lower price and better image quality. Canon should take a page from Nikon's book here. 

Regarding upgrade cycles and devaluing other product lines: both of Canon's full frame models are ready for replacement. The new 7D Mark II, which has great specs, goes for $1800. The D810 goes for $3000. So why not a new 5D for $2500-$3000? Sell the 6D II for $1800-$2000. I can't see how the market will have trouble bearing that.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 31, 2015)

A big reason for DSLR video is the cost and weight savings, so if they force to spend more and to lug a second set of stuff around for top video too that defeats the purpose and those extra sales mostly won't go to them anyway. If they don't want to let 4k and basic usability features go for quite so little yet then they should have (maybe they did?) also a 5Dsc for say $2000 more than the 5Ds adds 4k video internally recorded and the basic zebras/various while filming focusing aids, etc.

Assuming there is no technical reason it can't be done with this sensor (and perhaps there is, in which case then it's all besides the point and you just cheer on that it's a top stills only camera and they have delivered that).


Odd that your conference investor call thing made not a peep about improved video quality (despite GH4 and A7S blowing away sales expectations) and that in some notes they mention IQ and MP but in most they just mention competition in MP alone (a trace worrying).


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 31, 2015)

Sarpedon said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > Sarpedon said:
> ...



I guess the problem for both of us is that we don't know who is making more business from their camera sales. What we do know is that Canon and Nikon appear to be fairly consistent in terms of market share. They must be doing something right in that respect.

It'll certainly be interesting to see how they do price it.

The problem with the 1D-Xs or whatever it is called, is what will it offer as a compelling feature set over and above the 7D II? 14fps vs 10fps - most people think 6 is enough. So unless it has new sensor tech, then for the market they are aimed at, does the 7D offer enough for the Pro's, especially when they can buy 2 ? The problem is the "market" appears to be shrinking ie how many people want dSLRs, and therefore it's a balancing act to figure out how many sales to the non-Pro's vs how many to the Pro's, and how much each of them will pay.

Certainly I'd like Canon to be cheaper, but I still want them to have enough money to be here in a decade, and produce more great lenses in between. I think Canon always aim it high, if it does not sell then they have some headroom to reduce. Sell it too cheap, and they've set the bar too low for a long time. Those companies with a smaller market share will typically undercut.

As I said earlier... explain Apple and how they get away with their pricing in the market. Is it not the same. Has Samsung not shown indications that they want to move more away from the value-end of the market? Has not Apple just shown record profits?

I dont have the answers clearly....


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 31, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> A big reason for DSLR video is the cost and weight savings, so if they force to spend more and to lug a second set of stuff around for top video too that defeats the purpose and those extra sales mostly won't go to them anyway. If they don't want to let 4k and basic usability features go for quite so little yet then they should have (maybe they did?) also a 5Dsc for say $2000 more than the 5Ds adds 4k video internally recorded and the basic zebras/various while filming focusing aids, etc.
> 
> Assuming there is no technical reason it can't be done with this sensor (and perhaps there is, in which case then it's all besides the point and you just cheer on that it's a top stills only camera and they have delivered that).
> 
> ...



It would be interesting to know how many landscape / studio photogs want to use 4K video. And I dont mean that in a challenging manner. But if Canon is becoming more targeted, does the 5Ds require 4K? And how many of those will take 2 bodies? To be honest, everywhere I go, I take at least 2 bodies. But then most of my travel is for photography and therefore lose a body, means an expensive trip. Would everyone, myself included, want less to carry? Sure would.

I do think Canon's video strategy is weaker for that market ie A7S / GH4. I also dont fully understand why they dont consider it separate from the 1D-C and Cxxx market. Again, maybe they see themselves closer to Apple in terms of marketing / sales of their equipment, and think selling it low is going to leave Panasonic & Sony in the same position as Samsung. Who knows...

Will be interesting to see what they do at NAB, and whether the 1D-C is intended to "die" and be replaced with a new 1DX.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 31, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > Canon may get more DSLR sales from emerging markets, but it won't be enough to overcome the decline in their present markets. Non-phone camera sales will continue to decline. And camera phones will continue to get better.
> ...



Very different markets! On one side we have the 94% who have either abandoned real cameras, or never have seen the need to own real cameras. Most people who don't now own a real camera, will NEVER own a real camera.

So we have two different markets. On the one side we have the Smart Phone users who don't want or need real cameras. And on the other side we have the shrinking real camera market. Comprised of Very Serious Photo Enthusiasts (VSPE), Rich People who treat cameras as Bling, a few casual photographers and the rapidly shrinking Pro contingent. 

Smart Phones are getting better. The iPhone 6s or the iPhone 7 will kill whats left of the casual photographer market. More Professional will use these better Smart Phones, many PJs already have embraced the iPhone. That leaves the VSPEs and the Birders as the only people interested in real cameras. BTW I think that high-speed video capture will replace the professional sports shooters on the sidelines of the World Cup, Super Bowl, etc.

And the iPhone has already made an impact on video news gathering.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 1, 2015)

I've never shot video with a DSLR and don't intend to do so. That feature costs me money in my FF camera Canon like Nikon did with the over-priced Df needs a body without video. Now Im used to GPS and wi-fi in my 6d and I use both features they should retained for a landscape inspired camera and they need to improve DR not simply rely on HDR.


----------



## Sarpedon (Feb 1, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> Sarpedon said:
> 
> 
> > Stu_bert said:
> ...



We agree on that at least! I don't have clear answers either. 

I've always thought that the primary benefit of the 1 series over the 7 series was image quality, along with a slight or maybe significant upgrade in other areas: fps, weather-sealing, auto-focus, battery-life, etc. The 1 series seems to be for pros (people for whom 6 fps is nowhere near enough), the 7 series maybe for wildlife and aspiring pros? (And surely both are purchased by well-heeled enthusiasts.)

I definitely think the DSLR market share is shrinking, too, which is another reason I think Canon needs to come in with a lower-than-usual introductory price: because if they want to increase sales, or even keep them static, they'll have to eat into Nikon's market share--mainly by luring new first-time buyers or snagging Nikon owners with better features at a good price. 

Canon also needs to be concerned about losing its current customers to the mirrorless market. There are a thousand stories on the internet of people - pro and amateur - ditching their Nikon and Canon bodies for a Sony A7 model.

I'm in the same boat. I really don't want to pay $3500 for a DSLR. I bought a 6D because the 5DIII offered pretty much no benefit for my kind of photography (landscape, travel, street, portraiture) at a huge premium. 50MP would be a huge benefit, but if I can get an A7R II for much less, I might jump ship, and I know there are plenty of people who feel the same way. I believe Canon's pricing should address that.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 1, 2015)

Sarpedon said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > Sarpedon said:
> ...



And I suspect you will buy the A7R II. I probably locked myself in with my lenses and it would be a lot to change (maybe the A7R II plus an adapter for me then  ). I think no matter what we end up with, be that a 6D, a D750 or a A7R II, they all take fantastically good pictures.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 1, 2015)

Over the past couple years Canon has had some significant developments - STM lenses, latest gen. L lenses (w/fantastic performance improvements suitable for 50 MP bodies), Dual-pixel, etc. But, despite their #1 position they don't seem to have had the connection to the market they should. They haven't convinced the "average" P/S or camera phone shooter of the benefits or persuaded existing Rebel users to upgrade. The pros or enthusiasts who understand the benefits aren't the problem as much as consumer level. They also haven't incorporated certain technologies as quickly as the competition. Instead they have meaningless "slogan" oriented marketing campaigns: "We see impossible," "Bring It," and for pros: "Support Matters." Nothing with the impact of the old Andre Agassi 35mm Rebel campaign that teased average folks into thinking they too could shoot pro-grade stuff if they just bought a Rebel!

Trends seemingly minimized by Canon in the DSLR/MILC world: increase in serious/semi-serious female photographers (i.e. desire for smaller/lighter bodies & lenses); desire for instant sharing - Wi-Fi, NFC; the camera as a fashion accessory (mostly in Asia? e.g. colors per Nikon 1); drop in value of individual images (proliferation of stock images-impact on pro earnings, publication profit pressure, elimination of staff photogs, etc.--all restrain pro buyers). Canon is caught between the need to address niche buyers with extreme demands (high R&D costs, few buyers, but high value products) and capturing more entry buyers where "good enough" was mostly satisfied by competition two years ago. 

In the U.S. they seem to have lost their marketing savvy more than anything else.


----------



## jrista (Feb 1, 2015)

Has anyone considered that the DSLR market may simply have become saturated? Every market has a saturation point, where a majority of potential buyers already has one of whatever it is being offered (ILCs in this case). Canon wants their users to turn around and buy a new DSLR every 2-3 years (for high end stuff), and based on their release cycle, every 1-2 years for the low end stuff. 


Economies, despite "recoveries", are still tight for most middle class workers, and have always been tight for lower class workers/the unemployed/welfare. That lowers the saturation cap, and reduces "replacement/upgrade" demand. I don't think people want to or even can replace their cameras every couple of years. There is also a threshold of quality...ILCs are pretty high quality these days, in terms of build...materials, ergonomics, fit and finish, feel, etc. I think people are less likely to replace a great device as often as a cheaper one.


I can totally see P&S sales being stolen by smartphones and other mobile devices with cameras. I can even see some of the Rebel-level sales being stolen as well, although not nearly as much. It seems more likely that the ILC market (at large, not just Canon) is reaching or has reached a saturation point. It's already a global market, unlike smartphones which still have expansion potential in newer economies like China and India (where there are potentially billions of customers), so I don't know if there is a lot of room for expansion. The market will probably settle, find some kind of equilibrium with new buyers from new people (young families, new photographers, etc.), replacement buyers looking for an upgrade or to replace a broken camera, etc. 


If some disruptive new technology finds it's way into consumers hands at some point that can produce high quality images, then the ILC market would then probably slide into a long term decline. Dunno if/when that might happen, though.


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 1, 2015)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Odd that your conference investor call thing made not a peep about improved video quality (despite GH4 and A7S blowing away sales expectations)



I noticed that too (but less worried since I just use my iphone for video).


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 1, 2015)

jrista said:


> Has anyone considered that the DSLR market may simply have become saturated? Every market has a saturation point, where a majority of potential buyers already has one of whatever it is being offered (ILCs in this case). Canon wants their users to turn around and buy a new DSLR every 2-3 years (for high end stuff), and based on their release cycle, every 1-2 years for the low end stuff.



I think everyone agrees that is true for a number of countries, however as per your smartphone comment, there is still opportunities in Brazil, India, China but they need to have a compelling offering in comparison to smartphones camera aka "just a bit better" but not a smartphone. Still just like TVs, smartphones, BR players, Games Consoles and every other consumer device, the manufacturers indeed have to offer more than just an incremental upgrade to attract, otherwise the revenues will decline as people wont upgrade.



> Economies, despite "recoveries", are still tight for most middle class workers, and have always been tight for lower class workers/the unemployed/welfare. That lowers the saturation cap, and reduces "replacement/upgrade" demand. I don't think people want to or even can replace their cameras every couple of years. There is also a threshold of quality...ILCs are pretty high quality these days, in terms of build...materials, ergonomics, fit and finish, feel, etc. I think people are less likely to replace a great device as often as a cheaper one.



Agreed - disposable income is still tight, and how many people want to take a "complicated" picture. The minority, so the smartphone is good enough, and shots reasonable video.



> I can totally see P&S sales being stolen by smartphones and other mobile devices with cameras. I can even see some of the Rebel-level sales being stolen as well, although not nearly as much. It seems more likely that the ILC market (at large, not just Canon) is reaching or has reached a saturation point. It's already a global market, unlike smartphones which still have expansion potential in newer economies like China and India (where there are potentially billions of customers), so I don't know if there is a lot of room for expansion. The market will probably settle, find some kind of equilibrium with new buyers from new people (young families, new photographers, etc.), replacement buyers looking for an upgrade or to replace a broken camera, etc.



Yes the smartphones have - but it is a combination of simplicity, good enough quality, a single device and simple workflow. The answer to that is not, in my opinion, a ILC / DSLR. It needs to have better camera functionality, integrate with their smartphone and be cheaper than their smartphone. Get people to see the benefits of what a camera can do, and you might hook them. Very few are going to buy ILC/DSLR.



> If some disruptive new technology finds it's way into consumers hands at some point that can produce high quality images, then the ILC market would then probably slide into a long term decline. Dunno if/when that might happen, though.



Hmmm, not convinced about that last statement. Ask yourself why you use an ILC, and what would replace that? Chose your aperture & focal length post taking the shot? I think those people who have ILC want ILC for what it provides. They are photographers. The rest are those who want to take pictures. I think the challenge for the camera manufacturers is to show "the rest" they can take better pictures than a smartphone but without an ILC. A few may then go on to ILC, but first they have to get them away from "the smartphone takes my pictures and video"


----------



## jrista (Feb 1, 2015)

@Stu_bert: Well, there are some disruptive technologies out there under R&D. There is also the fundamental concept behind Lytro. Lytro has been a little too off the wall in their product offerings so far that I don't think anyone has even considered a little rectangular box to be used as a camera. The underlying technology, however, the fundamental theory of lightfield photography is quite sound.


I think, if someone either buys up Lytro to get the technology, and develops it into a "proper" camera body, it could be disruptive. I think it could be disruptive for the exact reasons you specify: most people don't want "complicated" photography. Aside from high noise, what's the most common issue with smartphone photos? Poor focus!  Lightfield technology could change that. If a company like Canon or Nikon or Sony purchased it, that could breath new life into DSLRs for the masses (not sure as a more of a "pro" that I would use it...maybe on a few occasions when my focus is off just slightly.) If another company gets a hold of it, or if Lytro somehow develops a compelling camera and gets the masses attention, I think that could decimate the big three's consumer sales.


That's just one of these kinds of disruptive technologies. There are a lot of people who want to be able to extract clear, photographic stills from their video. Aptina has multi-bucket pixel technology that can deblur the frames of motion video. That kind of technology could be used to create a video camera that can produce very high quality stills as well. That could be disruptive technology...and if it finds it's way into smartphones first, that could decimate the big three's consumer sales as well.


There are some other wild innovations out there way on the fringe as well. Picosecond photography, indirect photography that enhances resolution and signal strength for imaging in near total darkness, some really crazy technologies have emerged that have the potential to be disruptive in the future. Will they come in some radically different form factor? MAYBE. Microsoft just announced holographic glasses. They are big and clunky and ugly...right now. What happens a decade down the road when we can pop in a couple contacts, clip on a camera and microphone over our ear, and our entire worlds become fully interactive "holograms", potentially with the ability to take a picture...and include the holographic overlay in the picture. Even better, what if the holographic overlay was metadata? What if we had the bandwidth to stream video to a storage device or the net for extended periods of time, but were able to get perfect high resolution stills out of them as well? Just some random thoughts...but there is still the potential for disruptive technology.


I don't know that anything could really ever replace my DSLR and 600mm lens for my bird and wildlife photography. But I consider that equipment to be of a different class, a much more specialized class, than your entry level DSLRs (which still make up the bulk of DSLR sales.) But for a LOT of other kinds of photography, I think there are Rebel-decimating technologies just waiting around a corner or two.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 2, 2015)

jrista said:


> @Stu_bert: Well, there are some disruptive technologies out there under R&D. There is also the fundamental concept behind Lytro. Lytro has been a little too off the wall in their product offerings so far that I don't think anyone has even considered a little rectangular box to be used as a camera. The underlying technology, however, the fundamental theory of lightfield photography is quite sound.
> 
> 
> I think, if someone either buys up Lytro to get the technology, and develops it into a "proper" camera body, it could be disruptive. I think it could be disruptive for the exact reasons you specify: most people don't want "complicated" photography. Aside from high noise, what's the most common issue with smartphone photos? Poor focus!  Lightfield technology could change that. If a company like Canon or Nikon or Sony purchased it, that could breath new life into DSLRs for the masses (not sure as a more of a "pro" that I would use it...maybe on a few occasions when my focus is off just slightly.) If another company gets a hold of it, or if Lytro somehow develops a compelling camera and gets the masses attention, I think that could decimate the big three's consumer sales.
> ...



@Jrista - I think we're looking at things from different perspectives. The P&S market is dying rapidly and will be extinct soon. It doesnt need anything disruptive to put it there. Smartphones provide "good enough". 

Could I see Lytro tech disrupting dSLRs if it was in a smartphone? Not significantly, as it only replaces one element - the focus side. Would it help cement the separation between photographers and smartphones if it was in a camera? I understood the physics not to be patentable so to speak, therefore I dont think it could

Pictures from video frames? Again, great tech. Would it make a smartphone users upgrade to a ILC ? No.

Holographic glasses and google glasses etc have the ability to replace smartphones, but do they compete with photographic tools. Not so sure.

And that's my perspective - for those people who were never really into photography, then a smartphone suffices as it's one less device to carry, and it does stills & video good enough to share online. What the camera manufacturers need to attract is those who want to do a bit more. Tracking AF, different lenses, great flashes - all the stuff which allows us to be creative. That's why people move up I think.

I think the camera manufacturers need to understand why the smartphone is so compelling for those people and decide if there is any opportunity to entice to buy another device - they wont get them to give it up, they might convince them to get a second device. And I think some will be prepared for the step up to ILC, but there's another segment who might buy an additional device if it worked kind of like a smartphone, had a better flash, a small zoom, and a slightly better sensor, but cost less than a high-end smartphone.

And in parallel they need to keep refining their ILC products by listening to all classes of users, and indeed looking at some of those disruptive technologies as I think most of them appeal to the photographer not the smartphone user - those that want to create and those that just want to capture.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 2, 2015)

Not often discussed is the display side of smartphones. Not only do they take photos/video, they are also the photo album holder and can display shots in an easy to pass around fashion. For years the "standard" snapshot size was 3-1/2"x5". Then it grew to 4"x6". Smartphones are approaching those sizes and hence are as acceptable as the old fashion snapshot print.

Everyone passes around their phone to show pictures... I'm not sure passing around a DSLR w/L lens is as likely to happen, plus the screen is sub-standard for snapshot size. O.K. so you can Wi-Fi your shots to your phone and share that way.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 2, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> Still just like TVs, smartphones, BR players, Games Consoles and every other consumer device, the manufacturers indeed have to offer more than just an incremental upgrade to attract, otherwise the revenues will decline as people wont upgrade.



The problem is - although the majority of the tech oriented members here will certainly disagree - is that all the upgrades in digital DSLRs from the first Canon rebel have been incremental. The first digital DSLRs were already capable of taking excellent quality photos. In my experience, the difference between the first 6MP rebel and the FF 6D is only incremental. Until my 9 year old original rebel conked out, there was no reason to upgrade because the image quality for general daylight photography is virtually unchanged in the past 10 years. 8" x 10" prints printed on an Epson photo printer are almost indistinguishable from my 6MP rebel, my new SL1 and my 6D. Coming from the film era, when you bought a camera, you kept it until it didn't work anymore. I still feel the same - and am amazed that so many folks will upgrade convinced that a 1/2 stop improvement in noise is actually meaningful. We live in an era where some technologies (smartphones) improve rapidly and many folks feel the need to have the latest and best. I think camera users are smart enough to know that camera technology already is highly capable and they don't need the latest. So, I agree completely that the market is totally over-saturated. Getting people to upgrade every 2 or 3 years has little to do with any actual improvements in the cameras. It has to do with marketing and convincing the consumer that each upgrade will actually improve their photography. If these 50 MP cameras sell well, they will have succeeded!


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 2, 2015)

old-pr-pix said:


> Everyone passes around their phone to show pictures... I'm not sure passing around a DSLR w/L lens is as likely to happen, plus the screen is sub-standard for snapshot size. O.K. so you can Wi-Fi your shots to your phone and share that way.



True. And that's why its a big let down that Canon does not give their new camera at least wifi and have the ability to auto upload to your phone/ipad/whatever or your fav photosite (and should do gps also...). This is not the "interconnectivity" Canon itself says it needs to do better.


----------



## agierke (Feb 2, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone passes around their phone to show pictures... I'm not sure passing around a DSLR w/L lens is as likely to happen, plus the screen is sub-standard for snapshot size. O.K. so you can Wi-Fi your shots to your phone and share that way.
> ...



the idea of a 50mp camera also being able to directly upload to an ipad/iphone seems absurd to me. do you realize how fast you would bog down your devices storage? even if you are shooting raw + the smallest jpg and only uploading the jpgs immediately...what is the point of having the 50mp raw file at that point? 

beyond just the idea of "oh wouldn't be convenient if we could do such and such.." i don't see much consideration as to WHY we would even want to. "quick and easy" seems to be justified in and of itself regardless of the pointlessness of whatever it is we want to be quick and easy. 

i really don't get it...we have the instagrams of the world for quick and easy, instant publication an all that jazz. trying to meld that with massive Raw files that in their intent are designed to allow for further consideration via post production seems like trying to mix oil with water. 

my forehead is raw with red marks from slapping it so many times reading threads like these.


----------



## mkabi (Feb 2, 2015)

agierke said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > old-pr-pix said:
> ...



+1

WiFi and interconnectivity is convenient but not necessary.
The problem is that most people here are somehow convincing themselves that the convenience is a necessity.
Other than the benefits of framing and focusing on a larger screen, which can be done with a field monitor, I don't see the benefit of showing it to others via phone or throwing it up on a social network.
There is no image quality in that...and you don't need 50MP to do that... a phone is more than enough for that specific purpose.


----------



## greger (Feb 2, 2015)

Cell phones have taken the bloom away from DSL's. Why buy a bulky camera system when your cell phone takes nice
Pics that you can upload and send to family and friends. Camera companies must build the next super camera to lure
Customers back. Dynamic range is more important than mega pixels or quality vs quantity. I don't want bigger files to
Plug up my hard drives causing me to buy more. I'm sticking with what I have and sitting on my money. My wife wants a new kitchen before new cameras!


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 2, 2015)

greger said:


> Cell phones have taken the bloom away from DSL's. Why buy a bulky camera system when your cell phone takes nice
> Pics that you can upload and send to family and friends. Camera companies must build the next super camera to lure
> Customers back.



... good point there: Canon has to have more res on their old-school dslr line to appeal to the smartphone masses. Question is if the 5ds pricetag (whatever it is) will appeal to this market, and what'll be next in the medium price segment.



greger said:


> Dynamic range is more important than mega pixels or quality vs quantity. I don't want bigger files



... not such a good point here  as even if sounding arrogant, I'm positive a lot of casual photogs have never heard of the term "dynamic range" or it'd be higher on the feature list in mass market marketing and reviews.

And you cannot put such a nice counter on dr - 12ev sounds ok, how much better is 14ev? It's only *2* more! On the other hand, 50mp is clearly more than 18mp, it's *32* more (i.e. nearly *triple* the old value and half of 100)!


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 2, 2015)

agierke said:


> beyond just the idea of "oh wouldn't be convenient if we could do such and such.." i don't see much consideration as to WHY we would even want to. "quick and easy" seems to be justified in and of itself regardless of the pointlessness of whatever it is we want to be quick and easy.
> 
> i really don't get it...
> 
> my forehead is raw with red marks from slapping it so many times reading threads like these.



Well... you obviously do not get it. And because you represent the needs of all photographers neither can anyone else in the world. Nor should they be intrigued to do so. And of course its impossible to imagine that greater interconnectivity would lead to any new uses of DSLR from the ones you currently have.

So what came first Instagram or mobile phones with cameras and wifi/cell to upload pictures?

I - for one - got a 70D to be able to shoot RAW + upload small jpg's directly to the web in almost "real" time via my cell phone. Its at least 10x as hard as it should be - but it works great. Would love to do that with the 5Ds also. 

I also imagine that shooting with clients and letting them see in "real time" the first impressions of the shots on an ipad could be a great for some people. 

Finally, I had hoped to be able to have the 5Ds on a tripod and shoot with it remotely with my camera or ipad while "looking" through the viewer. My drone allows that at impressive distance. I also imagine a lot of other people would find that both very cool and very useful.

All that is now not an option because Canon did not build it into the 5Ds.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 2, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> Well... you obviously do not get it. And because you represent the needs of all photographers neither can anyone else in the world.



Are we already at the flamewar stage - it's only been one page :->



Maiaibing said:


> All that is now not an option because Canon did not build it into the 5Ds.



There'll be an wifi addon you can screw under your camera, probably having more range than the built-in version and hopefully better features than the in-camera version. On the upside, this means the camera will have a sturdy metal body you can use as a self-defense weapon when in a pinch.

If you aren't set upon using a grip or having a small camera body for travel, Canon will be ready to accept a couple of hundred €€€ more


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 2, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> If you aren't set upon using a grip or having a small camera body for travel, Canon will be ready to accept a couple of hundred €€€ more



This I am sure is the true reason. Having wifi & gps would probably not have cost more than a handful of €€€. But it would have made life so much easier for those who can live with a little less than top-notch wifi/gps. 

I do not know how many add-ons Canon will sell compared to 5Ds sales "lost" due to this. But as a consumer I always hate to pay a lot for extras that in reality cost very little.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2015)

greger said:


> Cell phones have taken the bloom away from DSL's. Why buy a bulky camera system when your cell phone takes nice
> Pics that you can upload and send to family and friends. Camera companies must build the next super camera to lure
> Customers back. Dynamic range Hoozleblatness is more important than mega pixels or quality vs quantity.



Fixed that for you, with a new term that will make just as much sense to most consumers. 

I agree that 'luring' customers away from cell phones would be good (not that anyone would give up a phone for a dSLR), but doing so with something people neither know nor care about is a poor strategy. Canon has had less low ISO DR for years and remains the dSLR market leader.


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 2, 2015)

I'll be waiting for 5D4. I just don't have a need for this many MP and not enough body improvements for me to drop 5D3.


----------



## tculotta (Feb 2, 2015)

I believe that for many buyers, the DSLR is simply not in their sights. Making a better one to lure them is akin to the better buggy whip being the answer to the automobile. I use a DSLR to take photos that can't be captured with a phone. Most people don't care about that. Their phones provide all the resolution they need with features not in a DSLR and if they were, would not be compelling enough to lure them away from the convenience of the phone. The DSLR camera, in whatever iteration it takes or becomes, will be the province of the pro and enthusiast in the not too distant future. I would love to know how many Rebels there are out there sitting unused because people just use their phones. I'm serious about photography yet I use my phone to take almost all of my family photos. It has advantages that a DSLR can't touch.


----------



## dawgfanjeff (Feb 2, 2015)

The main reason most people take the billions of pictures every day is to share them, and most of the time they take the pictures because something sharing-worthy just happened, you had your phone to capture it, and you can share it immediately. This is why the vast majority of those pictures get taken on the camera and little computer you always have with you. The quality (usually) sux, but that's not the point. It's not art. A cat fail video, a picture of a newborn, the shaky video of a demonstration, or your selfie from your front row seats is not improved by a half stop in DR, or that extra frame per second. That image matters because you captured it and can share it-now. We all know this. Canon execs must know this. They have smartphones and social media accounts, right?? 

IMO, if the DSLR makers continue to try to drive sales by only incremental improvements in NR and pushing features other than portability and ease of use, they may as well embrace their position right next to jazz, manual transmissions, classical music, and high end audio gear. 

I have a 5DIII. I love it. I haven't seen anything from Canon that compels me to buy another body. But if they added Wifi, (or BT or NFC), and included some sharing options from the android universe...


----------



## agierke (Feb 2, 2015)

> I also imagine that shooting with clients and letting them see in "real time" the first impressions of the shots on an ipad could be a great for some people.



i already do that with capture one, with any camera i want.



> Well... you obviously do not get it. And because you represent the needs of all photographers neither can anyone else in the world. Nor should they be intrigued to do so. And of course its impossible to imagine that greater interconnectivity would lead to any new uses of DSLR from the ones you currently have.



here's what i dont get. you immediately share a small jpg with the world via wifi out of camera, everybody says "great thats cool!"....and then what? you have the 50mp raw file that you then edit, prepare and output to then share with the world...again. you have basically stolen away a certain level of impact a final image would have by prematurely releasing a photo. once released...the need for the higher resolution raw file is somewhat dissipated. what i don't get is the (in my opinion) the overvaluing of the immediacy. why the need to show an image in real time? what benefit comes from that as opposed to waiting a day or two to post the raw file? 

i can see how some outlets would benefit from immediacy. journalism being one. but in that industry there is zero need for high res 50 mp raw files. you cannot convince me that it is reasonably necessary to have both the immediacy AND the image quality of 50mp raw file. i think there is more reason in withholding the images release til the next day after you have had a chance to take advantage of opportunities afforded to you by having a 50mp raw file.

to me the benefits of having wifi for immediacy and 50mp raw files serve opposite ends of the need spectrum. to have both in one camera isn't going to pan out to be some great benefit that will actually produce real world advantages. the perception may be that it seems great...but i fail to see the necessity of needing both.

i used to shoot alot of corporate and collegiate events. there was a great deal of pressure for immediacy. myself and many of my associates resisted as we preferred to work the raw files over before releasing them. many of those jobs in my area have disappeared in favor of getting student volunteers to shoot with their phones and upload via instagram immediately. those clients just didnt care about the quality afforded by higher resolution raw capabilities.

i also shoot alot of weddings. i saw a brief attempt by some in that industry to present same day slide shows of the images shot. a notion i despised myself....but i saw it attempted. the impact was underwhelming...and wasted effort considering the lack of real world benefit. 

i realize that in today's culture immediacy is highly valued. i am challenging the notion that it is necessary and i challenge the notion that it is better all the time. i think the most pervasive result of prioritizing immediacy is a sharp decline in quality. quality always benefits from extra time and consideration...always. this is what hi resolution Raw files afford us. so if you need immediacy, why burden yourself with a bunch of hi resolution files. if you need the quality from hi resolution files, why cut your legs out from under you by releasing an image immediately?

so yes...in the end, i don't get it. why the need for both?


----------



## Rahul (Feb 2, 2015)

agierke said:


> > I also imagine that shooting with clients and letting them see in "real time" the first impressions of the shots on an ipad could be a great for some people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1

Regardless, transferring photos instantaneously to the net can be done with an eye-fi card which can be purchased for $ 100. If it is not in the camera, how (much) does it matter?


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 2, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I agree that 'luring' customers away from cell phones would be good (not that anyone would give up a phone for a dSLR), but doing so with something people neither know nor care about is a poor strategy. Canon has had less low ISO DR for years and remains the dSLR market leader.



If Canon wants to fight on that front, it would have to do it with a PowerShot.

One of my cousins like snorkeling, so she has a PowerShot D series camera. That point doesn't apply to most people, but the principle does - offer a P&S that does something their smartphone doesn't, and they might buy it.

An idea: camera with fast aperture & larger sensor than a smartphone to get better IQ in low light scenarios, transfer all photos over wireless to the smartphone (screen resolution JPEGs are good enough and small enough for a quick transfer), and let people continue from there.


----------



## Rahul (Feb 2, 2015)

Antono Refa said:


> offer a P&S that does something their smartphone doesn't, and they might buy it.



Let's look at this in reverse. The smartphone already does a hell lot many things that a camera does not. For most people, photos with a phone are sufficient and they don't want the extra IQ of a powershot at the expense of carrying a second (larger) device in their pockets.


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 2, 2015)

Rahul said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > offer a P&S that does something their smartphone doesn't, and they might buy it.
> ...



Yes, most smartphone owners wouldn't buy a P&S.

My point *some* of them would due to smartphone limitations, e.g. weather resistance. As for pockets, that is not an absolute limitation. E.g. in Israel most adult women carry a bag, and they might not object to put a P&S in it if it offers something their phone doesn't, such as zoom to shoot a kid.


----------



## agierke (Feb 2, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> I'll be waiting for 5D4. I just don't have a need for this many MP and not enough body improvements for me to drop 5D3.



i find this take interesting coming from you RLPhoto given that you have had a recent foray into the medium format world.

can you offer your opinion in a more detailed fashion about the place of a 50mp 35mm form factor camera versus a medium format system in a studio environment?

i would be very interested in any insight you may have.

thx in advance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2015)

Antono Refa said:


> My point *some* of them would due to smartphone limitations, e.g. weather resistance.



Samsung's Galaxy S5 is waterproof. 

The little placard next to it at the AT&T store also said it has a "professional level camera" so I guess it can replace my 1D X.


----------



## mkabi (Feb 2, 2015)

Antono Refa said:


> An idea: camera with fast aperture & larger sensor than a smartphone to get better IQ in low light scenarios, transfer all photos over wireless to the smartphone (screen resolution JPEGs are good enough and small enough for a quick transfer), and let people continue from there.



Too late.
http://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/cameras-camcorders/lumix-digital-cameras---point-and-shoot/compact-cameras/dmc-cm1.html

And, the large sensor P&S has been around for a while now. You just haven't noticed it, cause its amongst the more expensive side of the P&S market.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/sony/rx100-iii/vs/canon/g7x/


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 2, 2015)

I agree about smartphones being used for sideshows, again they are now good enough alternatives...

DR, megapixels and the like - I personally can't see this is what will lure them to buy something in addition to their smartphone.

I agree that anyone who has a smartphone and might want to get into photography will get frustrated by the workflow. Will that be a barrier? Probably. For most people on this forum, probably not. My extended family loves using my dslr stuff from time to time. Do they want to "develop" the raw? He'll no, Uncle / Brother does that....

I just don't see those people who want to capture & share quickly as being the ILC / dslr brigade. They're a slimmed down p&s user with better connectivity and workflow to their smartphone, with better features. But they still want to snap & share.... A few will indeed get into the creative side and want a proper camera, but for the majority, the smartphone does enough....


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 2, 2015)

agierke said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'll be waiting for 5D4. I just don't have a need for this many MP and not enough body improvements for me to drop 5D3.
> ...


Well I bought a MF system to get a 1/800th sync and a large awesome 645 sensor, superb lenses and it's ease to adapt the Back to a 4x5 system later on in life. MPs were not really on that list but we're an additional thing at the time. I use it when I have a idea set in mind and work hard to make a few photos. It's like a big rig.

My 35mm system needs to be fast, fast and more fast. Quick lighting setups, speedlites, and superb AF. It's more of a sports car.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 2, 2015)

Antono Refa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that 'luring' customers away from cell phones would be good (not that anyone would give up a phone for a dSLR), but doing so with something people neither know nor care about is a poor strategy. Canon has had less low ISO DR for years and remains the dSLR market leader.
> ...



Make it slimmer & lighter, add a 2x zoom, a flash that's 3x the range of a smartphone and make it $200. But it must be able to transfer easily back to their smartphone.

It has to be better than a smartphone, but not an order of magnitude. Make it cheaper, make it good looking, give it a decent size screen, but understand that the average output is indeed facebook or instagram, so the sensor quality does not have to be that good. Maybe even a simple stand that allows it to do long exposure shots.

So it can take pictures of the kids, night and day (when they're moving), it looks good, it's easy to use and it syncs to their existing ecosystem via the smartphone....

5Ds will indeed help Canon but it's aim / reasons are different....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 2, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> Make it slimmer & lighter, add a 2x zoom, a flash that's 3x the range of a smartphone and make it $200. But it must be able to transfer easily back to their smartphone.
> 
> It has to be better than a smartphone, but not an order of magnitude. Make it cheaper, make it good looking, give it a decent size screen, but understand that the average output is indeed facebook...



I think that idea has been tried, including a dedicated Facebook button...







Was it successful?


----------



## sdsr (Feb 2, 2015)

dawgfanjeff said:


> IMO, if the DSLR makers continue to try to drive sales by only incremental improvements in NR and pushing features other than portability and ease of use, they may as well embrace their position right next to jazz, manual transmissions, classical music, and high end audio gear.



Especially if they're relying on tweaks to cameras that cost >$3000. Even if the new 50MP Canons are the best dslrs ever, the suggestion that the upshot will be a sufficient boost in sales to halt the overall decline seems a tad optimistic.


----------



## Stu_bert (Feb 2, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > Make it slimmer & lighter, add a 2x zoom, a flash that's 3x the range of a smartphone and make it $200. But it must be able to transfer easily back to their smartphone.
> ...



Neuro - lol. I'm thinking smaller than that. If a device the size of my smartphone holds a camera that good with a sensor that small, how big would a little zoom (based on a slightly bigger 
sensor), a flash, on sensor DPAF make it? I'd take a smartphone, remove the gsm and the like, leave it with wireless & bt, make the screen a little smaller to save on cost & the like. The challenge may well be whether you keep the OS the same (for add-on ecosystem) or not.... I think not.

It's a better camera, cheaper than a smartphone, integrates with it...

It's not a powershot or an Ixus.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Feb 2, 2015)

agierke said:


> i used to shoot alot of corporate and collegiate events. there was a great deal of pressure for immediacy. myself and many of my associates resisted as we preferred to work the raw files over before releasing them. many of those jobs in my area have disappeared



*"... resisted as we preferred to work the raw files over before releasing them. many of those jobs in my area have disappeared"* ??? You've got to be kidding, you turned down work because you wanted *perfection* and your client wanted g*ood enough* ??? ???


----------



## agierke (Feb 2, 2015)

c.d.embrey said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > i used to shoot alot of corporate and collegiate events. there was a great deal of pressure for immediacy. myself and many of my associates resisted as we preferred to work the raw files over before releasing them. many of those jobs in my area have disappeared
> ...



No. I didn't say that. You made a major inaccurate leap. What I said was we resisted delivering an entire events worth of work on the spot. Yes, as professionals it is our desire to deliver the highest quality of work we are capable of. We would often spend an extra hour or two after the event sorting and processing files to meet the immediate needs of clients.

Ultimately those clients decided they didn't want to pay anything for photography coverage....zero. So they brought in student volunteers to shoot stuff with their phones and upload via Instagram. One client we used to work for decided to eliminate photo coverage of their annual weekend alumni event in favor of asking the alumni themselves to shoot it and upload via Instagram with their phones. And these clients weren't rinky dink types...one was an Ivy League university and another was one of the highest reputed medical schools in the country.

These type of clients valued immediacy so much more over anything else they completely eliminated any budget for photography at all and didn't care one iota if it was shot on a cell phone or a high megapixel camera.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Feb 2, 2015)

I see a lot of things presented here that would appeal to *Very Serious Photo Enthusiasts (VSPS).* The BIG problem is that the 94% are NOT VSPS! They Do.Not.Care!

Most DSLR photographers are hidebound. Most serious iPhoneographers are inventive. Some iPhoneographers are getting hired by ad agencies to shoot campaigns that will run in social media, etc. Many large companies started running 15 second Instagram Commercials starting in 2013. http://instagram.com/p/yXqhuHQirD/

You may not have noticed but there is a sea change happening ...


----------



## c.d.embrey (Feb 2, 2015)

agierke said:


> One client we used to work for decided to eliminate photo coverage of their annual weekend alumni event in favor of asking the alumni themselves to shoot it and upload via Instagram with their phones. And these clients weren't rinky dink types...one was an Ivy League university and another was one of the highest reputed medical schools in the country.
> 
> These type of clients valued immediacy so much more over anything else they completely eliminated any budget for photography at all and didn't care one iota if it was shot on a cell phone or a high megapixel camera.



Doesn't this tell you something ??? Authenticity is more important to some clients than perfection.

Lee Iacocca said *“Lead, Follow, or Get Out of The Way,”* This is true of all business, not just Detroit.


----------



## agierke (Feb 3, 2015)

c.d.embrey said:


> agierke said:
> 
> 
> > One client we used to work for decided to eliminate photo coverage of their annual weekend alumni event in favor of asking the alumni themselves to shoot it and upload via Instagram with their phones. And these clients weren't rinky dink types...one was an Ivy League university and another was one of the highest reputed medical schools in the country.
> ...



What it tells me is a client that no longer pays isn't a client anymore. Nothing else.

Everything is cyclacle. I have already started getting clients who are recognizing again that there is value in paying for professional photography. They got burned by going the cheap and easy route and they learned value added is value retained. 

there are some unique circumstances that the photography market and digital faces right now. I think the unknown future and uncertainty about the direction we are heading causes some to grasp at straws. The disapation of the point and shoot market to me doesn't mean that dslrs must now take on the task of being all in one capable of everything in one package. 

To me that is exactly the wrong direction to go in. 5d series and 1d series cameras should remain high end pieces of equipment that distinguish themselves by being the very best at doing one thing...taking quality photos. The battle for the mass market is all but lost to smart phones. I don't think camera makers will ever regain their position in that segment. But just because they lost that battle doesn't mean they should dilute their high end products so much so to please every possible segment that exists in the world of picture taking. To a serious photographer...that is truly something to fear.

In hindsight...the move camera companies should have made was to snatch up properties such as Instagram when they were in their infancy so that they could cement themselves in the mass market of consumer photography. But that's neither here nor there. 

As a professional photographer, I don't worry about canon or nikons market share. I recognize that dslr makers rode a lucrative wave the past 10 years as digital developed and matured...now they will have to normalize their operations to a shrinking market. I have every confidence that both canon and Nikon will survive and continue to provide great equipment to working professionals.


----------



## dolina (Feb 3, 2015)

According to Sony DSLR sales (which they are technically part of) went down because of "lack of innovation".

For those who did not upgrade their camera bought in 2012 or older... does this jive?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 3, 2015)

dolina said:


> According to Sony DSLR sales (which they are technically part of) went down because of "lack of innovation".
> 
> For those who did not upgrade their camera bought in 2012 or older... does this jive?



Yes, it 100% jives with me. Sure I could use higher iso occasionally, but I have seen nothing from Canon in the body department to make me upgrade from the 1Ds MkIII. Lenses and flash are a different matter, they have made some fantastic lens and flash additions in the last 7 years!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 3, 2015)

jrista said:


> Has anyone considered that the DSLR market may simply have become saturated? Every market has a saturation point, where a majority of potential buyers already has one of whatever it is being offered (ILCs in this case). Canon wants their users to turn around and buy a new DSLR every 2-3 years (for high end stuff), and based on their release cycle, every 1-2 years for the low end stuff.
> 
> 
> Economies, despite "recoveries", are still tight for most middle class workers, and have always been tight for lower class workers/the unemployed/welfare. That lowers the saturation cap, and reduces "replacement/upgrade" demand. I don't think people want to or even can replace their cameras every couple of years. There is also a threshold of quality...ILCs are pretty high quality these days, in terms of build...materials, ergonomics, fit and finish, feel, etc. I think people are less likely to replace a great device as often as a cheaper one.
> ...



+1



Sarpedon said:


> It's too bad it'll be priced higher than the D810, since the D800 undercut the 5D III with a lower price and better image quality. Canon should take a page from Nikon's book here.
> 
> Regarding upgrade cycles and devaluing other product lines: both of Canon's full frame models are ready for replacement. The new 7D Mark II, which has great specs, goes for $1800. The D810 goes for $3000. So why not a new 5D for $2500-$3000? Sell the 6D II for $1800-$2000. I can't see how the market will have trouble bearing that.



did it really though? on release, yes, the straight d800 was much cheaper, but the e model was only 200 off the mk3. now it's just the d810, which is at $3300. So canon putting a 3500-4000 price tag on this is not that much more than what the competition offers - which is reasonable. 

if the market is saturated, then the money is in lesser volume but more profit. I'd rather pay the canon tax now and still have canon here in a decade than pay less now then watch as canon goes bankrupt. The whole price drop thing, is just like it is in most pro photography. Yes, there is always someone out there willing to do the job for less. But if we all just keep dropping the prices, eventually there won't be enough profit to stay in business. I always notice it at bridal shows, the big booth next to the sandals booth offering the $999 package - full day coverage, a 20 page 10x10 leather album, prints and i think they even offered a few more things too. That's not a sustainable rate for most of us. Just as we should not lower our rates the second someone offers a similar service for less, canon should not undercut nikon...

the devil is in the details here though - if this new camera improves on the faults of previous canon sensors then your logic makes even less sense - price it were it should be - between $3500-4000. if it's a weak offering that just gives more mp's, then yes, a lower price should be there. But if the sensor can match or better the exmor (or, is in fact, a next gen exmor) then why in the world would this body be priced at anything other than a premium????


----------



## Antono Refa (Feb 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > My point *some* of them would due to smartphone limitations, e.g. weather resistance.
> ...



Not the 1D X, but damn it's time to upgrade my Galaxy S2 mini...


----------



## onajetplane (Feb 3, 2015)

Being a picture taker that has an interest in cameras, I think one big issue out there is too many choices.

I heard many people put their 401K money in a money market because there are too many choices.

The same holds for cameras. Should I get the 7D II, the 6D, the 5D III? Now there are new models coming... I think I will wait and see what comes next. Oh wait, new cameras in 3 months, I will wait some more... Then, I guess my 40D is good enough.

So I see: 1 D, 5D, 6D, 7D, xxD and Rebel. Current versions and new versions... Wow that is a lot choices.

Not being in marketing or the camera business Canon should have something like: 1 D (Pro), 5/6D (Serious FF), 7D/xxD(Serious), Rebel (Picture takers). Give me big differentials and I can make a decision.


----------



## pdirestajr (Feb 4, 2015)

onajetplane said:


> Being a picture taker that has an interest in cameras, I think one big issue out there is too many choices.
> 
> I heard many people put their 401K money in a money market because there are too many choices.
> 
> ...



But all of those cameras aren't being offered to the same customer. It's not like the average consumer that walks into Best Buy to buy a DSLR has to struggle choosing between all of those models. 

The 1DX isn't offered there. If they are walking in looking to buy their first DSLR they most likely arent looking at the over 1k cameras either. When I bought my first DSLR it was based on what I could afford at that time. So I knew I liked Canon from my Rebel film days- then purchased the DSLR I could afford.

When you look at their whole catalog it looks like a ton of models, but in reality, they are a consumer/ professional products company with a diverse offering of products. Each camera has a market.


----------



## RGF (Feb 4, 2015)

Often the top of the line will drive sales of lower end products. If Canon can create enough excitement with the 5Ds and the potentially 1Dx II (setting themselves up as market innovators) then sales of other products will follow. They can afford to reduce margins on top products (where volumes are small) to drive the rest of the business.


----------

