# Interview With Canon at CP+



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 2, 2016)

```
DPReview had the opportunity to sit down with Mr. Go Tokura, Group Executive ICP Group 2, Image Communications Products Operations, Canon Inc. and talk all things Canon imaging.</p>
<p>I’ve highlighted a couple of questions from the interview that I think are of the most importance:</p>
<p><strong>What is your strategy for growth in this changed market? What do you need to do to differentiate?</strong></p>
<p><em>“One of the differences between us and our competition is the EF lens lineup. We have a very broad base of EF lens users and we don’t want to do anything that would sacrifice their loyalty, so it’s a very high priority for us to satisfy their needs and meet their demands. </em></p>
<p><em>With regard to the overall market, maybe there’s a lack of vigor and it could be viewed as shrinking. Looking at the compact camera market, the bottom end is dropping considerably and the competition is smartphones. Smartphones offer a very easy, convenient way of taking photos. However in the high-end compact segment, at the high end there are cameras that offer functions and performance that smartphones cannot compete with and here we’re seeing growth. So in the compact market, offering features that smartphones cannot compete with is a way of differentiating and invigorating the market. “</em></p>
<p><strong>If we assume that at some point in the future Canon will create an enthusiast or professional mirrorless camera, what are your benchmarks?</strong></p>
<p><em>“This is just my personal opinion. In my view there are two key features that have to be addressed. The first is autofocus, particularly tracking of moving subjects. The other is the viewfinder. The electronic viewfinder would have to offer a certain standard. If those two functions were to match the performance of EOS DSLR camera performance, we might make the switch.</em></p>
<p><em>Tremendous progress has been made in electronic systems.  However in terms of AF, pro-level AF functions, and the range of shooting situations that professional photographers can respond to, there’s still a gap between DSLRs and mirrorless systems.” <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/interviews/0533836703/cp-plus-canon-interview-important-to-increase-development-speed" target="_blank">Read the full interview at DPReview</a></em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## dolina (Mar 2, 2016)

Nice to see some validation from a Canon exec on what is happening to the dedicated still camera market as a whole and mirrorless camera.

I have used EVFs from Leica, Sony and Fuji. Among the 3 the best one I have used so far is from Leica. Sony is 2nd best while Fuji's just plain unusable for my delicate eyes.

Now, my forecast for the point & shoot, SLR and mirrorless market is that they will eventually settle at having 33% market share each in the long term term.

In the long term I expect point & shoots will succumb to smartphone innovations in improved AF and image quality


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 2, 2016)

dolina said:


> Nice to see some validation from a Canon exec on what is happening to the dedicated still camera market as a whole and mirrorless camera.
> 
> I have used EVFs from Leica, Sony and Fuji. Among the 3 the best one I have used so far is from Leica. Sony is 2nd best while Fuji's just plain unusable for my delicate eyes.
> 
> ...



I thought the EVF on the Leica Q was good, then I made the mistake of looking at the Leica SL... wow.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Mar 2, 2016)

Nothing of interest in that interview. Compare this to the honesty from Fuji or Sony when they do interviews. Canikon interviews are so devoid of detail it's painful to read through. They can give more detail without giving too much away. If any company needs to give certainty to waivering followers it's Canon and this does nothing to help, especially if you are a mirrorless fan. The talk of waiting until EVF improve enough to use them will be news to the other manufacturers and current mirrorless users.


----------



## Woody (Mar 2, 2016)

I find the comments from Canon rep about AF and Viewfinder differences between SLR and MILC cameras interesting.

My question to fellow forum members is this: do your personal experiences agree with his criticisms?


----------



## George D. (Mar 2, 2016)

"[Canon:] Increasing resolution and increasing sensitivity are ongoing objectives and that’s not going to change, but on top of that, as I’ve mentioned there’s an emphasis on merging stills and movie functions".

The emphasis depends on the specific model. One has high resolution the other does not, one has strong video the other not, etc. Merging stills and movies (as in extracting stills from movies) not my kind of photography though.


----------



## dolina (Mar 2, 2016)

Woody said:


> I find the comments from Canon rep about AF and Viewfinder differences between SLR and MILC cameras interesting.
> 
> My question to fellow forum members is this: do your personal experiences agree with his criticisms?


He has valid points and I use a a7R II with E mount and EF mount lenses.

It's great for stationary objects but ask it to move a bit and it's hit or miss.


----------



## RGF (Mar 2, 2016)

I found the comments about sensor performance and mirrorless "interesting".

Increased resolution (as if 50MP is not enough) and sensitivity. Wonder if they mean low light or improved DR. Not clear.

Also the claim that a mirrorless camera needs to match professional standards (1Dx and for AF and EVF). The 5DS/SR could have been a mirrorless. If Canon positioned the camera as high MP for landscape, nature, portrait, wedding they would have a done well with it.


----------



## George D. (Mar 2, 2016)

With extreme ISO, extreme fps, slomo, 4K/8K and the likes I wonder how Canon isn't in the drone business yet. Obviously, it's not about the usual specs anymore, it's how to capture images from a different perspective.


----------



## expatinasia (Mar 2, 2016)

Frankly this interview reads as if it was done by email, or at the very least done totally to script. Nothing wrong with that but there were not many follow up questions on some of the comments made by Tokura San.

I also found it strange how the interviewee labelled the 1D-series as semi-professional: "As you develop semi-professional lines like the EOS 5D and 1D-series"

Mind you, there is only ever going to be so much you can get out of an interview and there were some interesting points made.


----------



## tesselate (Mar 2, 2016)

This interview was a disappointment to read. Sigma has been releasing cameras and lenses which bring actual excitement. The wide angle foveon (dp0) is the best thing for architecture photography in the past several years, and still no multilayer sensor from Canon.

Over ten years with Canon, and for me, nothing substantive since the introduction of the TS-E 17mm. Meanwhile, Sigma introduces a new APS-H DSLR: http://sigma-rumors.com/2016/02/sigma-sd-quattro-sd-quattro-h/


----------



## dolina (Mar 2, 2016)

George D. said:


> With extreme ISO, extreme fps, slomo, 4K/8K and the likes I wonder how Canon isn't in the drone business yet. Obviously, it's not about the usual specs anymore, it's how to capture images from a different perspective.


Canon missed the boat with smartphones and to an extent tablets.

Sony's image sensor business makes up the top half the mobile device market.

I am thankful Sony's not investing more R&D money into Minolta mount and instead on the E mount.


----------



## scottkinfw (Mar 2, 2016)

I'm a simple guy.

go for it. Get the mirrorless up and running. Get it tops in reviews and world class. Make it the best. When it starts to get close, I'm in.

In the mean time, keep the DSLR's with mirrors improving in terms of IQ, DR, fps, and some other goodies like maybe a gps, etc., whatever, while keeping it financially possible for the regular man. Also, keep the improvements to lenses. I'm happy. Mirrorless fans are happy. DSLR-video people are happy.

sek


----------



## noncho (Mar 2, 2016)

There are no fast EF-M lenses 4 years after M launch. The bodies are 2-3 years behind the competition. Canon are not even trying to make good mirrorless...


----------



## George D. (Mar 2, 2016)

dolina said:


> George D. said:
> 
> 
> > With extreme ISO, extreme fps, slomo, 4K/8K and the likes I wonder how Canon isn't in the drone business yet. Obviously, it's not about the usual specs anymore, it's how to capture images from a different perspective.
> ...



The recent Leica-HUAWEI smartphone partnership announcement shows Canon indeed have a "broad base of EF lenses" but "the differences between Canon and competition" is they keep it (optics that is) to themselves.


----------



## weixing (Mar 2, 2016)

Hi,


noncho said:


> There are no fast EF-M lenses 4 years after M launch. The bodies are 2-3 years behind the competition. Canon are not even trying to make good mirrorless...


 The question is why you need fast EF-M prime when your already had fast EF lens which also can be use on the M? 

IMHO, current mirrorless camera do not have a clear distinct advantage over current DSLR, but there is one clear distinct disadvantage for mirrorless camera: battery life. For example, on a DSLR, you can look through the viewfinder as long as you like without using much power from the battery... you need a lot of batteries to do the same on a mirrorless camera.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 2, 2016)

Some interesting if vague comments in that article.
Canon waiting for focussing and quality of EVF to improve seems a risky strategy.

I've just spend 10 days shooting in Iceland.
It's the longest I've spent continuously shooting.
It certainly gave me time to think about what is lacking in current DSLR's.
In bright sunlight it's impossible to see the screen at the back of the camera.
(I should have brought a loupe but they are cumbersome and another accessory to bring)
EVF for the playback of the photograph would be very useful.
I have this on a Fuji X100s and it's good.
The other thing is ND filters and graduated filters are a very cumbersome and delicate way to control light to the camera.
It's a pity cameras can't do this somehow cleverly within the camera body.
Some cameras do have a drop in filter but I can't help think that it could be done electronically too.
Maybe it's very complex to do but couldn't individual pixels turn off gathering light when they get close to full or if you set the exposure manually to 30sec that the camera ensures no point in the photograph is too dark or too light by turning on an off pixels.
(Could Lee also make their glass filters out of a shatterproof glass - they are so delicate. It's not fun seeing them break in the smallest of falls)
After 10 days of shooting you also realise just how heavy Canon DSLR cameras and L lenses are. 
Other than that my Canon cameras performed really well in tough and often wet conditions. A built in windscreen wiper for the lens would have a been a help too ;D


----------



## lw (Mar 2, 2016)

Hector1970 said:



> Some interesting if vague comments in that article.
> Canon waiting for focussing and quality of EVF to improve seems a risky strategy.
> 
> I've just spend 10 days shooting in Iceland.
> ...



Interesting insight as I plan a 'polar expedition' of my own. 

I note that a few of the new 1" sensor compacts have a built-in ND filter. I thought your x100s also had a built in ND? http://www.finepix-x100.com/en/story/lens-2

On the filters breaking, you could look at Sigma's new ceramic glass filters http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=66_81&product_id=469


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Mar 2, 2016)

Woody said:


> I find the comments from Canon rep about AF and Viewfinder differences between SLR and MILC cameras interesting.
> 
> My question to fellow forum members is this: do your personal experiences agree with his criticisms?



Very good question. I am sure many have or will comment on this. 
But Canon should release a pro-ish mirrorless body that uses EF lenses. Heck with all this adapter mess.
I think Canon's AF system while still a little slow, its very accurate though.. 
Few months back my 70D main board fried and I got it back a few weeks ago. However TTVF AF is now wacked.. Its focusing is all messed up. So I been using Live View. I have to admit though, over the weekend I did a photo shoot for some portfolio shots for an upcoming model and we took 189 photos in about an hour or so time. Only 1 photo missed focus and it was really really close. The models hair just happen to get in the way of one of the her eyes, so even that was not really the cameras fault. But damn only 1 missed focus.. That to me is wonderful.. I am just going to keep using my 70D like this till the 80D hits the store shelf here, then send my 70D back in for repair.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Mar 2, 2016)

Hector1970 said:


> Some interesting if vague comments in that article.
> Canon waiting for focussing and quality of EVF to improve seems a risky strategy.
> 
> I've just spend 10 days shooting in Iceland.
> ...



Some of the Powershot G series camera do or did have built in ND. My older G12 does. Wished they just made the camera so you could lower the ISO to like 12, it would give the same result as a 3 stop ND..

Yea they are heavy, even more so when you out of shape. This is one of the main reasons I been sticking with my 70D. But I do avoid the cold. .LOL


----------



## lidocaineus (Mar 2, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > I find the comments from Canon rep about AF and Viewfinder differences between SLR and MILC cameras interesting.
> ...



True, but the refresh rate of the output display isn't the issues anymore. If the actual output lags behind the input, all the frames-per-second in the world isn't going to help you catch up to reality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 2, 2016)

Woody said:


> I find the comments from Canon rep about AF and Viewfinder differences between SLR and MILC cameras interesting.
> 
> My question to fellow forum members is this: do your personal experiences agree with his criticisms?



From a technical standpoint, I agree. I also think his response is disingenuous in that it ignores the big 18% grey thing in the room. If the ILC market favored MILCs, those technical barriers would be solved or ignored. However, dSLRs outsell MILCs by 3:1, and as the dSLR market leader, Canon has little incentive to even push hard on mirrorless, let alone switch over.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 2, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > I find the comments from Canon rep about AF and Viewfinder differences between SLR and MILC cameras interesting.
> ...



Exactly. This seems to be typical Canon business practice: do what is necessary to maintain position and profit, and don't waste a single ¥ bringing a feature to market that won't increase profit. I'm not criticizing, this is outstanding business practice, so long as they're doing the background research to maintain this into the future. So far they have, and I have no reason to believe that will change.


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 2, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...



the only reason sony switched over to mirrorless was they couldn't get their marketshares increasing going head to head against nikon and canon.. 3 years later, they have less markethshare then when they were competing head to head.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 2, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


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


I don't think we can reach that conclusion with what's publicly known, but it's likely that they believed they were getting out ahead of an impending trend. They were, but they're too far ahead: it'll be a few more years yet until mirrorless takes over. (I've given up predicting when, but "some day" mirrorless will take over)


----------



## Cali Capture (Mar 2, 2016)

Many fail to acknowledge the basic fact that to get high resolution pictures on high MP sensors, you need "Big" glass! For the Canon haters, explain the Ziess Otus line. Canon's best new lenses (35mm f/1.4II, 11-24mm) are BIGGER! So what is the point of the size and weight advantages of mirrorless over SLR when looking to the future of camera development? Yes, they will be great for that compact middle ground between smartphone and SLR. Yet they will never resolve like a SLR can without the weight of a huge lens. It is an "unbalanced" presumption!


----------



## Woody (Mar 2, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> the only reason sony switched over to mirrorless was they couldn't get their marketshares increasing going head to head against nikon and canon.. 3 years later, they have less markethshare then when they were competing head to head.



I think Sony's market shares for interchangeable lens cameras did not decline, but remained unchanged over the years.

In 2008:






In 2014:


----------



## bholliman (Mar 2, 2016)

RGF said:


> Also the claim that a mirrorless camera needs to match professional standards (1Dx and for AF and EVF). The 5DS/SR could have been a mirrorless. If Canon positioned the camera as high MP for landscape, nature, portrait, wedding they would have a done well with it.



Personally, I'd glad Canon didn't make the 5Ds(R) mirrorless. Its a great camera as-is and I appreciate the excellent AF system and optical view finder.


----------



## davidhfe (Mar 2, 2016)

Cali Capture said:


> Many fail to acknowledge the basic fact that to get high resolution pictures on high MP sensors, you need "Big" glass! For the Canon haters, explain the Ziess Otus line. Canon's best new lenses (35mm f/1.4II, 11-24mm) are BIGGER! So what is the point of the size and weight advantages of mirrorless over SLR when looking to the future of camera development? Yes, they will be great for that compact middle ground between smartphone and SLR. Yet they will never resolve like a SLR can without the weight of a huge lens. It is an "unbalanced" presumption!



But there are other theoretical advantages to mirrorless. SLRs have always been hugely complicated. Mirrorless gets rid of a expensive mirror that needs to be raised/lowered 5-15 times a second, gets rid of an expensive prism, gets rid of a metering sensor, gets rid of an AF module. It allows for far more data to be fed to a CPU for tracking, metering, etc. AF and EVFs aren't quite there right now for me, but they're getting close.

The size/weight thing can be solved by industrial design--it's trivial to make a product *larger* to increase ergonomics and that extra space can be crammed with (heavy) batteries. Just because Sony is trying to differentiate with their tiny cameras doesn't mean canon will do the same with a pro, DLSR-competitor mirrorless.

Don't get me wrong, I'll be first in line for a 5D4... but I also expect it to be the last SLR I ever own (and I do not expect it to be my last canon, FWIW)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 2, 2016)

davidhfe said:


> The size/weight thing can be solved by industrial design--it's trivial to make a product *larger* to increase ergonomics and that extra space can be crammed with (heavy) batteries. Just because Sony is trying to differentiate with their tiny cameras doesn't mean canon will do the same with a pro, DLSR-competitor mirrorless.



The point was that people claim a size/weight advantage for mirrorless, and that's true as far as the camera body goes. But once you mount a lens – a rather important step for taking pictures – in many (but not all) cases that advantage disappears. 

I do expect that if Canon ever goes the FF MILC route, they'll have lines that are dSLR-sized/shaped.


----------



## SwampYankee (Mar 2, 2016)

I guess Canon failed to notice that Fuji has optical viewfinders on 2 of it's 3 top level cameras. So, Canon can continue to wait for for perfection while the mirroless market grows and grows


----------



## Nininini (Mar 2, 2016)

Pretty normal that their compact camera market has been eroded by smraphones, it's largery Canon's own fault.

I was following the Mobile World Congress news, and following announcement form smarphones...

...what I saw was......4k.....autobracketing+audocombine HDR.......240FPS video......Image stabilisation.....fast charging.......video that can run as long as you want instead of only 30 minutes

What the hell is Canon thinking releasing 720P 30FPS compacts and Rebels with underperforming specs. Of course Canon is losing marketshare, they are acting like a dinosaur unwilling to upgrade anything in protection of their highest end cameras.

I was reasonably happy with the specs of the 80D when they announced it, but after I watched Mobile World Congress, with literally every smarphone maker putting 4k video in their phones, I don't know what Canon is thinking. This camera is already outdated before launch. When your $1200 DSLR can't keep up with smarphones, you should start to ask yourself some very tough questions.

Your company won't be kept alive by a few old wedding photographers and a few sports shooters buying 1DX.

You lose the compact market to smarphones, .. smartphones are starting to incorporate image stabilisation and 4k video...if you lose the rebel market to smartphones too....you have a major problem.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 2, 2016)

Nininini said:


> ...what I saw was......4k.....autobracketing+audocombine HDR.......240FPS video......Image stabilisation.....fast charging.......video that can run as long as you want instead of only 30 minutes



What you failed to see was.....tiny little sensors.....crappy codecs.....poor image quality.....poor sound quality.


----------



## Nininini (Mar 2, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > ...what I saw was......4k.....autobracketing+audocombine HDR.......240FPS video......Image stabilisation.....fast charging.......video that can run as long as you want instead of only 30 minutes
> ...



Sensor being larger should be a GIVEN...and smartphone sensor performance is not standing still...there are now smarphones with 1 inch sensors...there are smartphones with IS...there are smarphones with very good ISO performance.

If canon ever loses the APS-C market to smarphones, they can close their doors. They already lost the compact market, completely.

Micro 4/3 already has major issues differentiating itself from 1 inch sensors with good performance.

A few years ago people laughed at the idea that phones would compete with dedicated point and shoot. But a few years later the point and shoot market is dead.


----------



## FramerMCB (Mar 2, 2016)

Keep in mind George that Canon is the world leader (by far) in market share of DSLR cameras and even further ahead in terms of market share, with their lenses. Premium brands (with premium prices) are finding themselves struggling to make revenue in the current tough economic environment coupled with a changing consumer base due to technological advancements in cheaper photo options (i.e. smartphones, etc.). Both Leica and Zeiss glass/optics are beginning to be seen in more consumer products - to broaden their revenue base and get their brand name out there: think Zeiss Touit lenses they have developed for M4/3 platforms and for some of the Sony FF models. Canon, being the 800lb gorilla, has not traditionally partnered with anyone on their camera stuff. (At least their DSLRs and EF-S & EF lenses.) Why would they? 

We tend to forget that Canon, because of their various businesses, create products that enable a user to go from the field/studio all the way to the wall/gallery/museum/customer. And pride themselves on this fact. They market this beginning to end product lineup as Imaging Solutions. In fact, from a big-picture standpoint, I bet that is exactly how they see themselves, and when looking at new product development (with consumer input) want to make sure that they introduce products that can make use of most of their entire business offerings.
My two cents.



George D. said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > George D. said:
> ...


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 2, 2016)

SwampYankee said:


> I guess Canon failed to notice that Fuji has optical viewfinders on 2 of it's 3 top level cameras. So, Canon can continue to wait for for perfection while the mirroless market grows and grows



I guess you failed to realize that Fuji isn't optical through the lens viewfinders.


----------



## Tugela (Mar 2, 2016)

The interview is basically an executive rationalizing why they have not made a high end mirrorless, when the truth is that they have not because they don't have the technology to compete with other MILCs. Putting out an enthusiast MILC would make them look bad when there would be much better products from the competition. So instead they come up with all this BS about people not wanting it, technology isn't ready for prime time bla bla bla.

It is just a bunch of spin and excuses to cover up their deficiencies.


----------



## Tugela (Mar 2, 2016)

Cali Capture said:


> Many fail to acknowledge the basic fact that to get high resolution pictures on high MP sensors, you need "Big" glass! For the Canon haters, explain the Ziess Otus line. Canon's best new lenses (35mm f/1.4II, 11-24mm) are BIGGER! So what is the point of the size and weight advantages of mirrorless over SLR when looking to the future of camera development? Yes, they will be great for that compact middle ground between smartphone and SLR. Yet they will never resolve like a SLR can without the weight of a huge lens. It is an "unbalanced" presumption!



Not big glass. Glass with high tolerances.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 3, 2016)

Nininini said:


> A few years ago people laughed at the idea that phones would compete with dedicated point and shoot. But a few years later the point and shoot market is dead.



That may be so. It doesn't logically follow that anybody quibbling the claim that phones will kill off DSLRs is wrong too. There are physical limitations on phone cameras. Sure, new technologies may get around some of those, but maybe not, and those technologies will be available to dedicated camera manufacturers too.

Sensor size is limited in large part by a desire not to have a bulky camera module in the phone. I've seen people criticise the larger iPhone for having a camera that's not flush with the back surface, even though it only juts out by a millimetre or two. Imagine how much bigger the optics need to be for a much larger sensor.

And as people have said here and elsewhere, just because a phone has a feature (e.g. 4K) doesn't mean that it's better than a dedicated camera that lacks that feature. Image quality still counts for some! And some features are easier to implement on smaller sensors - I believe overheating is less of a problem for them. So maybe get some perspective?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 3, 2016)

Tugela said:


> The interview is basically an executive rationalizing why they have not made a high end mirrorless, when the truth is that they have not because they don't have the technology to compete with other MILCs. Putting out an enthusiast MILC would make them look bad when there would be much better products from the competition. So instead they come up with all this BS about people not wanting it, technology isn't ready for prime time bla bla bla.
> 
> It is just a bunch of spin and excuses to cover up their deficiencies.



They can't, or they don't at this point see the supportive market needed to invest the money it would take? Both result in no camera but one is from a position of strength, the other weakness, you don't have the slightest idea which is true in this case. Personally I would be very cautious stating unequivocally 'Canon can't', they have too much R&D history to make such broad statements. 

What we do know is that Canon are sitting on a motherload of patents and have the ability to roll them out when they see the ability to recoup the cost or they fear lose too much market share. The 1DX MkII rolling out DCI 60fps 4k for 30mins compared to the D5's UHD 30fps for 3mins is a prime example.........


----------



## Tugela (Mar 3, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > A few years ago people laughed at the idea that phones would compete with dedicated point and shoot. But a few years later the point and shoot market is dead.
> ...



Overheating is an issue mostly with the processor, not the sensor as such. At this point in time there is no reason for any camera not to have 4K unless the manufacturer does not have access to efficient processors. Clearly the leading phone companies do, but not all the leading camera companies do (well, they all do except for one notable exception).


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Mar 3, 2016)

Cali Capture said:


> Many fail to acknowledge the basic fact that to get high resolution pictures on high MP sensors, you need "Big" glass! For the Canon haters, explain the Ziess Otus line. Canon's best new lenses (35mm f/1.4II, 11-24mm) are BIGGER! So what is the point of the size and weight advantages of mirrorless over SLR when looking to the future of camera development? Yes, they will be great for that compact middle ground between smartphone and SLR. Yet they will never resolve like a SLR can without the weight of a huge lens. It is an "unbalanced" presumption!



look at how much of the so called size and weight advantage of the Sony A7RII that has disappeared. The original system launched with a few very slow lenses (by prime standards) and a slow zoom. This was to help perpetuate the illusion this was a small system. However there were no pro work horse lenses like a 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8, they would have been horribly unbalanced and not fit in at all with their message. Now we see the A7RII is 40% heavier than the A7R and factor in the several batteries and possibly grip and you have a system as heavy as a DSLR albeit still smaller (sans lens). Now throw on G series lens and and probably a grip will be needed to balance the system pushing weight easily as heavy as a 5DSR or D810 and similar glass. Unless you are sticking to a slowish 35 f/2.8 prime there is now almost no benefit to the mirrorless system. Thus we come back to sensor technology and once Canon brings new sensor tech and it already looks like the 1DX II and probably 80D do use new smaller lithographic process and on chip ADC, then a lot of the hate towards Canon will disappear. To me mirrorless makes sense for m4/3 and APS-C where the cameras and to some extent lenses can be made much smaller than DSLR equivalents. In the FF world it's not compelling, although if they can make super high res, lag free EVF and get AF via DPAF as good if not better than 1DXII, then bring it on it if can result keep weight and size down, but glass will always be as big and heavy.


----------



## Tugela (Mar 3, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > The interview is basically an executive rationalizing why they have not made a high end mirrorless, when the truth is that they have not because they don't have the technology to compete with other MILCs. Putting out an enthusiast MILC would make them look bad when there would be much better products from the competition. So instead they come up with all this BS about people not wanting it, technology isn't ready for prime time bla bla bla.
> ...



One could reasonably infer they don't based on the tech they are including in their cameras.

They do have some parts of the package, such as DPAF, but other parts, notably EVFs and processors, would have to come from somewhere else to be competitive, and that is what is holding them back. Especially processors. DSLRs have considerably lower processor requirements than a high end MILC, so they represent the easy option that Canon can manage. But if they tried to make a high end MILC, they would be at the back of the pack and they know it.....so they don't make one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 3, 2016)

Tugela said:


> The interview is basically an executive rationalizing why they have not made a high end mirrorless, when the truth is that they have not because they don't have the technology to compete with other MILCs. Putting out an enthusiast MILC would make them look bad when there would be much better products from the competition. So instead they come up with all this BS about people not wanting it, technology isn't ready for prime time bla bla bla.
> 
> It is just a bunch of spin and excuses to cover up their deficiencies.



The post is basically a forum troll rationalizing his typical behavior, when the truth is that Canon has clearly demonstrated they have all the requisite technology, and in fact have already made and sold a camera that became the #2 best-selling MILC in the largest market geography for that segment. Putting out an enthusiast MILC only makes sense for Canon in a market where MILCs are more popular than Canon's market-leading dSLRs, and that market doesn't exist today. So instead, Tugela bashes Canon with ridiculous nonsensical arguments, saying they don't have the technology, they can't compete, bla bla bla. 

It is just a bunch of spin and BS to cover up his bitterness and lack of understanding of business and market forces.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 3, 2016)

Tugela said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Nininini said:
> ...



Fair dos, that's not an area I know much about, I've seen differing opinions on the topic.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 3, 2016)

Tugela said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



I refer to my earlier comment, "you don't know that." You don't have the slightest idea what technology for EVF's and processors Canon are sitting on, none.

Canon are extremely conservative and cost orientated, they never spend an extra Yen unless they see a very good reason to the simple reason we have the cameras from them that we do is because they can lead the pack with what they put out, where is the motivation and cost equation to do more? That position turns your argument 180º and is just as valid, and has as much evidence behind it, as your point of view. 

No, actually my point of view has more evidence behind it as can be evidenced by Canon's consistent market leadership and the fact that as and when features are seen to be a market requirement they appear. Take the EVF-DC1 as an example, it is a highly regarded EVF that Canon have leveraged the cost of against several camera models. Or the EF lens protocol that has demonstrated the long term view Canon take with their tech and has successfully grown to seamlessly include a multitude of features not thought of when it was initially released.

I am very happy to trust in Canon tech and believe they can produce pretty much anything they want whenever they want, but they will only do that if they see a good market and very strong likelihood of financial returns.


----------



## Nininini (Mar 3, 2016)

scyrene said:


> So maybe get some perspective?



I only understand part of Canon their decisions. I love canon cameras.

But, I also completely don't understand other parts of Canon.

Especially video.

Since Canon brought up the compact market and smartphones.



This....I don't get. This is a new compact from canon. It is $150, and they are promoting the fact it shoots...*720p*. It can not record 1080p.

There are phones in india, for $30 that shoot proper 1080p, but this thing, for $150, can't. The chips inside smarphones that allow 1080p shooting, are worth $1.

And then canon says in intervviews they are getting heavy competition from smarphones. Really, when you put 720p in your cameras, it's shocking to you you are getting competition from 4k smartphones. *Ya think?*










Canon, lately, doesn't like putting good features in a majority of their cameras. Not because canon can't, they just.. don't want to. They want to keep all features out of lower end products.

And it's not just video, it's tons of stuff.

Their lower end DSLR don't have minimum shutter speed, they don't have a kelvin scale, they can't micro adjust, they can't do 60p in HD, they don't have 4k, etc etc etc.

Canon still has a group of loyal customers who have bought many expensive EF lenses and FF bodies, but that group is an older audience, many who are reluctant to change brands because of the investments they made. They need new customers too, they can not survive on wedding photographers and enthousiasts buying up L lenses, that's a very small market.


----------



## Woody (Mar 3, 2016)

Mr Majestyk said:


> look at how much of the so called size and weight advantage of the Sony A7RII that has disappeared. The original system launched with a few very slow lenses (by prime standards) and a slow zoom. This was to help perpetuate the illusion this was a small system. However there were no pro work horse lenses like a 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8, they would have been horribly unbalanced and not fit in at all with their message. Now we see the A7RII is 40% heavier than the A7R and factor in the several batteries and possibly grip and you have a system as heavy as a DSLR albeit still smaller (sans lens). Now throw on G series lens and and probably a grip will be needed to balance the system pushing weight easily as heavy as a 5DSR or D810 and similar glass.



I arrived at the same conclusion. It's a MYTH that MILC systems are always lighter. The recently released Sony E-mount f/2.8 zooms prove that. Only specific zooms like the 16-35 f/4 (518g) and 24-70 f/4 (430g) are lighter than the Canon counterparts (16-35 f/4 is 615g and 24-70 f/4 is 600g).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 3, 2016)

Nininini said:


> Canon still has a group of loyal customers who have bought many expensive EF lenses and FF bodies, but that group is an older audience, many who are reluctant to change brands because of the investments they made. They need new customers too, they can not survive on wedding photographers and enthousiasts buying up L lenses, that's a very small market.



I'm sure you're right, it's just a few old guys and some wedding photographers buying the *~6 million dSLRs* Canon sells annually.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Mar 3, 2016)

noncho said:


> There are no fast EF-M lenses 4 years after M launch. The bodies are 2-3 years behind the competition. Canon are not even trying to make good mirrorless...



22mm F/2 not fast enough? While the bodies are behind, the M3 was a decent camera.


----------



## Refurb7 (Mar 3, 2016)

Woody said:


> I find the comments from Canon rep about AF and Viewfinder differences between SLR and MILC cameras interesting.
> 
> My question to fellow forum members is this: do your personal experiences agree with his criticisms?



I definitely agree. EVFs just don't meet the standards set by OVFs. Too slow to AF in low light. Lousy tracking. Slow start-up time. Annoying stuttering when shooting in continuous. Sluggish blackout times even with high shutter speeds. Too bright on the eyes in low light. Insufficient dynamic range for contrasty light. Insufficient resolution (except maybe on the best Leica). Thirsty for batteries. It's just a long list of problems and annoyances.


----------



## Refurb7 (Mar 3, 2016)

Tugela said:


> The interview is basically an executive rationalizing why they have not made a high end mirrorless, when the truth is that they have not because they don't have the technology to compete with other MILCs. Putting out an enthusiast MILC would make them look bad when there would be much better products from the competition. So instead they come up with all this BS about people not wanting it, technology isn't ready for prime time bla bla bla.
> 
> It is just a bunch of spin and excuses to cover up their deficiencies.



The interview just states the facts. MILCs have some significant performance deficiencies that make them less appealing to many photographers. For some kinds of photography, today's MILCs are simply inadequate.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 3, 2016)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Nothing of interest in that interview. ...
> ... Canikon interviews are so devoid of detail it's painful to read through.



+ 100

Probably it is even worse than that and they have no answers themselves. Clueless mirrorslapper company. Just like Nikon.


----------



## Woody (Mar 3, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> + 100
> Probably it is even worse than that and they have no answers themselves. Clueless mirrorslapper company. Just like Nikon.



Totally clueless indeed.

In 2008:





In 2014:


----------



## Tugela (Mar 3, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > The interview is basically an executive rationalizing why they have not made a high end mirrorless, when the truth is that they have not because they don't have the technology to compete with other MILCs. Putting out an enthusiast MILC would make them look bad when there would be much better products from the competition. So instead they come up with all this BS about people not wanting it, technology isn't ready for prime time bla bla bla.
> ...



Putting out an enthusiast MILC makes sense when it can take on and outperform the competition. If you don't do that then you cede market share without a fight. Every MILC sold by someone else is money Canon does not get. I am not sure why you believe that their executives think that is a good thing. Canon have not put out an enthusiast MILC because they know that they cannot compete, and coming last does not look good.

Canon does not have the tech to do it. Look at the EOS-M system. It has been widely panned as inferior to just about everyone else's MILCs, and it certainly is far from being an enthusiast camera. Sure, they sold quite a few, but that is mostly in Japan, and a big reason for their sales numbers might just have to do with the fact that they had to cut the price to $300 to get people to buy them don't you think? At full price the EOS-M was a complete flop.

If you look at overall worldwide ILC shipments, MILC shipments have increased slightly over the last few years, while DSLR shipments are way down. The gap between them is steadily getting smaller and that means that Canon's slice of the pie is steadily decreasing. If you don't believe me, look at the figure below:

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Infographics-2015-1920_1080-700x394.jpg


----------



## Tugela (Mar 3, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > The interview is basically an executive rationalizing why they have not made a high end mirrorless, when the truth is that they have not because they don't have the technology to compete with other MILCs. Putting out an enthusiast MILC would make them look bad when there would be much better products from the competition. So instead they come up with all this BS about people not wanting it, technology isn't ready for prime time bla bla bla.
> ...



The same thing could be said about DSLRs though. Different cameras might be better than others depending on the application. Personally I will never go back to a reflex camera. They simply do not satisfy my needs. The disadvantages of an EVF that people go on about are IMO cosmetic. I don't care about them. The advantages however are real, and that I do care about.

The important point about the interview however is that they are making very little effort to compete at all when it comes to MILCs even though it is a large market that is proportionately grabbing an increasing slice of the overall pie each year. At some point there will be tipping point where everything will go over to mirrorless very quickly, and right now Canon are poorly positioned for that eventuality. And that is where the spin comes in. There are no strategic plans, just excuses and rationalizations. DSLRs have nothing to do with that discussion.


----------



## Tugela (Mar 3, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



When it comes to MILCs they DON'T lead the pack however. Their presence in the hybrid part of the overall camera is virtually non-existent. That segment is owned by Sony and Panasonic.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 3, 2016)

Tugela said:


> ...
> It is just a bunch of spin and excuses to cover up their deficiencies.
> ...
> Every MILC sold by someone else is money Canon does not get. I am not sure why you believe that their executives think that is a good thing. Canon have not put out an enthusiast MILC because they know that they cannot compete, and coming last does not look good.
> ...



+1 *** exactly! *** 

Does not matter, what the ever-same "Canon Defense League" around here believes.


----------



## Refurb7 (Mar 3, 2016)

Tugela said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...




There's no reason for this "tipping point" that you imagine. Why would "everything" go over to mirrorless quickly? What's the magnetic attraction of mirrorless? Sorry I don't see it.

Photographers who try mirrorless quickly grasp the deficiencies. Some are willing to excuse the deficiencies because of small advantages in weight. Canon is creating cameras that perform better than any current mirrorless. Even the cheapest DSLRs feel better and work faster than current mirrorless. Sure, Canon could step down to a worse level of AF, slower less-responsive cameras, stuttering EVFs, terrible battery life, etc., but that's not going to please a lot of Canon buyers who are used to much, much better performance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 3, 2016)

AvTvM said:


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



Spoken in true troll form by both of you, with all the business acumen of the mud under your bridge. Maybe one too many mirrorslaps to the head...

Your suggestion that they lack the technology is baseless and ridiculous. Consider a single example - they have had an APS-C sensor with DPAF since the 70D. Clearly, that technology would significantly benefit a camera that has no dedicated AF sensor. They have released three models of the M after that sensor was available - and used it in none of them. 

Canon isn't trying in the MILC market for good business reasons. Even contracting as the market is, *dSLRs outsell MILCs by 3:1*. Like Nikon (but a bit moreso), Canon is the dominant player in the much larger market segment, and has chosen to let the little dogs fight over the scraps of the smaller market. Resources are never unlimited, developing a camera is not cheap, and developing one for a minor market segment - when at least a fraction of that market segment comes from your existing major market - is not necessarily prudent. Sure, the MILC vendors push hard in that space - they tried to compete with Canon and Nikon in the much larger dSLR segment, failed, gave up and are relegated to fighting over scraps. Even without major effort, Canon is now 3rd/4th in the MILC market, Fuji isn't even a sales chart blip.

Canon sells more dSLRs per year than all MILCs sold world wide, by all makers. Every time someone registers a new camera, Canon collects data on their demographics and what other gear they own. So they see the global ILC market through the eyes of millions of camera buyers...and you see that market through your own personal mypoic, half-blind pair of eyes. Canon likely spends more on market research in a few months than you'll earn in your entire lives, but you know better than they do how they should spend their yen. Sure, guys...right. Keep on proving yourselves the fools. :


----------



## scyrene (Mar 3, 2016)

Nininini said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > So maybe get some perspective?
> ...



I think you have a point. But I think it's worth separating out what we think are good features, and what the target market for these devices thinks.

I genuinely don't think more than a vanishing minority of people chooses a mobile phone because of the resolution of the video it shoots. Virtually nobody is sharing 4K video on the platforms where it counts - Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Vine, etc. I get that 4K offers options - framing, stabilisation, frame grab, downsizing to nicer HD. But only enthusiasts are doing that, or have even thought to do that. The reason mobile phone cameras have eaten a large part of the point and shoot market (as most seem to agree) is more about the ease of taking a snap, or a short bit of footage and sharing it with others. Camera quality has improved very quickly, but that is not the primary driver, imho. It's that one device, usually very slim and portable, and that you'd be carrying anyway, can produce results that for most people are adequate most of the time. Canon could put 4K in its Powershots and the market would still be dwindling.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Mar 3, 2016)

A lot of talk about mirrorless cameras and size weight and so on. Has anyone took at look at Sigma's new sd Quattro mirrorless bodies? I am not sure how they will actually perform. But they use their existing dslr lenses and they look "maybe" a touch larger then the Sony A7. I can see Canon going this route. A pro mirrorless body, with all the features a DSLR shooter would want, but mirrorless for those who just want mirrorless. I just hope they focus on the hand grip design better then Sony and Sigma did.. I just prefer the DSLR handgrip feel and comfort..


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 3, 2016)

ExodistPhotography said:


> A lot of talk about mirrorless cameras and size weight and so on. Has anyone took at look at Sigma's new sd Quattro mirrorless bodies? I am not sure how they will actually perform. But they use their existing dslr lenses and they look "maybe" a touch larger then the Sony A7. I can see Canon going this route. A pro mirrorless body, with all the features a DSLR shooter would want, but mirrorless for those who just want mirrorless. I just hope they focus on the hand grip design better then Sony and Sigma did.. I just prefer the DSLR handgrip feel and comfort..



Hopefully, Canon will not use the Sigma fixed ***pig snout*** approach. I prefer a *removable* lens adapter like the Canon EF/EF-M one. That way I get best of both worlds: smaller native short flange distance lenses (wide angle to normal) and use of any existing EF lens via adapter if and when required. But only then!

Really fail to understand, why some people are so against use of an adapter, which is exactly the same size as the Sigma trunket. Of course, the adapter i want comes from Canon, not from some party like Metabones, is fully functional (AF, IS, full lens-mount protocol), mechanically precise enough to not cause image quality issues and not too expensive. Again, Canon EF-/M adapter fully complies with all my requirements. Cost me 79 Euro or so. Even better, if Canon were to include the thing with every MILC body "for free". Does not cost them more than 5 bucks a piece.


----------



## Nininini (Mar 3, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > Canon still has a group of loyal customers who have bought many expensive EF lenses and FF bodies, but that group is an older audience, many who are reluctant to change brands because of the investments they made. They need new customers too, they can not survive on wedding photographers and enthousiasts buying up L lenses, that's a very small market.
> ...



The camera market is a FRACTION of what it was prior to the launch of the iPhone, a TINY FRACTION.

Wedding photographers and enthousiasts are NOT enough to counter the mass losses they are incurring.

Either they keep up with smarphones, or Canikon are the next Kodak and Nokia.

Something like the 80D should have had 4k, they need to stop with their incremental tiny upgrades when the smarphone market is trailblazing ahead with 4k.


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 3, 2016)

Nininini said:


> The camera market is a FRACTION of what it was prior to the launch of the iPhone, a TINY FRACTION.



Now you're not even trying. I'd take another look at your (unsourced) charts. Sure, there was a bump in DSLR sales in 2012, for whatever reason, but the market seems to be pretty stable otherwise. Point-and-shoots have obviously been obliterated by smartphones, but if you want to argue that DSLRs/MILCs are similarly threatened you need better justification than that.

"3% drop in shipped lenses in 2015"?  That's not even outside the error margin, never mind something I'd put into an infographic if I had an agenda like the author seems to have.


----------



## Nininini (Mar 3, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> Nininini said:
> 
> 
> > The camera market is a FRACTION of what it was prior to the launch of the iPhone, a TINY FRACTION.
> ...



I have never said DSLR, I was talking about compacts. Which was a massive market.

BUT, I did say, that the high-end DSLR market, is NOT enough to keep companies like Canikon afloat.

*And* I argue, that Canon, just like Micro 4/3, is in danger of not only losing the compact camera market, but also a large part the APS-C market, which is the largest offset market, BY FAR, of DSLR.

When Canikon start losing parts of the APS-C market to Smartphones, because they refuse to keep up, that's when trouble will start for these companies.

They managed to offset the complete loss of the low margin compact market, they will not be able to do this with their largest market, APS-C. The Full frame market can not offset losses in APS-C.

And you are already starting to see large losses in DSLR market, as the graphs show.


----------



## Nininini (Mar 3, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> if you want to argue that DSLRs/MILCs are similarly threatened you need better justification than that



from 21 million to 13 milllion DSLR sold in a few years time, is a *MASSIVE* drop in sales

Canon is not competing against Nikon or Sony, Canon is competing against smartphones.

It might sound strange to DSLR users, the idea that a DSLR is in competition with smarphones, but that's what is happening. 

More disposable income from Asia and Lating America, should have meant a BOOM in DSLR sales, instead the reverse happened, DSLR sales are rapidly decreasing. This can only be the result of smarphones.







It's also not the "mirrorless" market causing losses in DSLR sales. Sure, the mirrorless market gained a tiny bit on the DSLR market, but it's clearly not enough to explain the losses. Smartphones explain the losses.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 3, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> So the next M offering may not be all the bells and whistles of 4K and dedicated EVF and high speed FPS or A6300 or Nikon 1 series AF, yet.



That's exactly what many of us here think is going to happebn. After M, M2, M3, M10 yet another very lacklustre new EOS M (M4). Canon *is still not able to* put an M together, that is fully competitive with Sony A6300. 

Not in sensor tech. 
Not in AF. DPAF never delivered the goods in 70D; 80D remains to be seen, but it appears mainly to be for video, not so much for stills capture.
Not in fps/performance/responsiveness. 
And if it gets freaking Powershot firmware again like M3, then not even in UI, except for touchscreen. 

That's the situation. Canon is not willing AND not able ... to perform.


----------



## George D. (Mar 3, 2016)

FramerMCB said:


> George D. said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



Canon is a remarkable company and they should be proud of themselves but regretfully they're not the best lens makers, Zeiss are. One day Canon would buy Zeiss as VW bought Bugatti but unfortunately Sony already chose them as partners to boost Sony prestige (and compete Canon). Same thing with Leica and HUAWEI in the smartphone area. Buy Huawei, it's got Leica (as in buy Sony it's got Zeiss) - not Canon. It's funny how one becomes a market leader.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 3, 2016)

Nininini said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > if you want to argue that DSLRs/MILCs are similarly threatened you need better justification than that
> ...



A few things. Without taking sides on your argument, picking a high point and using it to judge a trend is potentially very misleading, especially when the number of data points (in this case, years) is so small.

Second, again you need to give more justification that smartphones and DSLRs are in direct competition. You have a hypothesis. The data you present doesn't prove it one way or the other. Correlation is not causation, yadda yadda.

Finally, as I said a little earlier, adding more features to cameras does not mean they will sell better. Specifically, adding 4K and other features you personally want will not halt or reverse the declines. Or at least, you've given no evidence to support that hypothesis either. Sorry.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 3, 2016)

Nininini said:


> Something like the 80D should have had 4k, they need to stop with their incremental tiny upgrades when the smarphone market is trailblazing ahead with 4k.



You've evidently latched onto 4K video (of whatever quality, good or crappy) as a key feature. Clearly Canon doesn't share your viewpoint. Canon spends millions on market research. You have a personal opinion, and you know better. Right. 




Nininini said:


> Canon is not competing against Nikon or Sony, Canon is competing against smartphones.
> 
> It might sound strange to DSLR users, the idea that a DSLR is in competition with smarphones, but that's what is happening.
> 
> More disposable income from Asia and Lating America, should have meant a BOOM in DSLR sales, instead the reverse happened, DSLR sales are rapidly decreasing. This can only be the result of smarphones.



Well, clearly you know more than Canon. You should share this information with them, and become the savior of their corporation. Obviously, the global economy doesn't matter. It's smartphones and the lack of 4K. Couldn't possibly be some effect of market saturation, either. That sort of thing never happens (well, except that it's happening in the smartphone market now, too). Yes, it seems you've got this all figured out. Well done!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 3, 2016)

George D. said:


> Canon is a remarkable company and they should be proud of themselves but regretfully they're not the best lens makers, Zeiss are.



I agree - for microscope objective lenses, Zeiss is definitely the best. Regretfully, while their ILC lens lineup has some noteworthy entries, overall that lineup is narrow in scope and limited in performance features on ZE-mount lenses. 

Also worth noting that while the microscope objectives I buy from Zeiss are made in Germany, Zeiss-branded camera lenses are produced in Japan.


----------



## Nininini (Mar 3, 2016)

Zeiss makes good glass because they have to. Not many people are aware of this, but all the chips Canon has in their lenses and cameras, are possible thanks to Zeiss.

Zeiss makes lenses for ASMl, ASML owns 90% of the lithography machine market for chips. 90% of the computer chips were made using Zeiss glass.

Making high precision camera lenses is baby stuff for Zeiss, their lithography lenses have a precision that make camera lenses look like cheap junk.

That massive glass element you see there in the center of this picture, is from Zeiss, it's going to ASML, it costs as much as a sportscar. It has a precision that no camera lens has.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 3, 2016)

Nininini said:


> Zeiss makes good glass because they have to. Not many people are aware of this, but all the chips Canon has in their lenses and cameras, are possible thanks to Zeiss.
> 
> Zeiss makes lenses for ASMl, ASML owns 90% of the lithography machine market for chips. 90% of the computer chips were made using Zeiss glass.
> 
> ...



And Canon make steppers too, that almost certainly use their own made glass, but good luck trying to get images from inside a Canon stepper!


----------



## Refurb7 (Mar 3, 2016)

George D. said:


> FramerMCB said:
> 
> 
> > George D. said:
> ...



How does Zeiss get to be the "best lens makers" without actually making lenses? Zeiss-branded stills camera lenses are not even made by Zeiss, for the most part (a few exceptions ... Otus?). They are made by Cosina or Sony or who knows who. Sometimes they are not even designed by Zeiss. For example, it apears the recent Zeiss Batis 85/1.8 optical design is patented by Tamron.

As Zeiss does not even make many Zeiss-branded lenses, it's not surprising that there are quality control issues unworthy of the name, like the decentering affecting the pricey Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4. Then there are the modest performers, like the Sony Zeiss FE 24-70 f/4, which just diminish the Zeiss name.


----------



## Tugela (Mar 3, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Given some mental bubble gum thought over the past two days, it sounds like Canon sent out there senior rep of development rather than explain what's up on behalf of their R&D department, IE make him go in the hot seat for once. Given this context, his thoughts make some sense in a few regards, and is the common Canon defense in another...
> 
> Canon development engineers are going to want CMOS-AF and EVF to equal performance of dedicated AF and OVF; they're engineers, that's how they think and that's clearly the bar their management has given to shoot for; and it's a good goal to have.
> 
> ...



Regarding 4K, you talk as though they could do it, but don't in order to "protect" their high end C gear (which is not really an argument because pros buy that gear for other reasons as well). However, if you look at the way it is implemented on those systems that do have 4K, it is pretty clear that there are technical reasons preventing them from delivering 4K on the consumer side. Basically they don't have the processors to handle it at the moment. The silicon they do have is behind Nikon, who in turn is quite a bit behind Sony and Panasonic.

This is Canon smoke and mirror stuff. They say they have not included it for various reasons, but the real reason it isn't there is because they can't include it and remain competitive. So they just ignore it instead and pretend that it is unimportant.


----------



## Refurb7 (Mar 3, 2016)

Apparently even the mighty Otus lenses are not actually made by Zeiss, but rather by their "network of trusted partners".
https://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/9782175241/in/photostream/


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 3, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> How are those superteles going for Zeiss? You know, like the 300 f/2.8L II IS that can resolve about 45 MP's off the 5Ds-R sensor wide open?



Well, as you may know Zeiss made a 12" refractor telescope that is quite popular, it cost $230K in current dollars. It's a decent little telescope, but barely adequate by modern standards. OTOH, by ganging together a set of 10 Canon 400/2.8 II lenses, you can get a $100K telescope that rivals today's much larger and far more expensive research telescopes, and in some ways surpasses them: Dragonfly. How's that for a _super_ tele lens?


----------



## Nininini (Mar 3, 2016)

Tugela said:


> Regarding 4K, you talk as though they could do it, but don't in order to "protect" their high end C gear it is pretty clear that there are technical reasons preventing them from delivering 4K on the consumer side. Basically they don't have the processors to handle it at the moment.




I'm starting to increasingly doubt the 

"we can't put 4k in this and that, because technical bla bla bla"

argument

Ever since I went to Mobile World Congress, and I saw companies speak about 4k in smartphones, I really started to doubt what Canon is saying and giving as explanations. It just makes absolutely no sense that a high-end camera would not be able to get 4k, but tiny smarphones can.

And, canon has a tendency to nerf their lower end stuff.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 3, 2016)

Tugela said:


> Regarding 4K, you talk as though they could do it, but don't in order to "protect" their high end C gear (which is not really an argument because pros buy that gear for other reasons as well). However, if you look at the way it is implemented on those systems that do have 4K, it is pretty clear that there are technical reasons preventing them from delivering 4K on the consumer side. Basically they don't have the processors to handle it at the moment. The silicon they do have is behind Nikon, who in turn is quite a bit behind Sony and Panasonic.



Well, yes...clearly you know exactly what you're talking about concerning Canon and 4K video. For example, I previously tried to explain how you were dead wrong when you stated:



Tugela said:


> All cameras with a Digic 7 processor will have the capability of shooting 4K video. So, if all of these cameras are projected to include a Digic 7, then all of them will shoot 4K.



So please, in your infinite wisdom, explain the PowerShot G7 X Mark II. What processor does it have? Does it shoot 4K video? Dazzle us with your knowledge!!


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 3, 2016)

dont care about 4k. Go buy a video cam. 

All I see, is Canon Uunable to come up with a true competitive camera to Sony A6300 and Sony A7 II / A7R II. Unfortunately Sony has no competitive offering compared to ES M lenses. Nor to EF glass. 

All I want is an EOS M with EOS firmware, EOS user interface, EF-M mount, Sony A6300 sensors and Sony A6300 AF at Sony A6300 price.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 3, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> All I want is an EOS M with EOS firmware, EOS user interface, EF-M mount, Sony A6300 sensors and Sony A6300 AF at Sony A6300 price.



I'm not sure how to tell you this, so I'll say it with a Wonkameme®.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 3, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> dont care about 4k. Go buy a video cam.
> 
> All I see, is Canon Uunable to come up with a true competitive camera to Sony A6300 and Sony A7 II / A7R II. Unfortunately Sony has no competitive offering compared to ES M lenses. Nor to EF glass.
> 
> All I want is an EOS M with EOS firmware, EOS user interface, EF-M mount, Sony A6300 sensors and Sony A6300 AF at Sony A6300 price.



Steady on, you forgot to use the M-word!


----------



## rrcphoto (Mar 4, 2016)

the problem isn't DiGiC but the DSP's that are used to form the SoC DiGiC.

the SoC includes an ARM processor, DSP's,etc all needed for the camera to function.

In the past Canon's used DaVinci DSP's in DiGiC.

it's *obvious* that DiGiC as far as version 6 does not have native h.264 4k DSP's or the 1Dx Mark II would have had it. they went with MJPEG because it's easier to implement in firmware without having your processor burst into flames.

what's not readily apparent is if TI finally offers 4K capable devices. for Canon to switch their SoC infrastructure in DiGiC isn't a trivial task.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 4, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> How does Zeiss get to be the "best lens makers" without actually making lenses? Zeiss-branded stills camera lenses are not even made by Zeiss, for the most part (a few exceptions ... Otus?). They are made by Cosina or Sony or who knows who.



Otus is manufactured by Cosina in Japan. Is there some implied claim that it would be somehow better were it manufactured by Zeiss in Germany?




Refurb7 said:


> Sometimes they are not even designed by Zeiss. For example, it apears the recent Zeiss Batis 85/1.8 optical design is patented by Tamron.



An optical formal isn't a lens. Zeiss designed the Batis 1.8/85. It is possible the optical formula was developed by Tamron (using a Sonnar design...), but that matters little. What matters is the whole package. Many people like the lens, others find the occasional swirl bokeh ugly. Like anything, it's up to the consumer to determine whether the price matches the performance. 




Refurb7 said:


> As Zeiss does not even make many Zeiss-branded lenses, it's not surprising that there are quality control issues unworthy of the name, like the decentering affecting the pricey Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4. Then there are the modest performers, like the Sony Zeiss FE 24-70 f/4, which just diminish the Zeiss name.



They own the test specifications for mass production, but the main think Zeiss brings to those (Sony/Zeiss) lenses is the blue badge on the sony lens.


----------



## Refurb7 (Mar 4, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > How does Zeiss get to be the "best lens makers" without actually making lenses? Zeiss-branded stills camera lenses are not even made by Zeiss, for the most part (a few exceptions ... Otus?). They are made by Cosina or Sony or who knows who.
> ...



I was replying to the comment about Zeiss being the "best lens makers". The point was that to be the "best lens makers" a company has to MAKE the lenses that are the best. Being the "maker" means doing the making. Without the crucial making part, they may get credit for other things but not for being the maker. Being the best maker isn't putting your name on a lens made by someone else.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 4, 2016)

Fair enough, I suppose (though I would ask: is Apple a cellphone maker? Most people consider them such despite their product being manufactured in Foxconn facilities). Zeiss does manufacture lenses, just not for the consumer still cam market. They're in house production focused on scientific, industrial, and cinema.

Whether they are the best is a silly question, and likely depends significantly on use case.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 4, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Otus is manufactured by Cosina in Japan. Is there some implied claim that it would be somehow better were it manufactured by Zeiss in Germany?



Sure - it's the mystique of it, a guy named Hans peering through his horn-rimmed glasses as he painstakingly assembles the optics in a little factory in the Black Forest (okay, a big factory in Jena, but work with me here). Gotta be better!


----------



## martti (Mar 7, 2016)

They could have interviewed his dog with just about as much information gained.
Mostly the reporter was expressing his own thoughts and the Sphinx nodded with a smile and said something self-evident like you have to speed up to be able to run with the others. We all know that there are lots and lots of Canon lenses out there. And there are adapters...

If I could buy a Nikon 810 with a Canon mount...


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 7, 2016)

martti said:


> They could have interviewed his dog with just about as much information gained.
> Mostly the reporter was expressing his own thoughts and the Sphinx nodded with a smile and said something self-evident like you have to speed up to be able to run with the others. We all know that there are lots and lots of Canon lenses out there. And there are adapters...
> If I could buy a Nikon 810 with a Canon mount...



+1000 

If I could buy a Sony A6300 with an EF-M mount ...
... and a Sony A7R II with fully functional EF-adapter made by Canon ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 7, 2016)

Do I need to repost the Wonkameme®? :


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do I need to repost the Wonkameme®? :



no. go wank yourself, Canon fanboy.


----------



## Refurb7 (Mar 8, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> martti said:
> 
> 
> > They could have interviewed his dog with just about as much information gained.
> ...



Gosh, it seems that everyone wants something with a Canon mount. Canon must be doing something right! Too bad those other camera makers don't make those sweet EF / EF-M lenses. Of course you realize that if you get your wish, you'll have to suffer with the Sony EVF and their cameras' poor ergonomics and their lousy menu system and their lack of a joystick to pick your AF point and their general quirkiness, like the crummy LCD switching off every time it gets near your body and the EVF stuttering when shooting in continuous mode (while you're hoping it can track a moving subject), and you'll need to quadruple your stock of batteries. And if you ever need a repair you'll hope that some third party will handle it because Sony won't. Ah, the Canon Rumors forum ... where some people wish for Sony to please accept Canon lenses, even as they make fun of Canon "fanboys".


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 8, 2016)

@Refurb7

As everybody on this forum knows, my first wish were Canon to finally launch a EOS-"M4" with a fully competitive sensor, a built-in EVF, an AF system capable of tracking moving subjects and decent battery charge. On top of all the virtues the existing EOS M system brings to the party. From EOS User Interface (not Powershot firmware!) to touchscreen. And of course EF-M mount and those great, small, inexpensive EF-M lenses plus EF-M/EF adapter. 

That wish however, is constantly ridiculed by some notorious fanboys on this Canon forum.

Second "wish" ... or in market economy terms: "demand" (!) is for a Canon FF-sensored MILC system at least as capable as Sony's A7 II series plus FE lenses. 

Again confiormed by this interview: Canon is unwilling and currently also *technologically* unable to satisfy that market demand, so competitors are frolicking as their offerings get more attention, love and most importantly sales. 

A good number of my "photo enthusiast" friends have already moved from Canon and Nikon mirrorslappers to Sony or Fuji mirrorless. Many others - myself included - have not switched yet but are holding off buying anything more from Canon (or Nikon) - no 5D IV (yet another mirrorslapper), no EF-/L glass, and definitely no sub-par and "powershoddy" ... EOS M2, M3, M10.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 8, 2016)

@Refurb 7:

*Canon Service? *
Unfortunately no differentiating factor in most European countries - except a few large ones like Germany or UK: basically non-existent for consumers, no matter what brand. After first year warranty is expired, customers are on their own. For Canon there is only third-party service in my country. And repair prices even for minor issues or damage are typically higher than residual value of gear after 1 year of use. Personally i have thrown away 2 powershots with stuck lenses and one EF lens (non L) after a scratch on the front lens. Repair cost would have been 80% of new purchase ... so I threw it in the bin and did not purchase again. 

CPS requirements are also very high in Europe, clearly targeted at pro's only and beyond most "enthusiasts" equipment. Total purchase price of my Canon gear amounts to well over 10k € and yet it does not qualify for even the lowest tier of CPS ... you need to have 2 "pro" bodies. But I only want and need one at a time. It is big and heavy enough. ;-)


----------



## martti (Mar 8, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > martti said:
> ...




I am painfully aware of the Sony quirkiness as I have the A6000 that I tried to use with Metabones adapter and Canon lenses. Life is too short and there are already enough annoyances as it is. 
Do you want to buy it? I make you a price.

Has somebody said that Canon is not doing things right?
Looking at the way it dominates the DSLR market you can see that it is nonsense.
So there is a bunch of people who feel that their human rights are threatened because Canon does not give them the toy that they say they'd need. Why might that be? Could it be that Canon, which is run like a business, keeps a keen eye on the bottom line and does not believe that it could make as much money with a mirrorless system –where there already is tough competition– as they can with their DSLRs. 


I do not think our knowledge would help Canon very much in going on about their business.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 8, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> That wish however, is constantly ridiculed by some notorious fanboys on this Canon forum.



When you express ridiculous desires, expect ridicule. 




AvTvM said:


> Canon is unwilling and currently also *technologically* unable to satisfy that market demand, so competitors are frolicking as their offerings get more attention, love and most importantly sales.



Unwilling to satisfy a 'market demand' coming from a small minority segment, yes. Where's your evidence they are unable? Actual evidence, not fleeting thoughts passing through the transom of your mind. 

Sony is getting attention, where is your evidence that that's costing Canon sales? Note: "Some people I know have switched from Canon," is _not_ evidence. 

On the plus side, at least you're consistent – you never let facts, data or business realities get in the way of your opinions.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 8, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> Of course you realize that if you get your wish, you'll have to suffer ... their lousy menu system



I don't really get why people care so much about menus. How often do you really access them? I go through them to set up my camera, but afterwards I use them sparingly. On Canon I switch AF settings, I change the playback card back to CF when I mistakenly shut the memory card door with CF in a card reader and the camera switches to SD, and I format cards. On Sony I enable wireless transfers, sometimes enable exposure preview, and I format cards. The only substantial advantage Canon has is the custom menu. The only bug I've noticed with the Sony is that if I exit the menu after disabling airplane mode, when I enter the menu again it will be on a different screen (weird).



Refurb7 said:


> and their lack of a joystick to pick your AF point



Biggest deal on A7R2 for me, hands down.




Refurb7 said:


> and their general quirkiness, like the crummy LCD switching off every time it gets near your body



The LCD isn't crummy as far as I can tell, and that's not a quirk, it's functionality you can use or disable.



Refurb7 said:


> and the EVF stuttering when shooting in continuous mode



I've not noticed that.



Refurb7 said:


> (while you're hoping it can track a moving subject)



Depending on the subject, it's not bad at tracking - for shooting portraits, it's hands down better than any Canon I've owned. However, it's not an action camera, so if you're looking to track a diving peregrine, you're in for some disappointment. 



Refurb7 said:


> , and you'll need to quadruple your stock of batteries.



I have twice as many 5D3 batteries as I do A7R2. The ratio, two per camera, is identical.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is unwilling and currently also *technologically* unable to satisfy that market demand, so competitors are frolicking as their offerings get more attention, love and most importantly sales.
> ...



What I observe first hand around me is eyewitnessed evidence. Holds up in any court, as soon as I swear it is true. And ... it is true. Seen a good number of people switch from Canon/Nikon/mirrorslappers to Sony and Fuji mirrorless. Almost all of them would have preferred to buy a Canon or in case of Nikonians, a Nikon mirrorless system - APS-C or preferably FF. 

How large exactly the pent-up demand for mirrorless systems is ... nobody knows for sure. But I am convinced, it is *significant*. People are sick and tired of both: rebel mirrorclickers [they have one at home, they take it out twice a year, rest of year its smartphone/tablet camera] and big brick mirorslappers [use it, but often it stays at home, because system is too big and heavy].


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 8, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> What I observe first hand around me is eyewitnessed evidence. Holds up in any court, as soon as I swear it is true. And ... it is true. Seen a good number of people switch from Canon/Nikon/mirrorslappers to Sony and Fuji mirrorless.



Fresh, drinkable water coming out of your tap is not evidence that most of the water in the world is fresh, drinkable water. Your limited social circle is not representative of the broader market. Anecdotes ≠ data.




AvTvM said:


> How large exactly the pent-up demand for mirrorless systems is ... nobody knows for sure. But I am convinced, it is *significant*. People are sick and tired of both: rebel mirrorclickers [they have one at home, they take it out twice a year, rest of year its smartphone/tablet camera] and big brick mirorslappers [use it, but often it stays at home, because system is too big and heavy].


Yes, we know _you_ are convinced. You can cite 'pent up demand for mirrorless' until mirrorslapping knocks your teeth out, but your _opinion_ is refuted by the actual *data* on what cameras people are choosing to buy, data which you seem unable to accept.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 8, 2016)

yes some people are still buying Canon mirrorslappers, because they 
A) really need what currently mirrorslappers can do better and where size does not matter much, because tele lenses are used ... action/field sports, BIF, plane spotting, etc. 
B) don't know any better ... and believe bigger camera+mirrorslap = better ["snapshooters", many rebel buyers] 
C) don't like small cameras since they got Trump-sized hands ... yes, anecdotal  

But most importantly: 
D) because there are no [FF] or no worthwhile [APS_C] mirrorless systems on offer by either Canon or Nikon. Fact.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 8, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> yes some *the majority of *people are still buying Canon mirrorslappers



Fixed that for you.




AvTvM said:


> But most importantly:
> D) because there are no [FF] or no worthwhile [APS_C] mirrorless systems on offer by either Canon or Nikon. Fact.



But how can 'D' be? There's all this *significant* and *humongous* pent up demand for FF / high-end APS-C MILCs, everyone knows it, Canon and Nikon obviously must know it. Why oh why haven't they delivered them? Perhaps because they

A) love the sound of slapping mirrors too much to abandon them
B) lack the technology to produce mirrorless cameras
C) are just plain stupid

Or far more likely:
D) perform market research to gather actual data and they know a helluva of a lot more about the ILC market than you do, and they have decided not to pursue FF / high-end APS-C MILCs at this time because it makes the most fiscal sense.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 8, 2016)

D) is because Nikon and Canon executives *believe they got Trump-sized hands* 

and yes, probably they do love all sorts of mechanical sh*t in their cameras flailing, thrashing,bouncing, clacking, slapping mirrors, submirrors, sub-sub-mirrors in their cameras. Even if they don't always seem to have them under control ... 5D and 1D III come to mind. 

My *guess* ... or if you prefer, my "starting hypothesis": because those old beancounter-minded f*rts at the helm of Canon and Nikon are to old and clueless about the digital world. When they were boys they probably aspired to a german Leica camera, as the Canon copycat founder did.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 8, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> D) is because Nikon and Canon executives *believe they got Trump-sized hands*
> 
> and yes, probably they do love all sorts of mechanical sh*t in their cameras flailing, thrashing,bouncing, clacking, slapping mirrors, submirrors, sub-sub-mirrors in their cameras. Even if don't always have them under control .. 5D and 1D III come to mind.
> 
> Generally it is because those folks at Canon and Nikon are to old and clueless about the digital world.



Yeah, all that explains the current state of the ILC market just perfectly. Your head must really hurt from all the mirrorslaps to it.


----------



## Refurb7 (Mar 8, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> @Refurb7
> 
> As everybody on this forum knows, my first wish were Canon to finally launch a EOS-"M4" with a fully competitive sensor, a built-in EVF, an AF system capable of tracking moving subjects and decent battery charge. On top of all the virtues the existing EOS M system brings to the party. From EOS User Interface (not Powershot firmware!) to touchscreen. And of course EF-M mount and those great, small, inexpensive EF-M lenses plus EF-M/EF adapter.
> 
> ...



If mirrorless is so important to you, why does it have to be Canon? It seems the market already offers a wide selection of mirrorless for you. What's your delay in moving to Sony/Fuji/Olympus?

And what's with the "mirrorslapper" name? It bothers you THAT much that there's a mirror inside a camera, so you have to give the camera a silly name? I appreciate the always-on lag-free power-saving optical viewfinder. Thank goodness for the mirror that enables that. The fact that it moves for a fraction of a second is of absolutely no consequence for nearly all shutter speeds that I'm likely to use. If the mirror were such a problem, I would have switched to rangefinder cameras decades ago.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 8, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > As everybody on this forum knows, my first wish were Canon to finally launch a EOS-"M4" with a fully competitive sensor, a built-in EVF, an AF system capable of tracking moving subjects and decent battery charge.
> ...



Probably becuase he's a wanking Canon fanboy who prefers mirrorless for his canon because he only needs a box with a very short flange distance. ;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 8, 2016)

Refurb7 said:


> If mirrorless is so important to you, why does it have to be Canon? It seems the market already offers a wide selection of mirrorless for you. What's your delay in moving to Sony/Fuji/Olympus?



The bulk of the canon system is compelling. Great lenses, great speedlights, great bodies, great support (obviously this depends on where you are located), and most everything works well together. Other systems aren't as complete, or feel very disjointed and poorly planned (sony). I am guessing AvTvM isn't willing to trade all the good canon offers in favor of one or two desires (small and mirrorless), when the bulk of his dream system (including things like a 4K EVF, dust tight 1 and meter waterproofing in spite of a fully articulated LCD, autofocus-only (no MF), eye control, etc) isn't offered anywhere.

Personally, My paid work is all canon - if someone hires me to man a camera, I won't risk using a system which hasn't earned my trust. I have sold plenty of photos I took with other systems of kludges (like sony bodies with metabones adapters holding canon lenses), but they were photos I took on my own time.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 8, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Refurb7 said:
> 
> 
> > If mirrorless is so important to you, why does it have to be Canon? It seems the market already offers a wide selection of mirrorless for you. What's your delay in moving to Sony/Fuji/Olympus?
> ...



Thanks. Exactly. 
Plus I do prefer the Canon EOS user interface (but not Powershot). 
EOS with Canon Eye Control AF v2.0 it would really be as perfect for me as it gets. 8) 

ah, but least I forget: wireless ETTL protocol should finally allow for 2nd curtain sync. That's long overdue, Canon RT system's usefulness notwithstanding. Plus RT remote control for zoom relector on speedlites buried deep in some lightformer.


----------

