# Canon Executive Talks EOS M in 2016



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 3, 2016)

```
In an interview with ASCII.jp, Canon executive Yagi Koichi had this to say about the immediate future of the EOS M line (Google translated).</p>
<blockquote><p>“in the third quarter and fourth quarter of 2015, we have been able to ship a lot of mirror-less the number of cameras, not yet satisfied by For. At present new products, but mention can not be, the third quarter in 2016, towards the fourth quarter and that the “mirror-less market is forecast to grow, Canon’s share of the” mirror-less camera market and two years ago the 4-position, we want to aim at the 3-position.</p></blockquote>
<p>My summary of the above quote:</p>
<blockquote><p>We’re working on new mirrorless products that we plan to launch in Q3 and Q4 of 2016, we obviously can’t discuss those products at this time. We’re currently #4 in mirrorless, and want to get to #3 in marketshare in the near future. We do expect the mirrorless market to continue to grow and we want to be a part of that growth, but we need to produce better mirrorless cameras.</p></blockquote>
<p>So it sounds like Canon has plans for a big splash in mirrorless for Photokina 2016 in Cologne, Germany.</p>
<p><em>thanks Jenson</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 3, 2016)

just out of curiosity who is at #3 position?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 3, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> just out of curiosity who is at #3 position?



I don't know off the top of my head, but I would assume Olympus, Fujifilm and Sony in no particular order. I'm not sure where Panasonic ranks.


----------



## Woody (Feb 3, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > just out of curiosity who is at #3 position?
> ...



I seriously seriously doubt Fujifilm is anywhere near the top 3.

It's just Sony, Olympus and Panasonic.

In Japan, Canon and Panasonic are neck and neck in #3.

To get to the top 3, it's not enough to have competitive products in the pro or semi-pro category, one needs to have cheap but great cameras (e.g. Sony A6000, Oly E-M5) and lenses. So far, Canon is seriously lagging in both these departments. Their only saving grace is their branding.


----------



## tcmatthews (Feb 3, 2016)

Current rankings in Japan are 
1) Olympus
2) Sony
3) Canon

Last year Panasonic fell to 4, and Canon jumped up from 5 last year.

World wide who knows no real reliable data. But Sony stated that there total mirrorless sales were down 5% but profit was up 20%. 

Fujifilm does very well in some emerging markets.


----------



## ashmadux (Feb 3, 2016)

GREAT. they seriously have to do better.

The M3 is a great camera INTENTIONALLY hobbled by canon. Powershot firmware, slow focus, slow menus, idiocy like ultra low res- raw previews...they wanted to make sure you couldn't compare its usability to even a rebel.

I just returned my M3/EVF bundle today. By the end of the trial period, i hated it.

PS- never buying a camera without a full swivel screen. The vertical only implementation is utterly worthless for portraits.

Vaya con dios M#- it was nice to know you. Not.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2016)

So Canon's rumored "mirrorless surprise" is now postponed to Q3/Q4?
They have bern abd still are clueless. If they had a real mirrorless stragey and correspondingly convincing MILCs, they would not have to fight for 3rd place in 2016 ... 
they'd be dominating the market. Why oh why did they leave A6000 and A7 (II) series to Sony? Without any fight? So stupid! Many millions of units and gazillions of yen missed, Canon!


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 3, 2016)

The sleeping giant is about to wake up?


----------



## aclectasis (Feb 3, 2016)

"big splash"


----------



## Fleetie (Feb 3, 2016)

They still want us to wait NEARLY ANOTHER YEAR for a proper EOS M camera?
After telling us there'd be something good "soon" towards the end of last year?

They're ******** joking. 

I think I'll end up getting the Fujifilm X-Pro 2 then.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2016)

Will be interesting to see how soon Sony will launch their A6000 successor ... and what it brings to the table.  

Fuji ... not interested. FF prices for retro-stuff APS-C cameras and lenses. No thanks. I really like the small, decent and priceworthy Canon EF-M lenses. All I want - after a very long wait - is a *significantly* better EOS M body! ASAP, Canon!


----------



## MintChocs (Feb 3, 2016)

It will be too late for me, plus I'm fed up with the lack of innovation, old sensor technology. It definitely won't be Canon in the mirroless dept for me. It would suit and the market they want are the mass market but for anyone interested in photography will give them a wide berth. Oh did I forget to mention, overpriced compared to the competition!


----------



## eosuser1234 (Feb 3, 2016)

The digicame-info article, actually says Canon is targeting the top share, which would be first in sales for Japan, not just moving from third to fourth. 

Their plan will be very aggressive for the M in the next year. More lenses, low around 40000yen, mid 50000yen-70000yen, high range cameras 150000yen~.


----------



## nhz (Feb 3, 2016)

MintChocs said:


> It will be too late for me, plus I'm fed up with the lack of innovation, old sensor technology. It definitely won't be Canon in the mirroless dept for me. It would suit and the market they want are the mass market but for anyone interested in photography will give them a wide berth. Oh did I forget to mention, overpriced compared to the competition!


If a more 'pro/enthusiast' EOS-M will only come end of 2016 they will be really late to the party. And you can count on them leaving out a better sensor (that can compete with Sony/Nikon sensors from a few years ago), that will take another 1-2 years as none of the 2016 DSLRs seems to be at that level yet. They keep lagging the market in technology and innovation but count on making up for it with their marketing muscle.

Too bad that Sony has very few decent (and affordable) E lenses, and other mirrorless systems have their own compromises.


----------



## mustafa (Feb 3, 2016)

ashmadux said:


> PS- never buying a camera without a full swivel screen. The vertical only implementation is utterly worthless for portraits.



I can't think why you need a swivelling screen for portraits. I've had cameras with them for several years now, and I don't recall ONCE needing to swivel in the portrait format. Landscape format yes, for low level or overhead shots - that's why I would go with the less obtrusive tilting screen given the choice.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 3, 2016)

I never believed a new M was imminent, but what about some fast primes???


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 3, 2016)

brad-man said:


> I never believed a new M was imminent, but what about some fast primes???



If you don't mind manual focus, I have the two new Rokinon/Samyang primes in hand that I'm reviewing on a M3 body, and they are stunningly good. The 21mm f/1.4 has a 33.6mm angle of view and the 50mm f/1.2 has an 80mm angle of view. They are both beautifully made, easy to focus on the M3 (particularly with the EV-F), are optically competitive with just about everything I'm throwing at them.

Here's my first look video: http://bit.ly/1m87Vdr
Here's an image gallery from the 21mm: http://bit.ly/1PEiSBh
Here's an image gallery from the 50mm: http://bit.ly/1VvpSPb

Plus, they look like this...


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 3, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> In an interview with ASCII.jp, Canon executive Yagi Koichi had this to say about the immediate future of the EOS M line (Google translated).



bad translation. other translations, state that canon is third and plans on being second by the end of 2016.
which is more realistic with their BCN standings that were reported a week ago.

_Yagi, one officer in the Canon imaging systems company President is "not able to ship quite a number of mirrorless cameras in the third quarter and fourth quarter by 2015, but still happy. Expects not to mention about the new product at the moment, but in 2016, for the third quarter and fourth quarter expands mirrorless market "and then" Canon in the mirrorless camera market share two years ago, fourth and last year's third place. I aim at second place this year. Second place and it is a goal along the way. Want to take the number one spot as soon as possible "with eagerness.
_


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 3, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> So Canon's rumored "mirrorless surprise" is now postponed to Q3/Q4?
> They have bern abd still are clueless. If they had a real mirrorless stragey and correspondingly convincing MILCs, they would not have to fight for 3rd place in 2016 ...
> they'd be dominating the market. Why oh why did they leave A6000 and A7 (II) series to Sony? Without any fight? So stupid! Many millions of units and gazillions of yen missed, Canon!



cry harder?

many millions of units missed? lol.

sony probably shipped 1 million units if that. Sony was around 11% .. the last time they mentioned it, now they don't even bother.

we know that olympus shipped 520,000 units.

so assuming that Canon slows down and/or halts EF develop and tosses everything in small mirrorless cameras. even if they move to #2 world wide.. we're looking at around 500,000 to 1 milllion units - however on the other hand, how much will DSLR's slip? 1 million? 1.5 million? more?

maybe less hand-wringing and more common sense.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 3, 2016)

Woody said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...



not true at all.

the big sellers for Sony in 2014 (the year prior was the NEX-5 on firesale), the big seller for Olympus was the E-PL6 last year.

Sony hung on to second place by shear market presence - having basically 5 full frame cameras released in 18 months, and the A5100/6000.

Panasonic has slipped into 4th, and probably not even neck and neck. the sellers recently were the GF and GM series bodies from Panny.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> ... So stupid! Many millions of units and gazillions of yen missed, Canon!


cry harder?
many millions of units missed? lol.
[/quote]

If Canon had brought out a worthy, fully competitive EOS-M 1 week before the Sony A6000 was announced ... plus the EF-lenses - offered globally ... at realistic MSRP ... they would have literally sold millions. And could have closed the entire Rebel mirrorflipper line by now. Making even higher profits on MILCs, that can be built by robots at much lower cost. 

and by btw .. look what Sony has come with just today. http://www.dpreview.com/news/3240829197/sony-announces-24mp-a6300-mirrorless-camera
Canon execs (& shareholders) WILL cry much harder! Some more gazillion yens in lost sales. 8)  ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 3, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> and by btw .. look what Sony has come with just today. http://www.dpreview.com/news/3240829197/sony-announces-24mp-a6300-mirrorless-camera
> Canon execs (& shareholders) WILL cry much harder! Some more gazillion yens in lost sales. 8)  ;D



Wrong emojis, you meant :


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 3, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > and by btw .. look what Sony has come with just today. http://www.dpreview.com/news/3240829197/sony-announces-24mp-a6300-mirrorless-camera
> ...



you're quite right. Should be this one ...







*** MIRRORLESS SURPRISE *** ;D


----------



## David Hull (Feb 3, 2016)

We want to be #3? What kind of goal is that? They should shoot for #1 that way maybe they'll get to #2. I really don't see why they cannot make something just as good as anything Sony makes, after all they have everything but the sensors.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 3, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > I never believed a new M was imminent, but what about some fast primes???
> ...



I don't mind manual focus, but I do mind manual aperture. During summer the MP-E 65mm is the most used lens on my M1 followed by the EF-S 60mm in MF mode. Aside from a focus confirmation/ID chip that's my biggest wish for rokinon lenses.


----------



## Luds34 (Feb 3, 2016)

David Hull said:


> We want to be #3? What kind of goal is that? They should shoot for #1 that way maybe they'll get to #2. I really don't see why they cannot make something just as good as anything Sony makes, after all they have everything but the sensors.



Well, the whole goal of being a top seller doesn't give me a good feeling. High sales usually equates with mass appeal. I'm just reading more evolution of the M line. I'm concerned that this will still not appeal to enthusiasts or pros. While I get the Rebel is the bread'n'butter with the scale it is sold at. Be a market leader and garner name recognition with a top end product. You already have enough low end M cameras to appeal at the standard consumer level.

And I agree, how about some M glass while we're at it?

Either way, basically another year away before we even see this. That too is disappointing.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 3, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Will be interesting to see how soon Sony will launch their A6000 successor ... and what it brings to the table.
> 
> Fuji ... not interested. FF prices for retro-stuff APS-C cameras and lenses. No thanks. I really like the small, decent and priceworthy Canon EF-M lenses. All I want - after a very long wait - is a *significantly* better EOS M body! ASAP, Canon!



The interesting thing about Fuji is they can actually achieve equivalence with most Full Frame setups if their lenses are sharp enough, and the Fuji 56f1.2 certainly is (not all of the other lenses are amazing but they've done a decent job thus far).
That lens doesn't have much competition in the mirrorless space, the Panasonic 42.5f1.2 Nocticron is nice, but even then it's 13mm shorter and the crop factor of M4/3 practically cuts your light gathering down by two stops. Sony might have a hope of getting the job done with a crop body, but they've already given up and gone with 35mm sensors. Are they going to be devoting resources to top grade APS-C lenses?
I'm sure the Fuji 56f1.2 compares favorably enough with the Canon 85f1.8 to justify the price, and the Canon 85f1.2 sells for more than twice as much as the Fuji (the lack of a Canon 85f1.4 is actually kind of interesting, another reason to be surprised we don't have a Sigma 85mm Art, though maybe the focusing issues already present with Canon are a good indication of why we don't see a rush of lenses in that space).

Fuji is rumored to come out with a 33mm f1.0 lens this year (fingers crossed), and with that, they'll have a modern pair of high end portrait primes at a decent price. If it's as sharp as the 56f1.2 then the 33f1.0 would be about as good as a Sigma 50mm Art on a Full Frame body. Yes, you can get the Canon 50f1.4 for about three times less money than a high end Fuji lens, but again it's probably a trade off of cost and IQ. If Canon upgrades their lens it's not going to be cheap. Canon has a 50f1.2 (Nikon's is Manual Focus), but it should probably be upgraded (otherwise the Sigma 50A wouldn't sell).
There's no competing with something like a 6D for $1,000 and a Nifty Fifty (and that 40mm Pancake is amazing on Full Frame), but then you have to compare the other pro's and con's of each system.
I owned a 5D2 for about a year and that was enough for me, I'm looking for a smaller body and more dials. Speaking for myself in particular, I really love the tactile experience of operating a camera. As someone limited to enthusiast applications these are more toys than tools. Otherwise, quite frankly, my dirt cheap 1100D is everything I will ever need in a camera.


----------



## bholliman (Feb 3, 2016)

Sounds like Canon is getting serious about mirrorless. Looking forward to what they come up with.


----------



## Etienne (Feb 3, 2016)

bholliman said:


> Sounds like Canon is getting serious about mirrorless. Looking forward to what they come up with.



How is this getting serious? They want to be number 3, and the next M is almost a year away.
Sony is serious: the A6300 will be almost impossible for Canon to match, never mind the A7 series.
This interview sounds like Canon is still half-assed about the M


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 3, 2016)

David Hull said:


> We want to be #3? What kind of goal is that? They should shoot for #1 that way maybe they'll get to #2. I really don't see why they cannot make something just as good as anything Sony makes, after all they have everything but the sensors.


no it was a bad translation. it said, we are currently #3 and want to move up to #2 by the end of the year.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 4, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> So Canon's rumored "mirrorless surprise" is now postponed to Q3/Q4?
> They have bern abd still are clueless. If they had a real mirrorless stragey and correspondingly convincing MILCs, they would not have to fight for 3rd place in 2016 ...
> they'd be dominating the market. Why oh why did they leave A6000 and A7 (II) series to Sony? Without any fight? So stupid! Many millions of units and gazillions of yen missed, Canon!



There were 3.2 million Mirrorless and other non reflex cameras such as rangefinders sold in 2015.

Even if they were in first place, I doubt that they might have sold more than a million +/- , so they did not miss many millions of sales. However, its not a insignificant number. Of course, being in 4th place, they probably sold 300,000-500,000.

Its hard to understand why they have not already produced a FF mirrorless, but they have had a series of spectacular flops over the past 50 years trying to eliminate the swinging mirror in DSLR's, so someone in Management who got burned several times is really cautious.

Even recently, Canon had to virtually give away the original M because no one in the USA wanted them.


----------



## candc (Feb 4, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > I never believed a new M was imminent, but what about some fast primes???
> ...



I have to say those example shots look awesome. If I had an m I would order those lenses right now.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 4, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > I never believed a new M was imminent, but what about some fast primes???
> ...



Thanks, Dustin! Your images look very good. Really nice to see "sample images" from someone who knows photography. 

However, I do mind manual focus and manual aperture and manual-everything. Very much so! For me it's gotta be AF and electronic-everything all the way. After all, this is electronic/digital imaging. I'd never buy all-manual Samyangs at more than 400 Euros a piece. Yikes. 

For me and my M the EF-M 22/2.0 is absolutely perfect. As far as 50mm goes, currently I use the neato EF 50/1.8 STM via EF-M adapter. Still small and light enough. Wide open, DOF is also fine with me. Got both lenses for € 120 a piece. 

Difference between your images and mine is not caused by lenses used or one more f-stop, but solely by photogs ... :'(


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 4, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its hard to understand why they have not already produced a FF mirrorless, but they have had a series of spectacular flops over the past 50 years trying to eliminate the swinging mirror in DSLR's, so someone in Management who got burned several times is really cautious.


is it cautious or just business sense?
where's Sony's A mount right now?
canon has what .. 5.8 million SLR's shipped. to focus (literally) on mirrorless seriously would cut back in other areas. how much and would there still be a net gain?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 4, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Its hard to understand why they have not already produced a FF mirrorless, but they have had a series of spectacular flops over the past 50 years trying to eliminate the swinging mirror in DSLR's, so someone in Management who got burned several times is really cautious.
> ...



absolutely massive net gain. would Canon ship 5.8 million MILCs instead of mirrorslappers, they'd make a lot more money. MILCs have a huge cost advantage in production ... fully automated robot factories, nothing mechanical to mount, shim, adjust, 10x quality checks, ... as well as in after sales service / warranty repairs. Plus people would be buying a lot more new lenses, as they would gradually migrate from EF [via mirrorless adapter] to new, native short flange-back "EF-X" lenses.


----------



## nhz (Feb 4, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



So ... Canon doesn't want to make money? ;-)

I think it is more likely that they closely follow what their users say. Apparently most users in US and EU still want big honking look-at-me cameras (DSLR), while only Asia prefers small cameras (= mirrorless). And maybe most of the Asian users don't need a high end mirrorless camera from Canon and just want something that is small and very easy to use?

Ultimately mirrorless should be cheaper (when production volume is similar) but probably the technology isn't quite ready yet. A high quality EVF has a cost, needs bigger battery, needs EF adapter or has limited lens choice. Despite all the 'mechanical' adjustments etc. it is clear that Canon can produce an entry model DSLR (1000D etc.) for very little money, they are almost giving them away if you subtract the value of the kit lens (which of course costs almost nothing as well ...). And maybe they don't do much mechanical adjustment on the lower end DSLRs and leave that problem for the customer ;-(


----------



## crashpc (Feb 4, 2016)

It´s not "want big, honking piece of metal" for everybody. It´s the fact that on M, almost everything except lens quality and touch screen is inferior. The sensor, focusing system, FPS, buffer, every key feature at the time is inferior. And then they wonder how come they don´t sell more. DOH.


----------



## Etienne (Feb 4, 2016)

crashpc said:


> It´s not "want big, honking piece of metal" for everybody. It´s the fact that on M, almost everything except lens quality and touch screen is inferior. The sensor, focusing system, FPS, buffer, every key feature at the time is inferior. And then they wonder how come they don´t sell more. DOH.



Canon should just reverse engineer the new Sony A6300


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2016)

Etienne said:


> Canon should just reverse engineer the new Sony A6300



Sony should just reverse engineer Canon's market domination.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 4, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > I never believed a new M was imminent, but what about some fast primes???
> ...



Thanks for the samples Dustin. They do look excellent. I'm afraid that I do require AF for M lenses for more versatility. I suspect Canon is going to make me wait another year or so for the lenses I want. Despite all the recent rumors, I don't believe Canon is serious about mirrorless for pros/enthusiasts yet.


----------



## RGF (Feb 4, 2016)

Etienne said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > It´s not "want big, honking piece of metal" for everybody. It´s the fact that on M, almost everything except lens quality and touch screen is inferior. The sensor, focusing system, FPS, buffer, every key feature at the time is inferior. And then they wonder how come they don´t sell more. DOH.
> ...



I have not seen the A6300, but if it like the A7R II then Canon should build a similar camera but rethink the user interface. Based upon my limited use of the A7R II, it is good iron but terrible firmware.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 5, 2016)

crashpc said:


> It´s not "want big, honking piece of metal" for everybody. It´s the fact that on M, almost everything except lens quality and touch screen is inferior. The sensor, focusing system, FPS, buffer, every key feature at the time is inferior. And then they wonder how come they don´t sell more. DOH.



exactly. Classical case of lacking "SUPPLY", not of lack in "DEMAND". 

Always quite funny, how wannabe-economists around here [looking @ u Neuro ] love to quote imagined or real ratios of how MICLS are still outsold by DSLRs ... without any consideration of the fact, that the two Companies controlling around 2/3 of the global ILC market are both not offering even one single, competitive MILC body. 

If both Canon and Nikon today were to both launch an APS-C MILC fully competitive with Sony A6300 ... Canon with existing EF-M lenses plus existing EF-M/EF adapter and Nikon with a similar starting lens lineup pklzus F-Mount adapter - at the same price as Sony [MSRP $ 1000 /body - likely to turn into 799 body+kit zoom strret price before summer) ... we'd see more MILCs sold than DSLRs already in 2016.


----------



## nhz (Feb 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> crashpc said:
> 
> 
> > It´s not "want big, honking piece of metal" for everybody. It´s the fact that on M, almost everything except lens quality and touch screen is inferior. The sensor, focusing system, FPS, buffer, every key feature at the time is inferior. And then they wonder how come they don´t sell more. DOH.
> ...



I'm not a fan of these big camera bricks at all and would like Canon to at least offer better alternatives for those who don't want big/heavy/impressive (and maybe for some extremely capable) DSLR cameras.

But the fact is that there are big differences in sales numbers for DSLR and mirrorless between Asia, Europe and US markets. Do you think Canon doesn't market their DSLRs in Asia? Do you think Asians don't care about good ergonomics? For the US one could maybe say that EOS-M marketing has been insufficient, but Canon US probably has a good reason for not spending much money on that. Also, while Canon is clearly lagging in mirrorless camera features, the other suppliers in general aren't much ahead of Canon in mirrorless sales (except for some niche markets like Sony with its A7 series).

It's not supply, it's mostly demand IMHO. Of course things can change when Canon starts to offer EOS-M cameras with the features and technology of Sony, plus better ergonomics. I would be interested, but I think a lot of US/EU buyers will still prefer a cheaper, bigger DSLR ...


----------



## Etienne (Feb 5, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> nhz said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Using a Sony sensor would be a shame ... A Pro-M should have DPAF, which is the best and most logical AF to put in a mirrorless camera. With a touchscreen LCD of course.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



you are totally pulling stuff out of your posterior like it's fact.

the acceptance of MILC's and smaller cameras would insure that no, they wouldn't. not everyone wants an EVF. so canon would leak customers to Nikon who would still have OVF's.

cheaper cost? is it? do you know the delta of R&D in a mass produced penta mirror system and a 2.4MP EVF?

got facts to back that up?

MILC"s built in totally automated factories - since when?

you still have to shim, adjust and tune - what are you thinking or smoking?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Always quite funny, how wannabe-economists around here [looking @ u Neuro ] love to quote imagined or real ratios of how MICLS are still outsold by DSLRs ... without any consideration of the fact, that the two Companies controlling around 2/3 of the global ILC market are both not offering even one single, competitive MILC body.
> 
> If both Canon and Nikon today were to both launch an APS-C MILC fully competitive with Sony A6300 ... we'd see more MILCs sold than DSLRs already in 2016.



Always quite funny, how some people around here [looking @ u AvTvM] live in some sort of fantasy world where they can ignore facts and reality (such as the fact that the EOS M line is actually very competitive in the largest MILC market geography). The numbers I quote are real, they reflect actual camera sales in the real world. What makes you think I haven't considered the fact that Canon and Nikon have made only limited efforts in the MILC segment? Why should they do more? As you say, they are dominating the ILC market...so they should make a concerted effort to alter that market?!? Fantasy land, populated by people with the business acumen of bowling balls. 

If, if, if. If CaNikon made more effort in MILC, then MILCs might actually become popular. If Canon made the exact MILC he wants, then AvTvM would be happy and stop complaining. If a comet hits the Earth tomorrow, then we'll no longer have to be bothered by AvTvM's incessant, unrealistic babbling.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Always quite funny, how wannabe-economists around here [looking @ u Neuro ] love to quote imagined or real ratios of how MICLS are still outsold by DSLRs ... without any consideration of the fact, that the two Companies controlling around 2/3 of the global ILC market are both not offering even one single, competitive MILC body.
> ...



to be honest - I think the comet has the best odds of happening


----------



## TAF (Feb 7, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> The sleeping giant is about to wake up?



Sadly, he just rolled over and hit the snooze button.


----------



## bvukich (Feb 8, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> If, if, if. If CaNikon made more effort in MILC, then MILCs might actually become popular. If Canon made the exact MILC he wants, then AvTvM would be happy and stop complaining. If a comet hits the Earth tomorrow, then we'll no longer have to be bothered by AvTvM's incessant, unrealistic babbling.



People like him are the reason I very rarely post anymore. It's very difficult for me to hold my tongue, and I'm not going to break the rules I expect others to follow. 

But riddle me this all you prognosticators of Canon's eminent demise... If every other company has such superior products, as is endlessly claimed, why not just go buy their stuff? Why do you feel the need to troll here? I'm genuinely interested in the reasons. I'm pretty sure I'ts just some sad attempt at validation or attention seeking behavior, but I've never gotten a decent response from the people themselves.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 9, 2016)

@thetechhimself
no explanations due to bvukich or anybody else around here. They are free to write their opinion, and so are all others. 

Basically akll of this is about one problem: between 2000 and about 2010 Canon offered the very best digital stills imaging gear - sensor performance, AF-performance, speed, user interface, L and Non-L lenses, FF and APS-C, a lot of it even very attractively priced. 

Since a good number of yeras niow, this is not the case any longer. From being clear tech leader, Canon has turned into a laggard or essentially even a "no-show": competitive MIL system, APS-C and even more so FFs.

This is rather strange to watch, especially since there appears to be a lot of "unwilligness" to compete on Canon's part - rather than sheer technical inability or only excellent competitor efforts.

As far as competitors efforts go, they all have their drawbacks too, and thats why Nikon, Sony, Oly, and alls the others also get criticised quite a bit. Which is fine. It keeps them on their toes. 

Damage for Canon? Yes, massive. Lost sales - e.g. mirrorless bodies, both APS-C and FF and new lenses - galore. Lost clients - especially those who went to get Sony or Fuji gear are not likely to return to Canon any time soon, even if Canon tomorrow would launch fully competitive MILC systems. How much does it hurt Canon's future as a stillis imaging gear company. I am convinced, it is a lot. But ... we shall see. My cameras and lenses will continue to work, even if they really "do go under" someday soon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> How much does it hurt Canon's future as a stillis imaging gear company. I am convinced, it is a lot.


----------



## nhz (Feb 9, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Nikon, they filed for bankruptcy recently, they're in a money pinch I assume, and they've been using other people's fab's to produce their sensors (Toshiba, now Sony), probably is eating into profits since it's my understanding the CMOS represents 60% of a cameras raw material cost. Hence I haven't seen a Nikon 1 V updated for some time...



Nikon filed for bankruptcy, really?? They are downsizing and reorganizing a bit but their financials aren't bad. And outsourcing sensor production is VERY common nowadays, it's Canon who is using an outdated strategy here. An in-house sensor fab doesn't mean the cost is lower, unless the production lines are always running 24/7 (which is far more likely in the case of outsourcing production).

IMHO Canon DSLR tech stopped advancing after 2008, there are some bright spots after that like the better AF in 5D3/7D2 etc. but they are few. DR has hardly increased over all those years and real high ISO performance (using RAW files) hasn't increased much either; most of the 'extreme low light' gain is from in-camera processing and much of the improvements in lower models is just going through the parts bin from older models (maybe a bit more higher up). Real innovation has been almost zero but apparently they get away with that (partly because all DSLRs are now 'good enough' for the average buyer).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2016)

nhz said:


> IMHO Canon DSLR tech stopped advancing after 2008, there are some bright spots after that like the better AF in 5D3/7D2 etc. but they are few. DR has hardly increased over all those years and real high ISO performance (using RAW files) hasn't increased much either; most of the 'extreme low light' gain is from in-camera processing and much of the improvements in lower models is just going through the parts bin from older models (maybe a bit more higher up). Real innovation has been almost zero but apparently they get away with that (partly because all DSLRs are now 'good enough' for the average buyer).



We've all seen the effect the 'almost zero real innovation' has had on Canon's ILC market share...almost zero! Over many years, Canon has consistently shown they've got the right formula for selling more ILCs than anyone else. 

As for 'real innovation', honestly there hasn't been much since the imaging substrate switched from gelatin to silicon. A stop of DR here, dual cross AF points there, it's all basically incremental change.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 9, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > How much does it hurt Canon's future as a stillis imaging gear company. I am convinced, it is a lot.



It hurts them a lot. Had Canon released technically competitive mirrorless camera systems with APS-C and FF sensor in good time, Sony would have exited the camera business just like Samsung is doing now. And Fuji would have been a really marginal player, possibly giving up as well by now. But they did not and they're hurting. But those clinets that are not bound to die with a big fat mirrorlapper aliong in their coffin are .. hurting as well. That's the problem. Not Canon sales or profits that I don't care about one bit. What I care about is the best possible gear to create my images. And right now, what's missing is an EOS M4 Pro and a Sony A7R II equivalent + lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2016)

One more to file under 'business acumen of a tiddlywink':



AvTvM said:


> It hurts them a lot. Had Canon released technically competitive mirrorless camera systems with APS-C and FF sensor in good time, Sony would have exited the camera business just like Samsung is doing now.



Your evidence for it 'hurting them a lot' is.......?? Besides your own wild speculation, I mean. 

Canon already leads the ILC market, the reason for Canon to push mirrorless would be an expanding market. But, the ILC market is shrinking, not growing. The main place Canon would get MILC buyers is switching dSLR buyers. A major investment in R&D and marketing to switch customers from one segment to another offers little to no benefit. 




AvTvM said:


> And Fuji would have been a really marginal player, possibly giving up as well by now.



Fuji *is* a really marginal player. Their market share is barely a blip. 




AvTvM said:


> But they did not and they're hurting. But those clinets that are not bound to die with a big fat mirrorlapper aliong in their coffin are .. hurting as well. That's the problem. Not Canon sales or profits that I don't care about one bit. What I care about is the best possible gear to create my images. And right now, what's missing is an EOS M4 Pro and a Sony A7R II equivalent + lenses.



Hurting from the shrinking ILC market, yes. Hurting from not making the camera you want them to make? Absurd.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2016)

dilbert said:


> It's tough (mentally) and expensive to sell out of Canon and buy into Nikon/Sony. If you've been driving Ford trucks all your life you don't go out and buy a Toyota truck the next day because you're pissed off with your F150. So everyone just keeps hoping Canon will come out with a better product rather than change.



Everyone?? : No, just a few people who complain on the Internet. This universal dissatisfaction with Canon you postulate exists only in dilbertland.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 10, 2016)

nhz said:


> IMHO Canon DSLR tech stopped advancing after 2008, there are some bright spots after that like the better AF in 5D3/7D2 etc. but they are few. DR has hardly increased over all those years and real high ISO performance (using RAW files) hasn't increased much either; most of the 'extreme low light' gain is from in-camera processing and much of the improvements in lower models is just going through the parts bin from older models (maybe a bit more higher up). Real innovation has been almost zero but apparently they get away with that (partly because all DSLRs are now 'good enough' for the average buyer).


You do realize that since 2008 ISO performance has increased by 6 stops on the 1D line.... while the number of pixels has doubled... which means that per area on sensor we have a 7 stop increase.....


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > nhz said:
> ...



Not sure I'd agree with 7 stops, but the 1Dx MkII 12,800 iso images look very similar to my 1DS MkIII 800 iso images, for a very similar number of pixels. That is real progress in any bodies book, if high iso performance is important to you.

Not to mention 8fps faster, 61 point af vs 45 point, video of any sort let alone first dslr or mirrorless with 60fps 4K. Hmm, yep Canon haven't been doing anything for 8 years!


----------



## Bennymiata (Feb 10, 2016)

What I don't understand is if mirrorless cameras are supposed to be cheaper to manufacture, why are they so expensive?

From a performance standpoint (focus speed, iq etc.), they seem to offer less than a dslr, yet cost more money for the bodies, and have poorer choice for lenses, which are also expensive compared to dslr lenses.

I fully understand that people want smaller and lighter, but to me, mirrorless cameras are just too expensive for what they offer in comparison to mirrorslappers, and it seems from the slow sales of milcs, that the general population agrees with me.


----------



## nhz (Feb 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> As for 'real innovation', honestly there hasn't been much since the imaging substrate switched from gelatin to silicon. A stop of DR here, dual cross AF points there, it's all basically incremental change.



Don't agree about that at all. The innovation at e.g. Sony over the last years has been HUGE compared to Canon. Of course there are downsides to such a fast pace and I can understand many professional photographers prefer proven technology that they are familiar with, even if it is a bit outdated ;-)

Also, in general the gains in image quality in the early years (just before and after 2000) were HUGE compared to the gains we are seeing now at Canon (if you leave out the 5Ds for a moment almost zero gain in 8 years). And the technological changes were certainly not 'incremental', there were significant new technologies introduced every year.


----------



## nhz (Feb 10, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> nhz said:
> 
> 
> > thetechhimself said:
> ...



And you think Canon is NOT reorganizing? All manufacturers are hurting from the steep decline in camera sales.

And regarding Canon strategy in general: lets hope for them that it isn't going to end just like with their lithography (stepper) business. 10-15 years or so ago they (and possibly Nikon as well) boasted how they were going to 'walk over that small Dutch startup' with their huge client base and marketing muscle. And look where we are now. Monopolies and arrogance usually don't end well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2016)

nhz said:


> The innovation at e.g. Sony over the last years has been HUGE compared to Canon.
> 
> And the technological changes were certainly not 'incremental', there were significant new technologies introduced every year.



Right, just HUGE. What's the sound of one hand clapping? If a sensor has one stop better low ISO DR in the forest, does anyone hear it fall? Thanks to Sony innovation, iPhones take slightly better pictures now - that's the real impact. 

On the up side of the issue, it's good that Sony's innovation has _finally_ allowed them to catch up to Canon at high ISO, after several years of being behind.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> @ Neuro
> 
> If anybodies got a reason to gripe, it's you dude. 1DX owner + L glass = back breaking during personal time. Pro-M is definitely something I suspect that's up your alley. Surprised you haven't upgraded from the M2 to M3 yet... The AF in good lighting and ISO bump plus fine grain and rock solid metering makes a huge difference from the M2, I used to own it. The downgrade to 25mbit really stinks though on the M3.



I'm not opposed to smaller and lighter, as long as it delivers the performance I want. Hang an f/2.8 zoom lens from a FF MILC, it's not much smaller or lighter, and still sacrifices performance in many areas I want it. The kit weight really isn't a big deal. 

When I'm going to sacrifice performance for size, I want smaller. The M2 is about as small as it gets, it meets my needs so no need for a larger M3. Also, I the dSLR menus to the PowerShot menus.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Oh by the way, it's my understanding Canon is the only one doing Diffraction optics in camera lenses, and they're getting better at it rapidly from the looks of the latest DO lenses...



Nope, Nikon recently innovated copied Canon in DO (just after they innovated copied use of fluorite elements). Nikon calls it PF (phase fresnel), they use it only in a 300/4 (which was launched, then shipping stopped and they recalled existing lenses which had to be sent in for a firmware update, ugh). 




thetechhimself said:


> I miss my EOS M2 in that regard, it is smaller, and the video is so much better, but I'll tell you the pro's of better ISO and finer grain, and much better metering and slightly better AF plus EVF option and some kind of grip, well outweigh those cons; if Canon doesn't release something at CP+, I can't recommend the upgrade enough, despite the slight gain in size. That said, the AF performance gain vs the M2 is non-existent in low light, but significant in well lit environments, heads up.



Thanks. I bought the M2 after my M died, a new M2 cost ~$20 more than Canon USA's 'prix fixe' cost to repair the M. I'll definitely keep the M3 in mind.


----------



## crashpc (Feb 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> nhz said:
> 
> 
> > The innovation at e.g. Sony over the last years has been HUGE compared to Canon.
> ...



I know that few geeks(including me) here and there don´t make companies to turn, but hey, I already stopped Canon purchases untill/unless they do something with their sensors, and pathetic cameras with 5 RAW images bursts (don´t mean 5FPS, just 5 poor images). I believe this number of unhappy useres is slowly growing, and that´s not good trend. Even you didn´t buy into new camera model (M3) for some other reasons. All serious companies really do monitor this, and do their market research, evaluate and look onto customers perceptions of the company and product line, even employees perceptions about their own production. There is some momentum and more people screaming loud enaugh and long enaugh usually does change things. I believe Canon is not dead company going to fall, but They really know how to hold ones balls, and they are not delivering in a way to really please users of pro/enthusiasts gear.
Right now, I´m stacking/stashing some money for photographic gear, and if I got enaugh, I simply jump. Untill then, I go the healthy way, and live with it untill becomes very inferior in even more aspects. I would not describe this as company delivering so good products, so people want it, so the company grows. In my book, it´s decline. Hope they solve it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> How'd you kill a EOS M? Damage? Didn't know they could wear one out since it's without a mirror?



It just up and died for no apparent reason, decided not to turn on. Probably a simple fix, but Canon will charge >$200 regardless of whether it's soldering one contact or replacing all the internals.


----------



## nhz (Feb 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nope, Nikon recently innovated copied Canon in DO (just after they innovated copied use of fluorite elements). Nikon calls it PF (phase fresnel), they use it only in a 300/4 (which was launched, then shipping stopped and they recalled existing lenses which had to be sent in for a firmware update, ugh).



You call it copying but optically Nikon is using a very different solution from what Canon is using; it isn't copying at all except that they are both using the same optical principle (just like Canon 'copied' using positive or negative or aspheric lens elements from other companies ...).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2016)

nhz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, Nikon recently innovated copied Canon in DO (just after they innovated copied use of fluorite elements). Nikon calls it PF (phase fresnel), they use it only in a 300/4 (which was launched, then shipping stopped and they recalled existing lenses which had to be sent in for a firmware update, ugh).
> ...



Optically, Nikon's implementation is very similar to Canon's DO - similar enough that 'copy' is appropriate. There are technical differences, yes – Canon had patents that Nikon needed to work around. In fact, PF is most similar to the older Canon DO lenses, the 400/4 II uses an improved version of the optics. Thus, Nikon developed a software correction that partially (but not completely) addresses one of the artifacts created by the PF element. 

The fluorite story is amusing – if you look in Nikon's lens glossary, their ED entry discusses how fluorite is bad because it's prone to cracking and thermally-induced focus changes. Clearly, that was written to bash Canon's use of fluorite elements, and now Nikon's FL glossary entry would have you believe fluorite is the best thing since sliced bread. Not that Nikon didn't know the advantages, they've used fluorite elements in microscope objectives for years.


----------



## nhz (Feb 11, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Copy is appropriate, Android copied the design of the iPhone, despite all the denials, Apple came first, and coincidentally, Android shortly thereafter became highly similar. Nikon may not be using the same patented formula, but, the idea behind the patent, absolutely. Also I'm sure they borrowed heavily on the existing Canon patent as a template for their PF/DO formula/s.



nonsense! These technologies have been in use e.g. in microscopy for a long time, Canon didn't invent them at all. There is nothing special about the Canon implementation compared to pre-existing technology, the only novelty is that they were able to apply it to relatively big and high quality elements for an 'affordable' price. The construction of the Nikon PF element IS different technically, if you call this 'copying' you might as well discard all patent law because everything in technology would be 'copying'.


----------



## hubie (Feb 11, 2016)

Fleetie said:


> They still want us to wait NEARLY ANOTHER YEAR for a proper EOS M camera?
> After telling us there'd be something good "soon" towards the end of last year?
> 
> They're ******** joking.
> ...



Oh dude, chill. Waiting for a good camera is nothing too bad. And enjoy your 70D in the meantime. I mean, what is all the hack about? "Oh ******, I will have to wait a year for a new product that wasn't even announced officially yet!!!!"... choleric? ^^


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2016)

nhz said:


> thetechhimself said:
> 
> 
> > Copy is appropriate, Android copied the design of the iPhone, despite all the denials, Apple came first, and coincidentally, Android shortly thereafter became highly similar. Nikon may not be using the same patented formula, but, the idea behind the patent, absolutely. Also I'm sure they borrowed heavily on the existing Canon patent as a template for their PF/DO formula/s.
> ...



But when Sony takes technologies used in other segments for years and applies them to relatively large image sensors, you claim their 'innovation is HUGE.' If Canon starts making BSI sensors, is that copying? Yes, even if the tech is sufficiently different to avoid patent infringement. 

Bottom line - Canon used fluorite elements in their camera for years, Nikon copied recently. Canon used fresnel-based elements in their lenses for years, Nikon recently copied that, too. Nikon has used RGB metering sensors for years, Canon recently copied them. Then improved it by adding IR...but that's not innovative, right?

We get it, you want to claim Canon doesn't innovate by having your cake and eating it, too. :


----------



## Fleetie (Feb 11, 2016)

hubie said:


> Fleetie said:
> 
> 
> > They still want us to wait NEARLY ANOTHER YEAR for a proper EOS M camera?
> ...



Where the bloody hell did you dream up the idea that I have a 70D?

Do you just invent reality as you see fit?

5D3, "Choleric Dude".


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 11, 2016)

nhz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As for 'real innovation', honestly there hasn't been much since the imaging substrate switched from gelatin to silicon. A stop of DR here, dual cross AF points there, it's all basically incremental change.
> ...



what innovation?

IBIS? been done seen that.
BSI? been done seen that.
Mirrorless full frame? been done. seen that.
PDAF working with adapter? been done. seen that.
Trashing a raw file with a completely gimped compression that even a complete moron could write better? there you go.
selilng 3K+ camera bodies and 2k+ lenses that you have to farm out to third party support. winner.

The only thing truly innovative with the sony ILC line is really playmemories.

That's something no one else really does, and has done before.

The GM series lenses have some pretty unique AF capabilities - that's innovative.

thinking that shoving a sensor of full frame size or aps-c size into a smaller camera is innovative is ridiculous.

canon's innovations were and are more around ecosystems, where I'm perfectly happy with.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 11, 2016)

Fleetie said:


> hubie said:
> 
> 
> > Fleetie said:
> ...



your profile says 70d.


----------



## dcm (Feb 11, 2016)

Seems some are hung up on the term "copying". How about leading and following? Both have led in some areas and followed in others. Each segments the market/customer needs differently and tries to lead in the areas important to their intended customers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Fleetie said:
> 
> 
> > Where the bloody hell did you dream up the idea that I have a 70D?
> ...



It says 6D under your name, do you have one? If so, it's a coincidence. What sort of camera is 'CR GEEK', and what's its DxO Score? 

The camera or lens (or other, in my case) is linked to your post count, just like the number of blocks.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 14, 2016)

Right now, no smell of a new EOS-M "Pro" ... It only reeks of more ho-hum iterations of crippled low end EOS-M stuff. Meanwhile Sony A6300 and Fuji (i expect XT-2 some time soon and then an XE-3) will be happily getting buyers' money. Canon's bad, not mine!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Feb 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Right now, no smell of a new EOS-M "Pro" ... It only reeks of more ho-hum iterations of crippled low end EOS-M stuff. Meanwhile Sony A6300 and Fuji (i expect XT-2 some time soon and then an XE-3) will be happily getting buyers' money. Canon's bad, not mine!



I'm very seriously considering jumping on the A6300 for video capability in various settings and the ability to continue to mostly utilize my existing lenses via adapter. Looks like fun.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 14, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> G7X II is reported to have a DIGIC7 capable of 8 FPS, RAW Source: DigiCam (today)
> 
> If they can do 8FPS @ 20MP with a lower clocked DIGIC7, they can do the rumored 8FPS @ 24MP (or more) on a higher clocked DIGIC7 that would be present in the Pro-M, upcoming later this year...
> 
> ...



canon won't release a pro-M with it's current set of lenses out for the EF-M. expecting that is foolish.

however it's nice to see the powershot group get off their arses and improve their firmware base.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Right now, no smell of a new EOS-M "Pro" ... It only reeks of more ho-hum iterations of crippled low end EOS-M stuff. Meanwhile Sony A6300 and Fuji (i expect XT-2 some time soon and then an XE-3) will be happily getting buyers' money. Canon's bad, not mine!



Yep, Canon is counting their yen as Sony loses MILC share to Olympus and Fuji struggles to lift their market share off the X-axis.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Right now, no smell of a new EOS-M "Pro" ... It only reeks of more ho-hum iterations of crippled low end EOS-M stuff. Meanwhile Sony A6300 and Fuji (i expect XT-2 some time soon and then an XE-3) will be happily getting buyers' money. Canon's bad, not mine!
> ...



snickers.

it's interesting that sony never once breaks down their P&S and ILC number anywhere anymore, nor mentions marketshare. I suspect they've fallen under 10% marketshare.

the thing is, that means the FE mount marketshare is forth and falling. a problem domain that sony's squealing fanboys haven't wrapped their head around.

EF,F,m43's are probably the dominant mounts right now.


----------



## tcmatthews (Feb 14, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Right now, no smell of a new EOS-M "Pro" ... It only reeks of more ho-hum iterations of crippled low end EOS-M stuff. Meanwhile Sony A6300 and Fuji (i expect XT-2 some time soon and then an XE-3) will be happily getting buyers' money. Canon's bad, not mine!
> ...



Throw in a metabones IV adapter and a m42 adapter for your vintage glass and you will be happy. After you get past the menus at least.


----------



## tcmatthews (Feb 14, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



They announced that total mirrorless market share fell 5% and profit margins were up 20% in 2015. That said EF, F and m43 are the dominant mounts right now. I think Sony wanted to focus on profit margin instead of chasing market share. That profit was brought about by the FE cameras A7rII and A7sII and their high price lost them market share.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 14, 2016)

tcmatthews said:


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



okay.. so that means they fell aproximately 1.5% in overall ILC marketshare.

which means they are sitting somewhere around 8.5% .. from around a high of 15% when they had SLR's.


----------



## Proscribo (Feb 16, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> I'm hesitantly considering switching myself as the 80D is a HUGE indicator of the sensor in the Pro-M, which is DPAF, which is only a hair better than the existing M3's Hybrid CMOS AF III.


We currently know nothing about the 80D/1DXII DPAF, it could blow the hell out of A6300 AF or be just the same as current DPAF.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 16, 2016)

According to the BCN rankings, Sony's market share overall 
plummeted to 7,5% from 15 something % before.

That's for the Japanese market, and the European and US market
are traditionally weaker in mirrorless.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 16, 2016)

Quackator said:


> According to the BCN rankings, Sony's market share overall
> plummeted to 7,5% from 15 something % before.
> That's for the Japanese market, and the European and US market
> are traditionally weaker in mirrorless.



I don't care about wrong market share rumors. I only care about *really right products*. 

As far as Europe is concerned, Sony is selling lots of A7R IIs and A6000s and soon A6300s in the german-speaking world, where some of the more demanding photo enthusiasts are at home.


----------



## nhz (Feb 16, 2016)

Quackator said:


> According to the BCN rankings, Sony's market share overall
> plummeted to 7,5% from 15 something % before.
> 
> That's for the Japanese market, and the European and US market
> are traditionally weaker in mirrorless.


what I remember from reading several articles, Sony's market share plummeted in numbers because they are concentrating on high end cameras (with much higher profit per unit).


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Quackator said:
> 
> 
> > According to the BCN rankings, Sony's market share overall
> ...



and yet, you then pull stats out of your posterior with respects to europe?


----------



## Quackator (Feb 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> As far as Europe is concerned, Sony is selling lots of A7R IIs
> and A6000s and soon A6300s in the german-speaking world, (...)



Since that is exactly where I live, I'd be highly interested to learn 
what the source of your reliable numbers about this market is?

Are there any reliable numbers, or is it just a feeling from reading
German forum websites?


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 16, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Quackator said:
> ...



No stats. Just personal observations. Not with my rear, but with my own eyes. 8)


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


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



I see so you refute stats that are taken using 50% of all sales receipts as being inaccurate, but your "stats" with your huge bias .. and very narrow % of the overall sales - you claim are accurate.

you know - that says everything right there that anyone needs to know about you.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2016)

nhz said:


> what I remember from reading several articles, Sony's market share plummeted in numbers because they are concentrating on high end cameras (with much higher profit per unit).



Unit sales fell 30%. Operating income is up, though that's partly due to reduced costs and inventory.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


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



That would almost be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Been taking lessons from dilbert? :


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> nhz said:
> 
> 
> > what I remember from reading several articles, Sony's market share plummeted in numbers because they are concentrating on high end cameras (with much higher profit per unit).
> ...



not to mention IP&S also includes a very profitable video dept.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > nhz said:
> ...



Except that they revised sales estimates downward by 10B¥ due to lower than expected sales in that segment.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 16, 2016)

hehehe, Canon Defense League in full swing again. ;D

But more on topic ... rather than your "stats" I'd like to finally see a fully competitive EOS M body. Target in terms of sensor, AF and performance is Sony A6300. Touchscreen counting as the one area where Canon has a lead. Of course also priced competitively ... not higher than A6300. 

This Canon mirrorless EOS "M4 Pro" would certainly sell "in large numbers". In Japan, in Europe and in the US of A.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> But more on topic ... rather than your "stats" I'd like to finally see a fully competitive EOS M body. Target in terms of sensor, AF and performance is Sony A6300. Touchscreen counting as the one area where Canon has a lead. Of course also priced competitively ... not higher than A6300.
> 
> This Canon mirrorless EOS "M4 Pro" would certainly sell "in large numbers". In Japan, in Europe and in the US of A.



Certainly? Pulling more 'facts' from your nether orifice, I see. 

On the other hand, you are likely right...but for the wrong reasons. A Canon mirrorless "M Pro" will probably sell in large numbers globally when it's released...because Canon won't release such a camera _*until*_ it is likely to sell in large numbers globally. That won't happen until MILC's mostly supplant dSLRs, and the sales figures at which you scoff suggest that's not going to happen any time soon. 

For most people, I'd recommend not holding their breath waiting for that EOS M Pro...I'll make an exception in your case. Breathe deep and start counting, my friend..... ;D


----------



## msm (Feb 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> nhz said:
> 
> 
> > what I remember from reading several articles, Sony's market share plummeted in numbers because they are concentrating on high end cameras (with much higher profit per unit).
> ...



Really?



> Sales decreased 5.0% year-on-year (a 5% decrease on a constant currency basis) to 191.9 billion yen (1,599 million U.S. dollars). This decrease was primarily due to decreases in unit sales of video cameras and digital cameras* reflecting a contraction of the market, partially offset by an improvement in the product mix of digital cameras reflecting a shift to high value - added models.
> 
> Operating income increased 4.0 billion yen year-on-year to 23.7 billion yen (197 million U.S. dollars). This increase was mainly due to the i*mprovement in the product mix of digital cameras* and cost reductions, partially offset by the impact of the above-mentioned decrease in sales. During the current quarter, there was a 2.3billion yen negative impact from foreign exchange rate fluctuations.



Also note that Canon's camera sales are falling way faster on their latest quarterly report (-13.4%), despite Canon going for the mass market which Sony does not actively pursue according to their offical strategy.

It is also interesting that Sony imaging business area has a revenue of 191.9 billion yen. Canon's imaging includes ink jet printers, once you subtract that their last quarterly revenue is just a bit over 200billion according to their latest report. Sony is hardly the disaster you want to make it out to be with silly CIPA numbers which basically only reflect who sells the most low end cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2016)

msm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > nhz said:
> ...



See screenshot below from the Q315 earnings presentation. Do you not understand the meaning of unit sales? Or was the math hard? 2.6 – 1.8 = 0.8, 0.8 ÷ 2.6 = 0.3077 x 100 = 30.8% reduction. Note that your pasted text also mentions the cost reductions as a main reason, which supports my statement that the increased operating income is, "...partly due to reduced costs."

So, yes...really.


----------



## msm (Feb 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Never said your claim was false. It was about how you rather conveniently pull stuff totally out of context ignoring certain facts to produce posts which gives a totally false impression of reality.

You are the Canon cheerleader version of Dilbert, you are just as bad. Neuroland is just as far from reality as Dilbert land. He isn't as big a hippocrite as you though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2016)

msm said:


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



Really? Just like I never said you couldn't perform simple math. 

The context was in the quote to which I responded, sorry you don't understand that discussing unit sales in the context of 'plummeting market share' and mentioning some caveats associated with Sony's strategy from their own documentation is completely in context. 

Come back when dilbert can string two correct facts together without an egregious blunder... :


----------



## msm (Feb 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Yeah, and somehow those caveats are worth mentioning but not the fact that Sony only has a 5% reduction of sales (probably better than the market and certainly better than Canon's -13.4%) and a 20% increase of profit as a result of that strategy.


----------

