March 02, 2015, 07:52:37 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Stu_bert

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 23
61
I think if it was probably 1/4 of the size and weight, and was around $60 then it might pique the interest of the smartphone users.

The problem I see for the camera makers is they aren't doing anything in terms of gradual introduction to photography. It's either a smartphone with no zoom, weak flash, basic AF or it's a full blown camera or in this instance lens adapter & lens.

Smartphone users are the former P&S users in the main. They want simplicity, immediacy, practical (transport wise) and relative low cost. This is not really satisfying that need  :-X

62
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Firmware: EOS-1D X Version 2.0.7
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:41:00 AM »
Was hoping that they would add multiple my menu screens similar to 7D M2.

I would find that valuable.

+1

63
Make it slimmer & lighter, add a 2x zoom, a flash that's 3x the range of a smartphone and make it $200. But it must be able to transfer easily back to their smartphone.

It has to be better than a smartphone, but not an order of magnitude. Make it cheaper, make it good looking, give it a decent size screen, but understand that the average output is indeed facebook...

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



Was it successful?

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

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

It's not a powershot or an Ixus.

64
I agree that 'luring' customers away from cell phones would be good (not that anyone would give up a phone for a dSLR), but doing so with something people neither know nor care about is a poor strategy.  Canon has had less low ISO DR for years and remains the dSLR market leader.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

65
I agree about smartphones being used for sideshows, again they are now good enough alternatives...

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

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

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

66
@Stu_bert: Well, there are some disruptive technologies out there under R&D. There is also the fundamental concept behind Lytro. Lytro has been a little too off the wall in their product offerings so far that I don't think anyone has even considered a little rectangular box to be used as a camera. The underlying technology, however, the fundamental theory of lightfield photography is quite sound.


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

67
EOS Bodies / Re: Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
« on: February 01, 2015, 08:02:40 AM »
What disappoints me is the smoke and mirrors from canon.
Just admit defeat, the sensor technology has fallen so far behind Nikon and Sony that they are not even in that race any more.
They jumped up and down about video, so Nikon stuck out 60fps 1080 and sony have 4k video.
Now they are obviously cap in hand to Sony begging a place back at the sensor technology top table.
Fair enough, they are so far behind Nikon on ISO  and clarity that they had no choice, they were never going to get close let alone catch up.
Even the archaic d700 absolutely hammers anything Canon have on ISO and the D3s show the 1DX up as a bad joke on a bad day.
But they have to do this handy capping of cameras thing all the time, buy this one to do that, that one to do this.

Do they really think people will buy 3 or 4 cameras just to have all the features.
This company is obviously staffed by complete idiots, they were out of the Press end of cameras 5 years ago, only die hard fools use Canon gear on Press work.

Now they get a seat at the top table again and what do they do ?
Slice the cake they have been given, 5fps ? oh come on, just make a Flaming camera that works as good as a camera possibly can and stop this dividing and spreading bits around multiple cameras.
Nikon make 1 camera that does it all, Canon you need 3 bodies to get the same technology.
FFS, stop it and sack these idiots in the marketing department.
Stop over pricing as well and you might actually sell some.


Bingo ? Bingo ? A line when yin get a full house from Nikon .

oh dear. Everyone on this forum believes everyone have the right to express their view, but you might find people a little bit more receptive and prepared to discuss your points when you are a little more measured in your comments. if you're a Nikon user and you're trying to highlight their benefits, to attract Canonites to convert, you may want to reconsider your approach.

I'm sure a lot of people get frustrated at Canon's policies, but I doubt few on this forum have experience of running a large division like Nikon's or Canon's and therefore can speak with any authority.

68
Has anyone considered that the DSLR market may simply have become saturated? Every market has a saturation point, where a majority of potential buyers already has one of whatever it is being offered (ILCs in this case). Canon wants their users to turn around and buy a new DSLR every 2-3 years (for high end stuff), and based on their release cycle, every 1-2 years for the low end stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

69
I just hope Canon doesn't think they can price these the way they priced the old 5D models and still pump up sales over the long-term. $3500-plus is too much for that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I dont have the answers clearly....

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

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

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

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

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

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

70
A big reason for DSLR video is the cost and weight savings, so if they force to spend more and to lug a second set of stuff around for top video too that defeats the purpose and those extra sales mostly won't go to them anyway. If they don't want to let 4k and basic usability features go for quite so little yet then they should have (maybe they did?) also a 5Dsc for say $2000 more than the 5Ds adds 4k video internally recorded and the basic zebras/various while filming focusing aids, etc.

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


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

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

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

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

71
I just hope Canon doesn't think they can price these the way they priced the old 5D models and still pump up sales over the long-term. $3500-plus is too much for that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I dont have the answers clearly....

72
I just hope Canon doesn't think they can price these the way they priced the old 5D models and still pump up sales over the long-term. $3500-plus is too much for that.

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

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

73
Canon may get more DSLR sales from emerging markets, but it won't be enough to overcome the decline in their present markets. Non-phone camera sales will continue to decline. And camera phones will continue to get better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just my 2c

74
EOS Bodies / Re: Bingo! New Canon 5Ds has 50.6 MP new rumored specs
« on: January 30, 2015, 02:19:17 PM »
Looks like the rumours of a Sony-Canon 50MP sensor are true, even SAR states that one of his 'trusted sources' confirms this and SAR is a bit of a mouthpiece for Sony's marketing department to build hype.

If true then it looks like the Japanese camera manufacturers are in deep retreat in the face of falling DSLR sales. It looks like the Canon don't want to invest in a new fab line at this time, so they're outsourcing to Sony, at least for production. They are both scared -sales are falling and everything they try seems to fail to change this...

a wise comment , but Sony sensor division has nothing to be scare of with over 50% of the sensor market, from mobile phones  sensors and up

Different things, the camera business selling the whole, not the parts, ie sensor, may well be in retreat.  Bear in mind it's addition purchase which they want to sell to make the profits, not just a sensor, ie lenses and the like. Tom Hogan has a similar article on his site, interesting read...

75
Finally something about LR6. Nice to hear that it will be coming and (as I read the post) it will not be cloud-only.  :)

+1. There must be some significant changes for the gestation to be this long, both under the hood and in terms of features. Fingers X that the SDK finally allows developers to do more than import/export. Either that or all the dev's were tied up with the mobile versions which non-cloud users cant experience  :-[

We've not even had a beta, and I would be very surprised if we did not have a 3 month iterative release cycle, and thus a final release in May/June.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 23