I feel bad for starting this thread. It really was only a piece of info!
I don't think you give them enough credit.
Personally I feel Canon is pretty much better sensors away from being easily ahead.
- Their lenses (IQ)
- Their variety and range
- Their ergonomics (and LCD's on the DSLR's)
- The latest autofocus technology
- Their service and support
- Their reliability
Lets look at some absolute benchmarks they have laid out this last year or so:
- 24-70mmL ii
- the 500mm and 600mm version ii's
- the autofocus in the 1D X and 5D 3
I know people often sook about Canon's lack of a killer ultra wide zoom, but I rate the 14L and 17 TS-E as fantastic lenses.
Yes, their sensor tech could be improved but most other things are pretty rosy!
I do give them credit. Even though I don't own the AF of 1Dx/5D3 I know it's the best on the market. I also do love their lenses. I'm not trying to say they are a bad company or are going to die. I'm just trying to get to a new way of thinking.
Idk I feel like I'm repeating myself too much :/ Ill back down as it seems that I'm failing at portraying my vision.
Yes someone probably would show that how things are setup it will show that they make profit...but that's a given. They are milking the products which in turn give us either the same or a very very small step towards new technology. But what I'm proposing is another way of thinking, and in a sense it's how Apple is but I don't want to associate it with Apple because of the negative psychology that it can impose with certain consumers.
Agree again, but Apple wasn't the market leader when their great innovation model kicked in. They said they would chase blue water innovations through 'user needs' rather than 'market expectations'. That distinction is important.
Canon will never do that in an most areas b/c that's not what people expect of a leading camera company. There are expectations of use across a number of segments, so the needs of segment A drive the needs of segment B. Canon's rather vanilla (but capable) entry into mirrorless shows this -- they went for a straightforward smaller camera based on technology they know tons about (APS-C), with menus, interface etc. borrowed from other Canon offerings. None of us should have been surprised by that.
But now look at the Apple-like blue water innovation entry Canon dropped earlier this month, the Powershot N:
It's not going to rock the world of an SLR shooter, but I challenge anyone to tell me:
- What photography market segment does it go in?
- Who is the target demographic?
- What do you compare this to?
And there you have Canon, in one smaller camera, being a little brave. It's not going to change our world, but where there are no expectations, interesting products can arise. Sadly, this is Canon's very limited sliver of opportunity on the 'where the hell did that come from?' innovation front.
True, but that is why they need to do something different. You're also right on this being their opportunity, and honestly I think their in the BIGGEST point in their timeline to decide whether they will lead by a large margin or be muddied down with the rest. Canon is huge, and they sell (from what I can remember reading) the most but we're no longer in an age where we can say well "Buying Nikon/Canon will be better" even Sony (I should say definitely) is starting to creep up into that conversation, and given the way things are, they MIGHT pass it. I might not saying Canon is dieing or whatever, that isn't what I'm getting at. I just wish that a leading company will start loving what they make, and actually lead by revolution and not by how big their margins are. Yes they are a company...but not all companies operate on only making the biggest profit. (not pointing to you, just expressing my thoughts)
They need to consolidate 60d and 7d. 70d 20mp 10 fps dual digic dual sd or qd/sd. 38 focus pt 19 cross center dual cross 51k Iso. only 5.6 af to keep selling superteles to those big spenders. Then bring on the 7dii with apsh and near 1 series spec priced above 6d. Everyone happy!
I don't think that would be a good idea. There's a big price gap between them.
Many people buy the X0D model because the grip on the Rebels are too small & don't want/care about long photo bursts or full weather sealing.
If Canon doesn't have the X0D, then people will migrate to the Nikon D7x00, because it will fulfill their needs for less $$$.
I think Canon might increase the 7D II's price (like they did the 5D Mark III) because It is a pro camera.
But I don't think their Rebel & X0D will change much in price, because they compete in a very price sensitive market against Nikon (who could be considered to have the better cameras in that segment currently, especially if the D7000 successor comes out soon).
I think opposite. Think of it like this (there's also a recent thread with this view) - If Canon stopped milking, and started Under Promise - Over Deliver they would DOMINATE the market. It is NOT a good thing when people can't tell the difference between Nikon or Canon...It means no one is revolutionizing. No one is going out of there way to make and BREAK expectations.
If they kept the Rebel line (which is always increasing in price for some reason....) took out the X0D line. That would be all they need to start taking over when it comes to first buyers.
They also need to start standardizing their sensors, AF, etc. Start BRANDING the company's name. Stop making spin offs of "that" sensor/AF/etc. and start making it throughout the lineup. It wastes people's time, and R&D money when they come out with a different versions to sidetrack the product.
Basically what I'm trying to get at is this.
4 camera Line Up:
That might be hard to grasp because then you get into pricing confusion. That mainly will come because of how APS-C and FF are at the moment. The rebel will have APS-C to keep price down for sure. Then Everything else should have FF, because by now they should already have been able to figure out how to only use the center to give the reach of crop by now (I mean seriously).
People are probably wondering than how will they be different if they all have the same sensor and AF.
3 main areas:
1 - CPU power & efficiency + buffer
2 - Shutter Speed
3 - MP
So as you go up the line Rebel - 7D equiv - 5/6D equiv - 1D equiv then all three areas will get better. At this point people will ask well I don't want 50000000000+ MP because noise will increase and buffer speed will decrease....well honestly this isn't how you should be looking at it. Instead ask why hasn't there been any push to technology so that as MP increases noise and buffer doesn't get worse. Seriously the price for these equipments as much and even MORE than the best computer you can build out there.
Pricing - This is difficult, but if either Canon or Nikon started this revolutionary way of business than they can ultimately (well somewhat as consumers are the ones that determine the price) price it to whatever they want. But let's just give reasonable prices.
The Rebel needs to be able to have an easy point of entrance. Right now the current T4i sells for about $800 (way overpriced for what you get, that's why people still buy the T3i over it) so I say for something that will actually be VERY good and revolutionary than at most $800 for it would be better for that camera. 7D equiv $1400; 5/6D equiv $2600; 1D equiv $6000
The pricing section isn't what I'm trying to get at, just giving numbers because I know people will ask.
Now when it comes to system updates (ie Mark ii) then things will make A LOT more sense since most of the technology is shared in the lineup. So as they improve on sensors and AF (and not incremental, but actual improvements) then all they have to do is refresh the lineup.
This will make Canon the best ever, period. Customers will know that this company won't chimp off and let them down, Canon will stop wasting money of random incremental and sidetracked R&D and FOCUS on actual "Evolution & Revlotion" products. There will be a clear difference of what you would get with Canon vs another brand.
I am pretty sure the term 'roadmap' is not strictly speaking semantically spot on and has created a confusing thread, which I have conveniently summarised thus:
In all reality Canon is following what might be termed the 'mapless, whimsical camera and lens development path', which would be great except the lanterns lighting their way are all powered by nasty third party and counterfeit batteries so they keep going out. On the rare occasion when their lanterns do work the dynamic range of the product developers is such that they immediately become blinded and any logical thoughts (i.e. the 'actual' roadmap) are immediately blown out (sorry).
Subsequently this has the net effect of leaving them (Canon) absolutely bereft when it comes to find the right proverbial tails (7D2, 14-24) to pin on their donkeys (us). The problem is by the time they finally have the tails the donkeys might have all run away (to Nikon, Sony or
See! Not roadmap...narrative.
Actually since they just keep recycling good ol 18MP croppy they are more akin to stuck on a roundabout going
around and around and around and around.... the map blew out the window a few towns back...
Remember everyone that DxO reviews are useless and biased towards Nikon.
So DxO saying the 24-70/2.8L II is great means nothing.