Canon and Nikon - Past Their Prime? by Kai Wong

[tiggy@mac.com]

In regard to...
"At the risk of stating the obvious, doesn't it rather depend what you intend doing with the combination? I wouldn't want to try shooting birds handheld with a tiny body on a big lens."
...

Great discussion. My personal opinion is that the slr market is severely hindered by our pre-conceived notion that a camera should look like an slr. In the future, I'd anticipate this model to be broken. Right now, some people think of it as a shutter mechanism, as the name implies. Most people think of it as the big "camera-shaped" hunk of metal and plastic that makes it look professional-ish. I don't think the shape is at all optimized, however, for taking pictures, except for the use of very small lenses.

The discussion on mirrorless is a great example of why the term slr is increasingly inappropriate. If you stuck a mirrorless mechanism in the 1dx, would it not be an slr? And, on the other hand, if you took the existing 1dx shutter mechanism and installed it into a rifle-shaped mount that had balancing weights to adjust for different lenses, would it not be an slr?

20 years from now we may well have several different words we use for different types of rigs:
- slrs will have a different name and will be the category of cameras where you use both hands in front of your face. This will be the low-end tech, as the poor weight distribution alignment versus stability will be because the units lack a remote video feed to your eye.
- there will be several other categories of rigs that use different configurations:
     - Rifle mounts; an interim design with better stability, but still needed only so long as direct eye placement is required.
     - Remote stable platforms; which can be thought of as camera turrets linked to a photographer
     - Wearable platforms; exploiting different parts of the body, usually close to center of gravity, with combinations of clothes, attachment mechanisms and new grip positions
     - Direction-cognizant light collectors; where large surface areas of wearable material can collect light, and due to the direction of origin information being preserved, lens-like interpretations of that (massive amount of) light can be made in software.
     - Insert your own fantasy here.

So for Canon/Nikon looking at the mirrorless trend, it's really an estimation of theirs as to whether or not that shutter mechanism happens to appear to be a long-term-worthy investment, versus a gear fad. On top of that, they need worry about it cannibalizing existing sales. Were I they, I'd attempt to design the best mirrorless mechanism, but use it to insert into existing constellation of form factors, and eventually new ones that would require the economy of space such mechanisms allow. There does not appear to me to be a good reason as to why mirrorless need be relegated to tiny sensors in the long-term. With optical viewfinders eventually being made useless by new form factors, the major disadvantage to mirrorless (no direct viewfinder) drops away.

It'll be an exciting development path. EOS-M could well replace the current Canon lineup of point-and-shoot cameras, which would be pretty smart on their part, because it opens up most numerous bit of market to lens purchases. It'll just take a few years for the brand managers in the various countries to chill out and let this cannibilization happen. Canon will be innovative in their patent portfolio, but let the market lead them, so they will appear to be fuddy duddy. -tig

[Sella174]

There are two diff. markets, Pro and everyday shooter. The Pro will cont. with DSLR and wonderful L lenses.

Not true. Many professional photographers are using mirrorless systems.

IMHO, don't need to worry for Canon... they already had the technology to come out a good mirrorless camera anytime...

IMHO, I don't think so. Both Canon and Nikon have been in the SLR game so long that they have millions tied into research and development that has not yet paid for itself. The insistence by Canon to slap IS into basically any new lens is proof of this assumption. This also means that they have been spending a lot of dinero on perfecting this technology, instead of simply binning it in favour of new ideas.

I do not believe Canon and Nikon are "past their prime" ...

As far as the "enthusiast" segment goes, yes, both Canon and Nikon are past it. I agree with you that both companies are severely missing out on a very lucrative market.

... so I think CaNikon are just biding their time.

Personally, I have my eye on either the Olympus E-M10 or the Fujifilm X-T1 for my non-super-telephoto stuff ... as neither Canon nor Nikon has anything to compete with these cameras. Once I've bought into either (non-Canon) system, I also won't be contributing to Canon's profit for a time.

[Dylan777]

There are two diff. markets, Pro and everyday shooter. The Pro will cont. with DSLR and wonderful L lenses.

Not true. Many professional photographers are using mirrorless systems.

[quote authr=CanNotYet link=topic=19224.msg360291#msg360291 date=1390472088]

[/quote]
I don't see how Pro sport shooters would buy current mirrorless over DSLR.

I do agree with you on Pro with still shooting assigments

[Skywise]

The crux of the problem isn't the SLR mechanism itself but what the SLR does.  Most people don't want a "video" reproduction of what the sensor is seeing but the ability to actually SEE the view they want to shoot.  (Especially when trying to shoot in bright sunlight)

You don't need an SLR mechanism for that, per se, but I'm not sure how you get away from a mirrored system otherwise. (Transparent sensor?)  (Or do we all start wearing something like google glass and the camera beams the current shot onto our glasses?  At which point the camera goes back to basically being a "box" with a lens)

[unfocused]

I think the article raises some good points.

Sometimes Nikon and Canon remind me of that 50-year-old guy with a pony-tail and an earring cruising the bars trying to pick up 21-year-olds.

But, as others have pointed out, let's not confuse some very different markets. Point-and-Shoots never had the under 30 market. These are the customers who pick their phones based on the quality of the camera and consider the camera to be one of the most important functions of the phone. In fact, based on personal observation, I'd say many of them rank phone features in the following order: texting, camera/video, posting to social media, phone calls.

Point and shoots were mostly the domain of adult non-photographers. Parents who only take pictures of their kids on vacations, at birthdays, graduations, etc. and couples who take pictures while traveling, but only to provide proof that they've been there.

It's this market that has been killed off by improvements in the quality of camera phones. For them, the camera phone is a "good enough" technology that meets their needs and it's more convenient because it's always with them.

While the technology has changed, the demographics haven't. This market was met in the 1960s and 70s by Kodak Instamatics. Only a tiny, tiny percentage ever moved up the ladder to SLRs. That hasn't changed.

What did change was that for a very few, brief years the digital point-and-shoot offered advantages that weren't met by any other medium. Take all the pictures you want, send them to Walgreens and have prints made in an hour.

The problem is that this customer base isn't having prints made anymore. Instead they just upload the pictures to Facebook and for that, the new phones are better.

So, we've always had two very distinct market segments: the non-photographers who take pictures occasionally as a means to preserve life moments and a much smaller market of hobbyists/enthusiasts/professionals who consider the picture-taking to be a primary purpose.

In many ways, I see mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras as attempting to expand a market that is resistant to expansion. They are too complex for non-photographers and have too many drawbacks for serious photographers.

Will this change? Possibly, as the technology improves. But, really why should either Canon or Nikon rush into a market that could fade; when it would require a major investment; and the technology is only partially developed?

[Skywise]

Will this change? Possibly, as the technology improves. But, really why should either Canon or Nikon rush into a market that could fade; when it would require a major investment; and the technology is only partially developed?

True and I agree with what you say - But without the relatively lucrative p&s market I don't think Canon or Nikon can really survive, let alone grow, on the remaining DSLR market alone. 

[unfocused]

Will this change? Possibly, as the technology improves. But, really why should either Canon or Nikon rush into a market that could fade; when it would require a major investment; and the technology is only partially developed?

True and I agree with what you say - But without the relatively lucrative p&s market I don't think Canon or Nikon can really survive, let alone grow, on the remaining DSLR market alone.

Possibly, but remember that Canon and Nikon built their businesses without the point and shoot market, unlike Sony, Panasonic, etc.

For Canon and Nikon the market really is just returning to a historical pattern that they are very familiar with. Most of the other companies entered the market during the boom years and may be less prepared and less committed to their photography lines. Of course, neither Canon nor Nikon depend solely on their DSLR lines. I'm more familiar with Canon, of course, which is a major player in a number of other industries. But, I get the sense that Nikon is reasonably well diversified as well, even if it is primarily in the optics industry (binoculars, spotting scopes, gun scopes, etc.)

The player that I think people do underestimate though is Fuji. This is a company that saw the entire film industry collapse and yet has succeeded (compare to Kodak). I've read that Fuji is the company that Canon is most worried about and I think it may be with good reason, given both their history and their current product line.

[Rienzphotoz]

I'm not DR guy. Be able to shoot at higher ISO is what I'm really after in FF world. The reason I purchased A7 is compact - for travel oversea and just taking picture of my kids on short trip . I'm interested to add 2-3 Zeiss FE lenses to this compact system

I just don't see myself attaching 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 100-400 f4, 300mm, or 400mm on this compact body. 5D III/1D X feels so much better with big lenses - not to mention AF tracking on DSLR is something current mirrorless can't keep up.

+1 ... I won't be selling my 5D MK III and my EF lenses, in fact I'd be one of the first in line to get the 5D MK IV and a 100-400 L I version 2 (whenever they come out) ... but I'd definitely add the ZEISS 24-70 f/4 zoom, a compact UWA and a compact Macro lens for the A7 ... for me that's where I'd stop with the lenses for mirrorless cameras ... of course I definitely see my self buying the version 2 of A7 or A7R

[weixing]

There are two diff. markets, Pro and everyday shooter. The Pro will cont. with DSLR and wonderful L lenses.

Not true. Many professional photographers are using mirrorless systems.

IMHO, don't need to worry for Canon... they already had the technology to come out a good mirrorless camera anytime...

IMHO, I don't think so. Both Canon and Nikon have been in the SLR game so long that they have millions tied into research and development that has not yet paid for itself. The insistence by Canon to slap IS into basically any new lens is proof of this assumption. This also means that they have been spending a lot of dinero on perfecting this technology, instead of simply binning it in favour of new ideas.

I do not believe Canon and Nikon are "past their prime" ...

As far as the "enthusiast" segment goes, yes, both Canon and Nikon are past it. I agree with you that both companies are severely missing out on a very lucrative market.

... so I think CaNikon are just biding their time.

Personally, I have my eye on either the Olympus E-M10 or the Fujifilm X-T1 for my non-super-telephoto stuff ... as neither Canon nor Nikon has anything to compete with these cameras. Once I've bought into either (non-Canon) system, I also won't be contributing to Canon's profit for a time.

Hi,
    There is no need to research in mirrorless camera for Canon or Nikon. When you shoot in live view, you are actually using a "mirrorless" camera already... just without EVF. With dual pixel AF, Canon had all the technology to make a reasonable fast mirrorless camera anytime...

    Actually, I would prefer them to make a hybrid system... put an EVF behind the prism, so you had a setting that enable the EVF to turn on when the mirror is up and you can lock the mirror in up position if you prefer to use the EVF, but I guess if this going to happen, it'll happen to the 1D series... not a camera I can afford... ha ha ha.

   Have a nice day.

[missitnoonan]

I just can't see this right now in the US market, almost everyone I know owns a DSLR of some sort and I only know one person with a mirrorless system. Most of these people are parents with young children or grandparents who want the ability to track moving targets and eliminate shutter lag.  In the lower price bracket ($500ish) you're going to do much better with a DSLR for this than a mirrored camera. I just don't see how mirrorless is going to eat DSLR sales for this demographic.

I'm at the top end of cameras in my group (and these aren't people lacking in funds) and I'm shooting a 60d. The market for full frame is much smaller than for APSC, the number of people looking to shoot legacy manual focus lenses is miniscule in comparison to grandparents with their DSLR and kit lens, and I think everyone is just too quick to see an A7 and going running for the hills yelling DSLR sales are dying. It's still an expensive camera with expensive lenses. It's going to have little effect on most camera sales.

[pdirestajr]

Canon just needs to Make an EOS Rebel N with a Facebook button instead of that printer button! Yeah! That will do it! And lots of fun color options.

[Lichtgestalt]

honestly i don´t know why i should read or listen to that guy.
he is as clueless about photography as the next guy on the street.

his "reviews" are useless... except for those who like the three stooges movies too.

i don´t get why some watch his videos.
when you have seen one you have seen all.

[pdirestajr]

honestly i don´t know why i should read or listen to that guy.
he is as clueless about photography as the next guy on the street.

his "reviews" are useless... except for those who like the three stooges movies too.

i don´t get why some watch his videos.
when you have seen one you have seen all.

I think they are entertaining. Does everything about photography have to be so serious and technical all the time?

[emag]

Kai is simply wong.  But I do find his videos entertaining.

[neuroanatomist]

Would be true, if it wasn't for the fact that the A7R trumps the 5D3 and 1DX in FF IQ

Sure, if you don't have to focus on fast-moving subjects.  If you do, the 5DIII and 1D X trump the a7R in FF AF tracking. 

It is without a doubt the best camera available for my dear L-lenses..

You might be interested in what Roger Cicala (owner of Lensrentals) has to say:

When a single camera-lens interface has enough variability to sometimes be visible, adding another large piece of metal with another mount interface seems a recipe for problems….

Putting a great lens on your camera via an adapter might still be better than an average native-mount lens. On the other hand, that great lens certainly wouldn’t be as good as it would be on its native-mount camera.