June 22, 2018, 03:32:02 AM

Author Topic: Canon wants a 50% marketshare  (Read 8213 times)

Talys

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1648
  • Canon 6DII
Re: Canon wants a 50% marketshare
« Reply #45 on: March 14, 2018, 01:06:02 AM »
Interesting. Canon requires more innovation if they are to compete in the upscale NA mirrorless market.

is it worth it though? the NA mirrorless market is a 15-20% segment of the mirrorless market globally and even only around 20% for value.

I suspect that is going to change in 2018. The NA market may have resisted MILCs up till now, but there are some really compelling products on the market now. The best MILCs are as good as the best DSLRs at this point, and some are arguably better.

In North America, we tend to like Big Things.  Europeans at always surprised at the popularity of the size of our automobiles and the portions served for meals, for example (compare a typical steak dinner in Dallas versus Paris). 

There are some practical reasons for this -- homes are often much larger (square footage) due to population density in many urban and rural settings, so storage is less of an issue, whether it's gadgetry or automobiles.  Generalizing, Americans and Canadians have a habit of buying things that are bigger than they need (but not bigger than what they want) :)  Just look at the sizes of American/Canadian market SUVs and pickups compared to, well, the entire rest of the world.

Ironically, if you take an A7 or A9 body and add a grip and a pro lens (I think if you really shoot a lot, you really need a grip), it is slightly taller than a DSLR without a grip, a little narrower, and roughly the same length and width.  Because of the narrower body, there is also a slight penalty on finger space, which impacts some peole but not others.  Now, I say, ironically, because in some markets/to some people, a larger camera will sell better than a smaller one (and vice versa).

I think that it is absolutely arguable that MILC's are better at some things.  But there quite a bit worse at some other things.  Sometimes, I really wonder why there's such a large number of wedding photographers on forums :)  I'd argue that for a lot of weddings (particularly in the daytime, and especially where you don't need or want a flash), MILCs really shine. 

On the other hand, I think there are many types of situations where MILCs, or at least Sony MILCs, are far inferior to DSLRs.

By chance, I happen to be one of the people for whom DSLRs are just a better tool, because almost everything I photograph is either with a 400mm+ lens, or with flashes or equivalents (like strobes).  I don't photograph events, and I don't really do candids. 

But still, I have enjoyed my MILC experience, and I can see myself owning one for the things that they're good at, or at least the things that I feel that they do a better job of, for me.  I don't foresee when I'll be MILC exclusive, if that ends up being the industry direction. 

Personally, Canon will have a much better chance of selling me a $3,000 MILC if it happens to be compatible with my existing EF glass. 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon wants a 50% marketshare
« Reply #45 on: March 14, 2018, 01:06:02 AM »

goldenhusky

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 159
Re: Canon wants a 50% marketshare
« Reply #46 on: March 14, 2018, 01:58:48 AM »
I guess achieving 50% market share globally in the ILC market share is no biggie for Canon. It is actually a piece of cake with the amount of crappy low level DSLRs (2000d, 4000d? Can't even keep track of these shitty cameras anymore) and sub par mirror less cameras Canon is coming up with. They will sell boat load because they are really cheap but at the end of the day it is only good for Canon not the consumer. Pretty much inline with Canon's milking the cow attitude.

Talys

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1648
  • Canon 6DII
Re: Canon wants a 50% marketshare
« Reply #47 on: March 14, 2018, 02:08:44 AM »
I guess achieving 50% market share globally in the ILC market share is no biggie for Canon. It is actually a piece of cake with the amount of crappy low level DSLRs (2000d, 4000d? Can't even keep track of these shitty cameras anymore) and sub par mirror less cameras Canon is coming up with. They will sell boat load because they are really cheap but at the end of the day it is only good for Canon not the consumer. Pretty much inline with Canon's milking the cow attitude.


As has been stated for pages and pages on the thread regarding 4000d -- this is a very legitimate camera that serves an important purpose, especially in markets where a few hudnred dollars is as much as someone can aspire to pay for an ILC.  Not everyone lives in a country where a $1,000 - $10,000 camera is possible for most people. 

Also, the 4000d is more than capable of producing amazing photography.  If you're not able to take great photographs with one, the problem is on the end looking down the viewfinder.  We want amazing cameras, because we like, appreciate, and can afford (or at least aspire to purchase) this amazing technology -- not because these cameras are a necessary ingredient to award-winning photography.

Second, Canon's MILCs are neither cheap nor sub par.  Even the M100 is a $550 camera.  And, an M6 has superior autofocus than an A7R3 in many situations.  Don't believe me?  Point a f/5.6 lens at something lit in a room lit with a 60W bulb on one, and then try it with an M6.  One's very certain, and the other hunts and jitters.  DPAF is that good.

hachu21

  • EOS Rebel 300D
  • ***
  • Posts: 66
Re: Canon wants a 50% marketshare
« Reply #48 on: March 14, 2018, 07:56:48 AM »
Soooo... Now we can be pretty sure that the whole Canon FF mirorless strategy in on track, with the first bodies alredy defined or in the testing phase...
The release period are planned, and could be within one year from now.

THIS could be the real reason behind the mild upgrade of the 5D4 and especially 6D2. I suspect that the first FF ML body from Canon will compete directly with 6D bodies.

From this point of view, it makes a lot of sense.

goldenhusky

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 159
Re: Canon wants a 50% marketshare
« Reply #49 on: March 14, 2018, 08:30:07 AM »
Quote
As has been stated for pages and pages on the thread regarding 4000d -- this is a very legitimate camera that serves an important purpose, especially in markets where a few hudnred dollars is as much as someone can aspire to pay for an ILC.  Not everyone lives in a country where a $1,000 - $10,000 camera is possible for most people. 

That's why there is the used camera market. World imaging leader do not have to rush to the bottom of the stack to address that issue. Don't you think a used 70d or a 60d is superior to this 4000d?

Quote
Second, Canon's MILCs are neither cheap nor sub par.  Even the M100 is a $550 camera.  And, an M6 has superior autofocus than an A7R3 in many situations.  Don't believe me?  Point a f/5.6 lens at something lit in a room lit with a 60W bulb on one, and then try it with an M6.  One's very certain, and the other hunts and jitters.  DPAF is that good.

I have tried that with a slightly different set up with my A9 and M5 the result is both failed in low light. Unless M6 has so much superior auto focus than M5 (I am almost certain there is no difference in auto focus between M5 and M6) no mirror less can win that race till this date. My 5D4 and 80d were able to focus but none of the mirroless. So I give no credibility to your statement. Have you ever used an a7r3? I bet you have not. I am not saying a7r3 will focus. I am saying when it comes to low light auto focus DSLRs still outshines the best of the best mirrorless cameras. After using A9 I believe canon dual pixel auto focus has only one advantage that is smooth focus transition besides that Sony's auto focus is way ahead of any Canon mirror less auto focusing system so far. Needless to say I got rid of M5 in less than a month.

I am not in the crowd asking for all the 1dx2 and A9 features combined at the price of M50. What I am looking for is a kick ass hybrid camera that matches the features of Sony A7r3 or even A7iii. I am willing to pay even $4000 or even $4500 for it. To me the math is simple I do not have to run two systems in parallel. I can completely get rid of my Sonys and stick with one system. I have been waiting for years like many other hybrid shooters but Canon keep on disappointing and lately the race to the bottom is really disgusting. As usual Canon defense forces on the forums repeat the same non sense saying look at the data Canon is the global leader. I give no dam S____ about Canon being #1 or not.I need a tool that serves my purpose.

Mt Spokane Photography

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 14232
Re: Canon wants a 50% marketshare
« Reply #50 on: March 14, 2018, 04:37:50 PM »
In my mind, there is no doubt that a line of pro level mirrorless cameras is coming.  The only question is the lens.  Canon has already patented a adaptor for a new lens mount to EF, and has a large number of patents that improve dual pixel technology some obviously have short back focus designs in mind.

I'm not sure that Canon has actually made up their mind yet, they are said to be testing prototypes.

CanonFanBoy

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2148
  • Bipolar. When it is happening I don't realize it.
Re: Canon wants a 50% marketshare
« Reply #51 on: March 14, 2018, 07:37:02 PM »
I guess achieving 50% market share globally in the ILC market share is no biggie for Canon. It is actually a piece of cake with the amount of crappy low level DSLRs (2000d, 4000d? Can't even keep track of these shitty cameras anymore) and sub par mirror less cameras Canon is coming up with. They will sell boat load because they are really cheap but at the end of the day it is only good for Canon not the consumer. Pretty much inline with Canon's milking the cow attitude.


As has been stated for pages and pages on the thread regarding 4000d -- this is a very legitimate camera that serves an important purpose, especially in markets where a few hudnred dollars is as much as someone can aspire to pay for an ILC.  Not everyone lives in a country where a $1,000 - $10,000 camera is possible for most people. 

Also, the 4000d is more than capable of producing amazing photography.  If you're not able to take great photographs with one, the problem is on the end looking down the viewfinder.  We want amazing cameras, because we like, appreciate, and can afford (or at least aspire to purchase) this amazing technology -- not because these cameras are a necessary ingredient to award-winning photography.

Second, Canon's MILCs are neither cheap nor sub par.  Even the M100 is a $550 camera.  And, an M6 has superior autofocus than an A7R3 in many situations.  Don't believe me?  Point a f/5.6 lens at something lit in a room lit with a 60W bulb on one, and then try it with an M6.  One's very certain, and the other hunts and jitters.  DPAF is that good.

Sometimes people are blind to the needs of emerging markets. Canon didn't get to be so dominant by producing trash.

Gear snobbery is just weird.

I started my DSLR journey with an XSi (Fall of 2008). At the price point I paid new, I thought it was an incredible value and leaps and bounds above the point and shoot I had at the time. Guess what? It was a good deal for both Canon AND myself. My wife still uses and loves the camera. We even had the shutter replaced once.

The used market: As far as I know there are not boatloads of 70Ds being shipped to the emerging markets for millions of people to buy, and sometimes people just want new. On top of that, the used cameras don't have a warranty... something a person without much money would be well served by.

Huskey, you may not care about Canon's market share. Probably not many of us do. The article is about what Canon wants to achieve and not what you care about. It ain't about you. It will never be about you. You are not the market. You never will be a market influencer.

Any good business milks the cow until it no longer produces a profit.

It is very mysterious as to why Canon deciding to produce an inexpensive new model is such a sore point to some. I would imagine the same people would complain about anything Canon does. See it here all the time.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2018, 07:46:56 PM by CanonFanBoy »
5D Mark III, Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8L II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35 f/1.4L II, 135 f/2L, Streaklight 360ws, Flashpoint XPLOR 600PRO, 26x m42 screw mount lenses adapted to my DSLR. Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II, Olympus M. Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon wants a 50% marketshare
« Reply #51 on: March 14, 2018, 07:37:02 PM »

dak723

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 822
Re: Canon wants a 50% marketshare
« Reply #52 on: March 14, 2018, 07:49:15 PM »
I guess achieving 50% market share globally in the ILC market share is no biggie for Canon. It is actually a piece of cake with the amount of crappy low level DSLRs (2000d, 4000d? Can't even keep track of these shitty cameras anymore) and sub par mirror less cameras Canon is coming up with. They will sell boat load because they are really cheap but at the end of the day it is only good for Canon not the consumer. Pretty much inline with Canon's milking the cow attitude.

Maybe they have 50% market share because they are smarter than trolls like you.  Maybe smart people care about reliability.  Maybe smart people care about lenses.  Maybe smart people understand that an 18mp camera like the inexpensive 400D will take great pics.  Maybe smart people look at pics from Canon cameras and think, "those pics look better than other pics from different camera makers."  Because they do if you care about color and contrast.  Having bought mirrorless cameras from Olympus, Sony and Canon, my favorite among them is the Canon M5.  So, they are sub-par only if you don't care about what your pics look like and how easy the camera is to use.  If you dislike Canon so much, get a Sony and leave us alone and let us enjoy our cameras.  We are tired of all the troll BS.

dak723

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 822
Re: Canon wants a 50% marketshare
« Reply #53 on: March 14, 2018, 07:56:37 PM »
I guess achieving 50% market share globally in the ILC market share is no biggie for Canon. It is actually a piece of cake with the amount of crappy low level DSLRs (2000d, 4000d? Can't even keep track of these shitty cameras anymore) and sub par mirror less cameras Canon is coming up with. They will sell boat load because they are really cheap but at the end of the day it is only good for Canon not the consumer. Pretty much inline with Canon's milking the cow attitude.


As has been stated for pages and pages on the thread regarding 4000d -- this is a very legitimate camera that serves an important purpose, especially in markets where a few hudnred dollars is as much as someone can aspire to pay for an ILC.  Not everyone lives in a country where a $1,000 - $10,000 camera is possible for most people. 

Also, the 4000d is more than capable of producing amazing photography.  If you're not able to take great photographs with one, the problem is on the end looking down the viewfinder.  We want amazing cameras, because we like, appreciate, and can afford (or at least aspire to purchase) this amazing technology -- not because these cameras are a necessary ingredient to award-winning photography.

Second, Canon's MILCs are neither cheap nor sub par.  Even the M100 is a $550 camera.  And, an M6 has superior autofocus than an A7R3 in many situations.  Don't believe me?  Point a f/5.6 lens at something lit in a room lit with a 60W bulb on one, and then try it with an M6.  One's very certain, and the other hunts and jitters.  DPAF is that good.

Sometimes people are blind to the needs of emerging markets. Canon didn't get to be so dominant by producing trash.

Gear snobbery is just weird.

I started my DSLR journey with an XSi (Fall of 2008). At the price point I paid new, I thought it was an incredible value and leaps and bounds above the point and shoot I had at the time. Guess what? It was a good deal for both Canon AND myself. My wife still uses and loves the camera. We even had the shutter replaced once.

The used market: As far as I know there are not boatloads of 70Ds being shipped to the emerging markets for millions of people to buy, and sometimes people just want new. On top of that, the used cameras don't have a warranty... something a person without much money would be well served by.

Huskey, you may not care about Canon's market share. Probably not many of us do. The article is about what Canon wants to achieve and not what you care about. It ain't about you. It will never be about you. You are not the market. You never will be a market influencer.

Any good business milks the cow until it no longer produces a profit.

It is very mysterious as to why Canon deciding to produce an inexpensive new model is such a sore point to some. I would imagine the same people would complain about anything Canon does. See it here all the time.

Trolls will be trolls.  Spoil sports will be spoil sports.  It's not the camera I want (in other words, a Sony) so I will whine and complain and make moronic statements.  Welcome to the internet where A&&holes ruin everything.  If this forum had any guts, they would kick out theses trolls so that people interested in photography and Canon cameras can discuss things, ask questions, share knowledge and experiences without all the bullcrap. 

Talys

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1648
  • Canon 6DII
Re: Canon wants a 50% marketshare
« Reply #54 on: March 14, 2018, 08:18:03 PM »
That's why there is the used camera market. World imaging leader do not have to rush to the bottom of the stack to address that issue. Don't you think a used 70d or a 60d is superior to this 4000d?

You should participate on the thread about the 4000d.  As stated by a few people there, owning something new is special for a variety of reasons.

By your logic, nobody should buy three quarters of the new cameras out there, because you can get something superior in the used market at that price.  But for a variety of reasons, many people want a new device, especially when it's a major purchase. 

In addition, also stated in that thread, getting good used parts in some places in the world just isn't like it is in developed countries.  There's no eBay or craigslist. 

I have tried that with a slightly different set up with my A9 and M5 the result is both failed in low light. Unless M6 has so much superior auto focus than M5 (I am almost certain there is no difference in auto focus between M5 and M6) no mirror less can win that race till this date. My 5D4 and 80d were able to focus but none of the mirroless.

I couldn't agree more that a 5D4 or 80D are a zillion times better at focusing in low light than any mirrorless, and I have stated so many times.  In addition, they have access to AF illuminators, which work reliably and amazingly well.

That said I was specifically comparing M6 to A7R3.  DPAF is simply superior to Sony's Hybrid Phase Detect + Contrast Detect Autofocus.  I did not say a room with very little light (like a concert), did I?  I said, compare them in a room lit with a 60W bulb.  That's not outrageous -- there's lots of times when you might want to autofocus in this situation.  Like a photo of your family or your pets at home, in the evening.  You might have a flash, but you still need to autofocus.

While I agree that DSLRs are better for autofocus in this situation, it's still important to assess which mirrorless is superior, because, hey, some people might own a mirrorless (and no DSLR) and want to take a photo with less available light.  Unless you're saying everyone should own both a mirrorless and DSLR.

Finally, I'm not saying that M6 is ALWAYS better at autofocus than A7R3.  Obviously, A7R3 has some very advanced AF options, like subject tracing, Eye AF, expanding focus points, and all the goodies that you would expect from a camera priced to compete with a 5D4.  But most of those features work poorly, if at all, in lower light (not really low light).  Of course DPAF is affected too, but less so.

So I give no credibility to your statement. Have you ever used an a7r3? I bet you have not. I am not saying a7r3 will focus. I am saying when it comes to low light auto focus DSLRs still outshines the best of the best mirrorless cameras. After using A9 I believe canon dual pixel auto focus has only one advantage that is smooth focus transition besides that Sony's auto focus is way ahead of any Canon mirror less auto focusing system so far. Needless to say I got rid of M5 in less than a month.

I would take that wager and double it (since I know that I would win).  I refer you to this thread, which I speak at length as to my pain points on the A7R3:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34654.0

I think you are in the minority of objective users if you believe that dual pixel is not superior to Sony's Hybrid AF.  I mean, it's just provably better in every situation I've encountered, whether it's bright light or dim light.  Again, I'm not talking about fancy autofocus features which the M6 can't compete against the A7R3 with, but just plain, give-me-focus-here.

Since you have an 80D, mount an 18-135 nano usm to it, put it in live view, and see how quickly and assuredly it autofocuses.  Now show me a Sony that can do that.  Sony AF, even when it works well, often hunts just a little (goes too far, then backs up).  Dual pixel doesn't do that, pretty much ever, unless it can't find something to focus on.  That makes it not only faster, but it provides a superior and more enjoyable shooting experience.

I am not in the crowd asking for all the 1dx2 and A9 features combined at the price of M50. What I am looking for is a kick ass hybrid camera that matches the features of Sony A7r3 or even A7iii. I am willing to pay even $4000 or even $4500 for it. To me the math is simple I do not have to run two systems in parallel. I can completely get rid of my Sonys and stick with one system. I have been waiting for years like many other hybrid shooters but Canon keep on disappointing and lately the race to the bottom is really disgusting. As usual Canon defense forces on the forums repeat the same non sense saying look at the data Canon is the global leader. I give no dam S____ about Canon being #1 or not.I need a tool that serves my purpose.

So, to you, what's the deficiency in a 5D4, or 1DXII? 

I mean, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass.  Is it the EVF that you want? Or the smaller size?  Or the techno gizmo features?

Personally, the only feature of the EVF that is of value to me is focus magnification.  I don't really care about zebras and focus peaking and all that jazz.  Or, even in-viewfinder image review.  I thought it would be cool, but in fact, I barely use it.  WYSIWYG is a potentially useful, but I think it's more useful for people with less experience. 

The two greatest pain points for me on A7R3 are: no mechanical manual focus ring (I take affront to focus by wire on a $2000+ lens, plus, I don't even like Sony's focus by wire system); and no AF illuminator support (the type that just flashes a pattern and allows PDAF to lock.

Again, personally, for me, there is ZERO size or weight savings.  Adding a grip + any pro lens, and you're at the size and weight of a DSLR.  And without a grip large enough for 4 fingers of an average-sized hand to wrap around and a pro lens, one should not bother with a $3,000 camera.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2018, 08:25:34 PM by Talys »

rrcphoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2320
Re: Canon wants a 50% marketshare
« Reply #55 on: March 14, 2018, 08:41:48 PM »
That's why there is the used camera market. World imaging leader do not have to rush to the bottom of the stack to address that issue. Don't you think a used 70d or a 60d is superior to this 4000d?

sure and many parts of the world don't have a good used market, they can't use ebay,etc because mail service is fraught with fraud and theft and all they can do is buy new from the retailer after paying huge import taxes.

a 60D is both much larger and also much heavier, and that wouldn't' exactly fit in the use case either.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2018, 08:44:00 PM by rrcphoto »

old-pr-pix

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Canon wants a 50% marketshare
« Reply #56 on: March 14, 2018, 09:13:35 PM »
50% of what market is the fundamental question?  I'd suggest that members of this forum have a rather rigorous view of what photography involves and what gear will better support achieving the 'best' photographic images.  Yet, many in generations X, Y, and Z have a significantly different perspective of what constitutes good photography.  They expect to overlay weird filters, cute graphics or slick animations (as in Snapchat) on photos & videos that they can then instantly send to friends and the world.  They care less about dynamic range, depth of field (other than as a software filter), etc.  Their images have a half-life of seconds - they don't strive for 'wall worthy' images.  Their satisfaction comes from a 'how cute' instant response.  Their photographic skill is measured by how many apps they can effectively use.  For them, no P&S or even dSLR is a step-up because those platforms eliminate the features that make photography fun and rewarding.

Real photographers will thumb their noses at such gimmicks much like real artists snubbed early efforts at photography.  But the market will move with the masses.  P&S's will continue their death spiral while dSLR's and MILC's will remain the domain of true enthusiasts and working pros.  If this is the market where Canon seeks 50% share, it will be a much smaller market than what we see today. 
Two systems:  Canon & m43-Olympus/Panasonic

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon wants a 50% marketshare
« Reply #56 on: March 14, 2018, 09:13:35 PM »