Canon Full Frame Mirrorless Talk [CR1]

[romanr74]

I don't think that the total sales number is meaningful enough to understand how well the different companies do with their business decisions with the different stakeholders out there. Meaningful data would include product groups, performance level, form factor, sales channel, consumer groups, promotion, product life cycle, margins etc.

Product groups - I believe Canon leads sales in DSLR and mirrorless. How narrowly do you want so split that? Sony would win the FF mirrorless only because they are about the only company making them. If they are a minority in the APS-C mirrorless the only conclusion you can draw is that people prefer to buy DSLR APS-C

performance level - this is ambiguous. What use is a high-performance product if people don't like the size/shape/colour/after sales service...etc What is the use of making the world's best medicine if people hate the taste?

Form factor - what has that got to do with it? What use is the best designed camera if it only has a crap sensor?

Life cycle: is Sony's rapid life cycle better than Canon's slow one? They sure have hacked off many a user who feels cheated by being made to buy a sub-standard product 12 months later

Sales is a measure of all those aspects as a whole package. The backers of Betamax where whining the same thing 30 years ago and ended up losing to a technically inferior product. Oh look...Sony made Betamax as well....
The problem is sales is an indicator if you got it right after the event. Taking short-term sales figures as 'proof' can be as dangerous as relying on them to justify complacency. One thing with Sony is you can say 'they have got exciting products' but what you cannot do is look at Sony and say 'they know how to do it in the long term'.
On the other hand, you can say is 'Canon know how to do it in the long term' and that they are developing mirrorless at a slower pace - and they have closed the gap significantly in the last 2 years. The key question is 'when mirrorless really takes a big share of the DSLR-style market in 3-4 years (?) will they have advanced enough to keep their pre-eminence'.

people like douglaurent seem to be saying 'No'. others are more relaxed about it

I'm not arguing if Canon is doing right or wrong. I'm saying that if you want to assess if individual spec decisions are right or wrong, you have to look at how any given product sells in various channels and to various customer groups (e.g. sports, studio/fashion, film-makers, hobbyist, etc.). You also want to see how a given individual product's sale ramps up and how fast it flattens after the market introduction (life cycle). You want to understand how early you have to run promotions and to what extent. You look at product segments (performance levels, form factors, product groups) and market segments (sales channels, consumer groups) to fine-tune your strategy and decisions. This gives you meaningful and timely data - certainly much more meaningful than a total sales number.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I don't think that the total sales number is meaningful enough to understand how well the different companies do with their business decisions with the different stakeholders out there. Meaningful data would include product groups, performance level, form factor, sales channel, consumer groups, promotion, product life cycle, margins etc.

In 2006, Sony entered the dSLR market. Between 2006 and 2010, they launched a variety of APS-C and FF dSLRs. All of the components of what goes into sales numbers and market share are interesting from an academic standpoint, but ultimately irrelevant from a practical standpoint. In total sales numbers, Sony's dSLRs could not compete with Canon and Nikon – the relevant stakeholders spoke loud and clear. Sony gave up, and abandoned the dSLR market in 2010. Is that meaningful enough to understand?

Incidentally, you can bet that Canon et al. do have that line- and model-specific data, and that drives their decisions on features that are included or excluded. We don't have access to the data, but we can see the aggregated results of those decisions over time...that's market share, i.e. how consumers vote with their wallets. Canon owns close to 50% of the ILC (dSLR + MILC) market. The conclusion regarding who is making the best decisions across those factors and many others is obvious.

 

[GHPhotography]

On the other hand, you can say is 'Canon know how to do it in the long term' and that they are developing mirrorless at a slower pace - and they have closed the gap significantly in the last 2 years. The key question is 'when mirrorless really takes a big share of the DSLR-style market in 3-4 years (?) will they have advanced enough to keep their pre-eminence'.

people like douglaurent seem to be saying 'No'. others are more relaxed about it

I agree with everything you said, I would just add a caveat to this paragraph- The key question is WHEN/IF mirrorless really takes a big share. For your average consumer canon's M line is just as capable as the Rebel series. Why then are DSLR sales still massively greater than mirrorless? Sometimes a better/rival technology comes along and competes with what is currently sold instead of replacing it.

Case in point- Blu-Ray disks should have made DVDs obsolete; Blu-Ray players and disks are competitive in price and offer several benefits to DVD, but DVDs are still made and sold at comparable numbers. The real question is do average consumers see the difference between DSLRs and MILCs, or are they really just two options capable of upgrading the camera phone that most people are now using (phones are basically Netflix in the disk comparison).

Canon has a responsibility to its shareholders and to its corporate health to follow the sales trends, not just the new tech trends. Until MILCs represent a real threat to DSLRs Canon, as a company, has to focus on what makes them the most money AND what advances their chances of keeping future market share. I would say that they are doing that admirably, and sales numbers would agree with me.

 

[romanr74]

I don't think that the total sales number is meaningful enough to understand how well the different companies do with their business decisions with the different stakeholders out there. Meaningful data would include product groups, performance level, form factor, sales channel, consumer groups, promotion, product life cycle, margins etc.

In 2006, Sony entered the dSLR market. Between 2006 and 2010, they launched a variety of APS-C and FF dSLRs. All of the components of what goes into sales numbers and market share are interesting from an academic standpoint, but ultimately irrelevant from a practical standpoint. In total sales numbers, Sony's dSLRs could not compete with Canon and Nikon – the relevant stakeholders spoke loud and clear. Sony gave up, and abandoned the dSLR market in 2010. Is that meaningful enough to understand?

Incidentally, you can bet that Canon et al. do have that line- and model-specific data, and that drives their decisions on features that are included or excluded. We don't have access to the data, but we can see the aggregated results of those decisions over time...that's market share, i.e. how consumers vote with their wallets. Canon owns close to 50% of the ILC (dSLR + MILC) market. The conclusion regarding who is making the best decisions across those factors and many others is obvious.

I'm perfectly fine if you look at it that way.

 

[Don Haines]

I am willing to bet that the average consumer does not care if it is mirrorless or not... All they care about is does it take good pictures in "green box" mode.... although, with FF, the odds are much better that it will be used with a second lens and even taken out of automatic mode.....

We CR readers do not represent the average consumer.....

 

[BillB]

I am willing to bet that the average consumer does not care if it is mirrorless or not... All they care about is does it take good pictures in "green box" mode.... although, with FF, the odds are much better that it will be used with a second lens and even taken out of automatic mode.....

We CR readers do not represent the average consumer.....

True enough, but a mirrorless FF camera with the specs contained in the OP would seem to be aimed at a pretty knowledgeable niche in the overall consumer base.

 

[canonographer]

I'd love to come back to Canon for a number of reasons, but until they can provide an enthusiast level camera with the following, I gotta stick with the Sony.

- EVF functionality (this provides the biggest advantage over my 6D)
- In body image stabilization
- Sensor dynamic range that matches Sony's for the price paid
- Electronic shutter capability

For the record, here are the areas where I think Canon wins, and why I might yet come back to Canon.

- Cost and selection of lenses
- Build quality and ergonomics of both cameras and lenses
- More intuitive menus
- PDAF
- Color rendering
- Battery life

Comparing these lists, I'd say Sony has an easier path to closing their gaps than Canon does.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Comparing these lists, I'd say Sony has an easier path to closing their gaps than Canon does.

Except for the sales and market share gaps.

 

[Don Haines]

Comparing these lists, I'd say Sony has an easier path to closing their gaps than Canon does.

Except for the sales and market share gaps.

And service gaps.....
And lack of lens selection gaps......
And lack of flashes gaps......

 

[PHOTOPROROCKIES]

Comparing these lists, I'd say Sony has an easier path to closing their gaps than Canon does.

Except for the sales and market share gaps.

And service gaps.....
And lack of lens selection gaps......
And lack of flashes gaps......

The only thing Canon currently has that Sony doesn't in the flash line are macro flash units...

 

[canonographer]

Comparing these lists, I'd say Sony has an easier path to closing their gaps than Canon does.

Except for the sales and market share gaps.

And service gaps.....
And lack of lens selection gaps......
And lack of flashes gaps......

I can only speak for myself and what I care about as a landscape enthusiast. And when I'm out shooting, I don't really care about market share, or professional services, or flashes. For the type of landscape work I do, there are no lens gaps anymore, none, although they are generally too expensive and the Zeiss lenses aren't as rugged as I'd like.

I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.

FWIW, I also can't see any reason to sacrifice IBIS, better dynamic range, and better ISO performance.

 

[privatebydesign]

Comparing these lists, I'd say Sony has an easier path to closing their gaps than Canon does.

Except for the sales and market share gaps.

And service gaps.....
And lack of lens selection gaps......
And lack of flashes gaps......

I can only speak for myself and what I care about as a landscape enthusiast. And when I'm out shooting, I don't really care about market share, or professional services, or flashes. For the type of landscape work I do, there are no lens gaps anymore, none, although they are generally too expensive and the Zeiss lenses aren't as rugged as I'd like.

I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.

FWIW, I also can't see any reason to sacrifice IBIS, better dynamic range, and better ISO performance.

Interesting, when did Sony come out with a range of four tilt shift lenses? Anybody serious about landscapes that doesn't know the extreme benefits of T/S lenses is just playing at taking pretty pictures.

 

[Don Haines]

Comparing these lists, I'd say Sony has an easier path to closing their gaps than Canon does.

Except for the sales and market share gaps.

And service gaps.....
And lack of lens selection gaps......
And lack of flashes gaps......

I can only speak for myself and what I care about as a landscape enthusiast. And when I'm out shooting, I don't really care about market share, or professional services, or flashes. For the type of landscape work I do, there are no lens gaps anymore, none, although they are generally too expensive and the Zeiss lenses aren't as rugged as I'd like.

I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.

FWIW, I also can't see any reason to sacrifice IBIS, better dynamic range, and better ISO performance.

Interesting, when did Sony come out with a range of four tilt shift lenses? Anybody serious about landscapes that doesn't know the extreme benefits of T/S lenses is just playing at taking pretty pictures.

And anyone who grew up with a 4x5 also laments the lack of a tilt/shift senor plane , but the Canon T/S lenses are a close second........

 

[Don Haines]

Comparing these lists, I'd say Sony has an easier path to closing their gaps than Canon does.

Except for the sales and market share gaps.

And service gaps.....
And lack of lens selection gaps......
And lack of flashes gaps......

I can only speak for myself and what I care about as a landscape enthusiast. And when I'm out shooting, I don't really care about market share, or professional services, or flashes. For the type of landscape work I do, there are no lens gaps anymore, none, although they are generally too expensive and the Zeiss lenses aren't as rugged as I'd like.

I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.

FWIW, I also can't see any reason to sacrifice IBIS, better dynamic range, and better ISO performance.

For any professional, service is a big deal! To be able to send a lens or camera in for calibration or repair and get it back quickly is a make or break proposition..... I can't afford to have kit missing for months!

 

[privatebydesign]

Comparing these lists, I'd say Sony has an easier path to closing their gaps than Canon does.

Except for the sales and market share gaps.

And service gaps.....
And lack of lens selection gaps......
And lack of flashes gaps......

I can only speak for myself and what I care about as a landscape enthusiast. And when I'm out shooting, I don't really care about market share, or professional services, or flashes. For the type of landscape work I do, there are no lens gaps anymore, none, although they are generally too expensive and the Zeiss lenses aren't as rugged as I'd like.

I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.

FWIW, I also can't see any reason to sacrifice IBIS, better dynamic range, and better ISO performance.

Interesting, when did Sony come out with a range of four tilt shift lenses? Anybody serious about landscapes that doesn't know the extreme benefits of T/S lenses is just playing at taking pretty pictures.

And anyone who grew up with a 4x5 also laments the lack of a tilt/shift senor plane , but the Canon T/S lenses are a close second........

Just use a geared head and move the camera! But in all seriousness, as tilt angle is directly related to focal length and not equivalent focal length, the shorter lenses needed for 135 format don't offer the flexibility standards cameras do. And don't mention the issues retrofocal tilt lenses add to the complications.

 

[Don Haines]

Comparing these lists, I'd say Sony has an easier path to closing their gaps than Canon does.

Except for the sales and market share gaps.

And service gaps.....
And lack of lens selection gaps......
And lack of flashes gaps......

I can only speak for myself and what I care about as a landscape enthusiast. And when I'm out shooting, I don't really care about market share, or professional services, or flashes. For the type of landscape work I do, there are no lens gaps anymore, none, although they are generally too expensive and the Zeiss lenses aren't as rugged as I'd like.

I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.

FWIW, I also can't see any reason to sacrifice IBIS, better dynamic range, and better ISO performance.

OVF vs EVF?

For landscape and especially Astrophotography, I prefer the EVF......
For action I prefer the OVF.....
For everything else I am ambivalent.......

I expect Canon to release a FF mirrorless soon, but I expect it to be 5D sized with decent controls.....

I will undoubtedly continue on from that point with a mirrored DSLR plus a mirrorless.... each has advantages that I do not wish to give up.....

 

[c.d.embrey]

No interest in a FFMirrorless camera that uses EF lenses.

EOS killed the FD lens, and Canon sold EF lenses to the faithful, and all the new Nikon converts.

Maybe the EFMirrorless will drive the 5D3 price down That would be a good thing.

 

[canonographer]

Comparing these lists, I'd say Sony has an easier path to closing their gaps than Canon does.

Except for the sales and market share gaps.

And service gaps.....
And lack of lens selection gaps......
And lack of flashes gaps......

I can only speak for myself and what I care about as a landscape enthusiast. And when I'm out shooting, I don't really care about market share, or professional services, or flashes. For the type of landscape work I do, there are no lens gaps anymore, none, although they are generally too expensive and the Zeiss lenses aren't as rugged as I'd like.

I can tell you though that I will never go back to shooting landscape with an OVF. Clinging to an OVF is a lot like clinging to film. It's that big of a game changer, no question.

FWIW, I also can't see any reason to sacrifice IBIS, better dynamic range, and better ISO performance.

Interesting, when did Sony come out with a range of four tilt shift lenses? Anybody serious about landscapes that doesn't know the extreme benefits of T/S lenses is just playing at taking pretty pictures.

So your point is that professionals only use T/S lenses for landscape, and everyone else is just playing around? Okay, got it. I guess I'll just continue playing at taking pretty pictures.

Thanks for the heads up, btw. I can't wait until I run into another "pro" photographer shooting with an 11-24 mm. I'll just chuckle under my breath, because I'll know he's only playing around. How embarrassing for them.

 

[unfocused]

...For the type of landscape work I do, there are no lens gaps anymore, none, although they are generally too expensive and the Zeiss lenses aren't as rugged as I'd like...

Interesting, when did Sony come out with a range of four tilt shift lenses? Anybody serious about landscapes that doesn't know the extreme benefits of T/S lenses is just playing at taking pretty pictures.

So your point is that professionals only use T/S lenses for landscape, and everyone else is just playing around? Okay, got it. I guess I'll just continue playing at taking pretty pictures.

Thanks for the heads up, btw. I can't wait until I run into another "pro" photographer shooting with an 11-24 mm. I'll just chuckle under my breath, because I'll know he's only playing around. How embarrassing for them.

You are both being ridiculous. Expecting any lens or camera to be the answer to great pictures is just ridiculous. That's like thinking a golf club can make you into Tiger Woods. You don't need Zeiss lenses... you don't need tilt-shift lenses...you don't need in-camera stabilization...you don't need live view...you need talent and vision.

This thread passed into an alternate universe several days ago. Everybody needs to take a deep breath. When and if a mirrorless camera comes, it isn't going to make anyone a better photographer.

 

[c.d.embrey]

So your point is that professionals only use T/S lenses for landscape, and everyone else is just playing around? Okay, got it. I guess I'll just continue playing at taking pretty pictures.

I use a 90mm T&S for product photography. I guess I'm doing it wrong Please don't tell my paying clients

Thanks for the heads up, btw. I can't wait until I run into another "pro" photographer shooting with an 11-24 mm. I'll just chuckle under my breath, because I'll know he's only playing around. How embarrassing for them.

Internet forums prove the the old axiom that there are more horses asses than there are horses Thanks for pointing that out—sometimes I forget