Canon’s market share is “inflated” by selling a lot of cameras. If they didn’t cheat by selling so many cameras, their market share would be smaller. How dare they!
Upvote
0
It’s too bad for you that Canon doesn’t really care about your personal needs. Out of curiosity, are you enjoying your Sony camera(s) and lenses?If total market share is important to you that's fine. I don't see how that's any more relevant to meeting my equipment needs than knowing which mega-corp sells the most cheeseburgers or shampoo. But, if going along with the crowd makes you feel warm and fuzzy then that's what you should do.
Canon's market share is inflated by sales of consumer camera's that don't really interest me. Canon can put t7's in crackerjack boxes and McDonald's Happy Meals for all I care. I judge camera's on their technical merits and ability to meet my needs, not their popularity.
If total market share is important to you that's fine. I don't see how that's any more relevant to meeting my equipment needs than knowing which mega-corp sells the most cheeseburgers or shampoo. But, if going along with the crowd makes you feel warm and fuzzy then that's what you should do.
Canon's market share is inflated by sales of consumer camera's that don't really interest me. Canon can put t7's in crackerjack boxes and McDonald's Happy Meals for all I care. I judge camera's on their technical merits and ability to meet my needs, not their popularity.
edit: The relevant point I was trying to make is that everything Canon has done in the last five years has been in response to pressure from Sony's Alpha's. Despite being the market leader in sales, when it comes to tech they are following, not leading.
Does anybody believe Canon would have released the R bodies and RF lenses were it not for Sony's Alpha series hogging all the positive press for the last five years.
Plenty to like about Canon and plenty to dislike about Sony but if you can't appreciate the extent to which Sony is driving camera tech forward I don't know what to tell you. Canon is the world's largest camera company with decades of experience and for the most part they have been chasing Sony's tail for the last several years. It's a little sad.
Canon's cameras, like pretty much every camera made in the last decade or so, still produce fine images but the tech gap is widening every day. I understand why that gets on some peoples nerves but it's not Sony's fault that Canon isn't keeping up.
Sony has driven things forward in some respects. But a lot of the 'forward drive' in Sony's products has actually been spent chasing Canon's tail along with the tail of every mature DSLR manufacturer. It's easy to look at the A7 series and see four generations of improvement while forgetting that it was the third generation before the AF could compete with SLR AF, as but one example. It's also easy to forget all the sensor imaging problems Sony has had over these generations. Off sensor flare, compressed RAW artifacts, star eaters, striping. And do I dare mention ergonomics and weather sealing?
These things are fresh in my memory because I carefully researched and considered buying every single A7R released. And every time there was a 'show stopper' issue that would have killed it for me even if I otherwise would have gone Sony. In a twist of irony, I finally gave up waiting for Sony to catch up and moved to the 5Ds.
Sony is a competitive force which is ultimately good for everyone. But it's grating to hear over and over again how far ahead they are based on a selected subset of considerations which happen to play to their strengths.
So in your mind, the tail wags the dog. Nice.edit: The relevant point I was trying to make is that everything Canon has done in the last five years has been in response to pressure from Sony's Alpha's. Despite being the market leader in sales, when it comes to tech they are following, not leading.
Does anybody believe Canon would have released the R bodies and RF lenses were it not for Sony's Alpha series hogging all the positive press for the last five years.
...Does anybody believe Canon would have released the R bodies and RF lenses were it not for Sony's Alpha series hogging all the positive press for the last five years.
Yes, Sony was the most aggressive and first to the market with enthusiast level mirrorless cameras,
Well, I guess if you are the first, you are by definition the most aggressive since it's easy to be more aggressive than nothing. But, I get your point.Were they? Or were they merely first with a full frame digital mirrorless camera?
In fairness I don’t really know who built the first mirrorless digital ILC.Well, I guess if you are the first, you are by definition the most aggressive since it's easy to be more aggressive than nothing. But, I get your point.
Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, etc are dominated by sales of low end consumer cameras. That's where the sales and the money are.Canon's market share is inflated by sales of consumer camera's that don't really interest me.
Using both the A7RII and the 5DMarkIII....
Why I LOVE the Sony A7RII
I can see when it focuses with the little green dots
I ... can do WYSIWYG in the VF
Well, I know its not so accurate, but at least being able to focus in low light is surely a plus.
So, maybe you can help....Is the 1 to 1 zoom on the R3 the same or significantly faster and close to the 5Dm3 or even better?
I keep having to wonder whether drinking the acid rain from back woods cisterns in the "Rust Belt" causes cramps or simply self-aggrandizement and general nastiness. It absolutely causes the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Not at all. It's just that you don't have any. Money wise, I am probably the poorest person on these boards. But that isn't the type of class we are talking about.Hmmm, you sport class biases as well.
Not at all. It's just that you don't have any. Money wise, I am probably the poorest person on these boards. But that isn't the type of class we are talking about.
An ironic question given that your ‘contributions’ (and I use the term pejoratively) to this thread have been the antithesis of good.I do not believe you know what a social class is. I'd tell you the various definitions for the term, but what good would that do?
I know what social classes are and know where I'm at. The bottom. I have just a high school diploma. I worked in factories most of my life as a self taught electronics and instrumentation technician.. I served in the Hawaii Army National Guard, Tennessee Army National Guard, and then went through boot camp again for a hitch in the USMC attached to the 3rd MAW. I drove 18 wheelers for 9 years and have about 1.5 million miles in my back pocket. My first three homes were very small mobile homes. The biggest was 13x52 ft. In fact, they are the only homes I ever owned. I now live in a 1 bedroom apt. of about 650 sq. ft. right under the flight path of DFW airport, and raise my grandson. I live on just $1,600 a month due to cognitive decline. I have what I have in photo gear because I have sold things I acquired when I was still able to earn a decent living. My photo gear is all I own with any value at all. So spare me your self-righteousness. Again, you have no class... and I don't mean a social class/status that money can buy. I mean something you obviously know nothing about. Yet, somehow even with my cognitive problems I can still wipe the floor with you intellectually. I used to be a pretty smart guy. Now I'm just a dumbass who can't learn Lightroom/Photoshop. So where does that leave you? Even dumber than I.I do not believe you know what a social class is. I'd tell you the various definitions for the term, but what good would that do?