I didn't mean "cater to" - I meant compete for. You don't gain market share by seeking to be moderately good; you gain it by being excellent. There have been a lot of people that have switched brands these last few years. Ideally, for Canon, you'd want them to switch to your brand and not away from it.
When people see all those big white lenses at the Olympics, they don't think "I need to run out and buy a Sony".
You only gain market share by doing one thing: selling more units (relative to your competitors, than you did previously).
I'm vocally predicting death of SLRs soon (or at least FF), but to be clear I don't have an emotional investment in that. I'm not on "Team Mirrorless." I just haven't heard any possible advantage to SLRs except battery life and especially when you have long viewing times per exposure (wildlife).
So curious, do you have any particular reasons to think "high-end DSLR will hang around for some photography pros for quite some time?"
Also, I think the 5-10 years you mention may be much closer to 5, albeit counting from when there is a pro MILFF, trinity zooms + superwide + portrait available. I think take-up of the RF system hasn't even begun yet. I don't think the FD user base lasted 3 years once EF trinity zooms were out (and 50/1.4, 35/2). In fact not even Nikon lasted 3 years after EF system's initial trinity zooms were out.
Nikon's woes in the early 1990s were almost exclusively about AF performance. The invention of the USM is what killed Nikon in the pro 135 format market.
Canon made a clean break from their existing system, announced very clearly that they were doing so, and clearly explained why (to move to an all electronic connection between camera and lens). That decision is what enabled their AF performance to take off like a rocket when the UltraSonic Motor was created.
Nikon's miscalculation was their notion that pro shooters, who almost exclusively shot with Nikon cameras, would ever even be interested in AF. (Along with the assumption that compatibility with existing and legacy lenses would trump performance advantages.)
They then further shot themselves in the foot by deciding to put AF in the body, where different sized lenses with focusing elements of a very wide range of masses were being driven by the same motor. The heavier focusing elements in the larger lenses (e.g. large telephoto lenses used for sports and reportage) were hopelessly slow compared to Canon's brand spanking new USM lenses.
not with respects to sensors. Sony has more patents than Canon when it comes to sensors, which is what we're talking about here.
also Canon doesn't spend more on R&D than Sony, Sony for last fiscal is 470,000 million yen, Canon is 315,842 million yen.
A lot of that 470B yen Sony spends on R&D has absolutely nothing to do with cameras or imaging sensors. A lot of the 315.8B yen Canon spends on R&D is also on things other than cameras and sensors for conventional cameras.
Please make up your mind. Are we talking about sensors
only or not?
The mockup for the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS looks like a munchkin compared to the EF-mount lenses. Sports people and fixed-location reporters probably don't mind the size, but people moving around have a hard time coping with an EF 70-200/2.8IS. I could see say wedding photogs switching to RF just to get a much smaller version of that lens. (Or to get the IS on the 24-70/2.8, or to get the 28-70/2.0, or ...)
You do realize that the new RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is an extending zoom design and is just as long as the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III when zoomed to 200mm? It's right there in the patent filing.
MF to AF was also a revolutionary change. While I'm convinced RF/mirrorless will win and EF/DSLR will go away, I don't think it will be anywhere near as fast as the FD to EF transition was. I think people who are suggesting that FD to EF is a good metaphor for EF to RF are going to be surprised when EF hangs around for much longer than they expect.
It was at Canon. It was not at Nikon. That's what cost Nikon the biggest part of the pro market for at least the next two decades.
Interesting since it was his individual reviews that resulted in me getting the Canon over the Tamron. I have two Tamron lenses and really like them. But I couldn't ignore the sharpness and micro contrast in the Canon 24-70 vs. the Tamron 24-70 while looking over his samples.
To be sure the Tamron is a good lens and it's a close call, but I had to go Canon on that one.
Yet a lot of folks go for the Tamron with VC precisely because it works better for them if they shoot handheld almost all of the time. Your assumption that
because you chose absolute lens performance when the camera is mounted on a tripod → everyone else will as well is about like Nikon's assumption that no pros were interested in AF back in 1985-90.
The 7DII is 5 years old this year. How many years we need to wait for a replacement?
Until Canon decides one is ready and meets a need in the marketplace.
If Canon releases an incremental update, folks
complain trash Canon because it's not
really an upgrade.
If Canon waits until they have a significant improvement in a model line, folks
complain trash Canon that is took
way too long.
Some folks just like to complain because they can't have the latest, greatest, top of the line feature
at every single point on the list in the cheapest entry level model just announced.
Sure, I'd say the same in their shoes. If they think like I do, they're 90% sure that "some time to come" might turn out to be more like three years, but further recognize they may be misreading the market and don't want to say anything that precludes selling SLRs for another 15.
RF lens designs (except telephotos) and full-sensor AF features (face recognition, etc.) simply cannot be rolled out for the SLRs. A few years of that is going to be a reason to move as well.
Well, except for cameras like the 1D X Mark II that have 750,000 pixel RGB+IR light meters that are coupled to the AF system and assist in tracking moving subjects and do, in fact, recognize things such as facial features.
Does Canon need to more effectively exploit the capabilities of high resolution, full color light meters? Certainly.
Do they need to market those capabilities better? Surely they do.
But that does not mean that such capabilities
simply can not be rolled out for the SLRs when some SLRs already have such capabilities.