Today i officially felt left behind with being a Canon shooter

[Ozarker]

LOL what share of the mirrorless market does Canon command?

Don't bother yourself with facts. Just make it up like so many others around here Facts mean nothing. Delusions, premonitions, feelings, and the force are what matter. Oh, and Sony. Sony is the "Gold Standard." Don't believe it? Just check out those spec sheets. The spec sheets tell you everything you need to know. Everyone knows Canon sucks.

 

[Mikehit]

no. i will not buy expensive crop lenses.
1. If it is expensive, then its gotta be perfectly FF capable or
2. If it is crop only, then its gotta be inexpensive (and really small + light)
as far as I am concerned. Up to now EF-M lenses have met criteria #2 perfectly well. 32/1.4 ... likely not.

But i will NOT buy anything, until i get mirrorfree FF in compact shape, decent IQ and at low price.
I DON'T HAVE to buy.
Canon, Nikon, Sony HAVE to sell.
Advantage on my end.

But you are not 'the masses' - you are someone with very esoteric requirements who thinks they represent the masses.

Yousaid

"the masses" will notice the difference, if they are offered decent cameras (and lenses) that are smaller, lighter, 21st century communicating and less expensive.

dtaylor responded

If you want small, lightweight, decent cameras and lenses then look to crop.

Which is a fair point. APS-C is absolutely fine for 'the masses' - heck, it is absolutely fine for most people who shoot FF most of the time.

 

[fullstop]

You really believe a decent, mirrorfree FF-sensored camera in a compact form factor is an "esoteric requirement"?
I'd say, there are "masses" of folks interested in exactly that.

I don't see, why those people should remain relegated to half-sensor systems, when full-sensor goodness can be packaged into not much larger cameras. And compact lenses covering the entire most frequently used focal length range are also perfectly feasible - technically and economically.

 

[Mikehit]

You really believe a decent, mirrorfree FF-sensored camera in a compact form factor is an "esoteric requirement"?
I'd say, there are "masses" of folks interested in exactly that.

I don't see, why those people should remain relegated to half-sensor systems, when full-sensor goodness can be packaged into not much larger cameras. And compact lenses covering the entire most frequently used focal length range are also perfectly feasible - technically and economically.

I said you particular requirements are esoteric - FF, not fast lenses, etc etc and you expect Canon to listen to you and give you what you need whereas you will actually get is Canon's defined compromises. 'The masses' do not care about FF mainly because they cannot afford it nor will they spend the money and even if you get your wild fantasy of a 1,000 USD FF that is still more than 'the masses' would pay. As you say, they prefer a compact camera and APS-C will give them that in a more compact format than FF with a minimal hit on image quality. I am not relegating anyone to 'half frame' formats just being aware of what the market actually is.

You seem to imagine what you know 'the masses', but you then define 'the masses' as yourself.

PS - did you know that your beloved 'full frame' was actually developed as 'half frame' ('half sensor' in today's parlance) to save size?

 

[fullstop]

PS - did you know that your beloved 'full frame' was actually developed as 'half frame' ('half sensor' in today's parlance) to save size?

of course. In German 36x24mm" is called "Kleinbild" = small image, translated literally.
"Full frame" is technically a dumb term, i just use it because it is widely understood, rather than typing 36x24mm every time.

I consider APS-C as a compromise that was necessary in the early days of (consumer priced) digital cameras, when 36x24 sensors where not available or prohibitively expensive. It also reeks of some of the spirit that was at work with APS-C film ... basically cheating customers out of "FF goodness".
Those days are really over. Today, every serious amateur (not even to mention pro's) should be able to get decent, affordable FF-sensored cameras and matching lenses at affordable prices and not having to put up with half-format or even quarter-format sensored gear [unless they pursue such "exotic" niches of photographic interest where a smaler sensor is of advantage].

A 1000 USD/€ "mirrorfree FF Rebel" would be perfectly possible and a 1500 USD/€ mirrorfree cam with A7 II/Z7/5D 4 like specs ditto. Industry typical oligopolist gross margin levels would be a few percentage points lower. That's all. But definitely not "loss leader".

I know, CaNikonSony want to push hard to go always more hi-end. "Premium" [= making people pay a lot more for a product than its true, functional value] ... it will only accelerate the "spiral of death". Very similar to how those once proud and arrogant german camera/optical manufacturers lost everything to more affordable products from Japan. There is little room at the top of the pyramid and it is firmly taken by Leica. Canon, Nikon, Sony will not be able to occupy that space. Just like Nissan Infinity and Toyota Lexus did not dislodge Mercedes-Benz, Porsche or Bentley.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You seem to imagine what you know 'the masses', but you then define 'the masses' as yourself.

AvTvM is legion.

A 1000 USD/€ "mirrorfree FF Rebel" would be perfectly possible and a 1500 USD/€ mirrorfree cam with A7 II/Z7/5D 4 like specs ditto.

Again I ask...is this assertion:
A) based on your extensive and demonstrated knowledge of R&D, production and overhead costs in the ILC industry?, or
B) based on your documented discussions with finance groups at Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al.?, or
C) more sh!t that you just make up to post on the internet?

 

[Mikehit]

Today, every serious amateur (not even to mention pro's) should be able to get decent, affordable FF-sensored cameras and matching lenses at affordable prices
...
A 1000 USD/€ "mirrorfree FF Rebel" would be perfectly possible and a 1500 USD/€ mirrorfree cam with A7 II/Z7/5D 4 like specs ditto. Industry typical oligopolist gross margin levels would be a few percentage points lower. That's all. But definitely not "loss leader".

I guess you and I have different definitions of what 'the masses' call affordable - and even if they could afford it, whether they are willing to spend that money on a camera.
For all your quasi-historical ramblings about the birth of APS-C, it does not escape my point (which I note you studiously avoided) that APS-C suits the requirements of a vast majority of people, and probably more so than FF does.

 

[Don Haines]

I guess you and I have different definitions of what 'the masses' call affordable - and even if they could afford it, whether they are willing to spend that money on a camera.
For all your quasi-historical ramblings about the birth of APS-C, it does not escape my point (which I note you studiously avoided) that APS-C suits the requirements of a vast majority of people, and probably more so than FF does.

What is the difference between a 67D2 and an 80D?

Both are roughly the same size body, roughly the same featyure set, yet one is crop and the other is FF? It is the sensor.

Way back when, it cost Canon $15 to make a 60D sensor and $250 to make a 5D2 sensor, mostly because of yield problems. Nowadays, the cost should be closer.... lets say $100 difference.... by the time you figure in margins and markups and distribution percentages, that might turn into $250-$500 difference to the consumer (just guessing here)..... So yes, I CAN see a FF rebel being sold for $1000 in the future, but as long as enough people are willing to pay more than that, Canon (and Nikon/Sony) are going to sell them for as much as they can get away with.....

 

[fullstop]

@neuroanatomist

A,B,C not needed. a much simpler 3 step thought process is all it takes.

1. Delta in max. wafer yield for APS-C [80) vs. FF sensors (24). Based on 8" sensors. Ratio: 3.3, let's generously round it to 5 to allow for less than optimal yields. If they use larger diameter wafers in 2018 [12" ?], that ratio will be even more favorable, closer to 3x. According to various industry sources, production costs should be in the area of around 30 - 40 bucks for APS-C CMOS image sensors. So at factor 5, FF sensors might be around 150 to 200 bucks. Probably already a high guesstimate.

2. Now, if both Canon and Fuji can sell EOS M50/X-T100 APS_C cameras for around 500 retail (including 20% VAT) and with profit [assumed, but "extremely likely" ] then an equivalent FF mirrorfree camera with slightly larger body shell and somewhat stronger DIGIC/processing pipeline and somewhat better power pack should be also possible at 999 [retail].

3. Ah yes, gross margin per unit would be lower. But ... I dare to predict that "the masses" would buy A LOT of "decent FF-sensored Canon "EOS X5" at USD 999". A lot more units than any marginally iterated 6D Mk. III, IV, V mirrorslappers or Nikon Z6/Sony A7 III at 2 grand. Not to mention even more expensive products. 999 is a very nice price point. Just look how well it worked for Canon when they had the wisdom to launch an industry-first digital SLR at 999.

 

[fullstop]

I guess you and I have different definitions of what 'the masses' call affordable

ah, as long as "the masses" are happily buying smartphones for a grand ... then the "photographing masses" should also not balk at 999 for a decent FF mirrorfree camera.

 

[Kit.]

ah, as long as "the masses" are happily buying smartphones for a grand ... then the "photographing masses" should also not balk at 999 for a decent FF mirrorfree camera.

If Canon integrates a dual-SIM Android with camera2 API....

 

[Mikehit]

ah, as long as "the masses" are happily buying smartphones for a grand ... then the "photographing masses" should also not balk at 999 for a decent FF mirrorfree camera.

Which is part of my point. For 'the masses' camera purchases are not high on the agenda because smart phones are 'good enough' as cameras' and once you accept that APS-C will be more than they ever need. Why do they need to go down the FF route?
If you argument is the mirrorless offers the option of smaller kit then APS-C offers even smaller and even cheaper while producing image quality more than most people will ever need.
You keep on going about a smaller cheaper package then denying the very logic when it does not result in the camera that you personally want.

 

[Mikehit]

3. Ah yes, gross margin per unit would be lower. But ... I dare to predict that "the masses" would buy A LOT of "decent FF-sensored Canon "EOS X5" at USD 999". A lot more units than any marginally iterated 6D Mk. III, IV, V mirrorslappers or Nikon Z6/Sony A7 III at 2 grand. Not to mention even more expensive products. 999 is a very nice price point. Just look how well it worked for Canon when they had the wisdom to launch an industry-first digital SLR at 999.

Yes, the masses would buy them. But then SOny, Nikon and everyone else jumps on the same bandwagon and you end up with exactly the same market share you have now except that everyone is making a lot less profit. And a lot less profit means less money to invest in development and innovation.
And to then draw a parallel with a time when Canon were the only one making them to any reasonable extent is ludicrous in the extreme.

 

[fullstop]

yes, but no.
When Canon came with the Digital Rebel @999, Nikon and others could have done so too. But ... it took them a while. Meanwhile Canon's market share gained massively in the meantime. And they got a lot of new customers into their system, who purchased lots of successor products and lenses, even if on average only 1.25 lenses or so. In any case ... record profits.

 

[Mikehit]

yes, but no.
When Canon came with the Digital Rebel @999, Nikon and others could have done so too. But ... it took them a while. Meanwhile Canon's market share gained massively in the meantime. And they got a lot of new customers into their system, who purchased lots of successor products and lenses, even if on average only 1.25 lenses or so. In any case ... record profits.

And it won't happen again. The first digital was totally revolutionary. Mirrorless is a variation and people have perfectly viable alternatives in their hands already and can afford to 'wait and see'. It is a totally different environment.

 

[fullstop]

You keep on going about a smaller cheaper package then denying the very logic when it does not result in the camera that you personally want.

No. There is more than enough demand for "my" mirrorfree compact FF @999. Why should such a product - in addition to more expensive, bigger, fatter ones - not also be offered?.

"Canon proudly announces the all-new EOS X50 camera. Full-size sensor goodness! More photographic possibilities at your hand. Bright viewfinder to frame your images. AI-powered autofocus system to get them sharp. Great touchscreen and a few wheels and buttons for quick and simple operation. Advanced imaging technology in a compact package. 100% guaranteed free of smoke, mirrors, vibrations and noise. And best of all: yours for only USD/€999.

Enjoy the future of photography.

Innovative Canon can. And so can you.

 

[BillB]

FF buyers want high end premium. If you want small, lightweight, decent cameras and lenses then look to crop.

I will admit that Canon is missing an opportunity here. Imagine how well the M series would sell if they just introduced a few more lightweight but high performing primes like the 22mm f/2, and zooms like the EF-M 11-22.

Hindsight speculation is really great. There will never be any facts to prove you wrong.

 

[Mikehit]

No. There is more than enough demand for "my" mirrorfree compact FF @999. Why should such a product - in addition to more expensive, bigger, fatter ones - not also be offered?.

"Canon proudly announces the all-new EOS X50 camera. Full-size sensor goodness! More photographic possibilities at your hand. Bright viewfinder to frame your images. AI-powered autofocus system to get them sharp. Great touchscreen and a few wheels and buttons for quick and simple operation. Advanced imaging technology in a compact package. 100% guaranteed free of smoke, mirrors, vibrations and noise. And best of all: yours for only USD/€999.

Enjoy the future of photography.

Innovative Canon can. And so can you.

You really don't understand business economics do you? Or the economics of doing business?
Question: why hasn't anyone done it? Not Canon, but anyone?
Answer: Company X throws all in with a FF at 1,000 USD. Within 6 months all companies are doing it and the only result is that the market is exactly as it is now but everyone is making much less money.
And the 1,000 USD mirrorless FF price will pull down the price of the 5D4, 6D2, D850, A9, A73 so that makes it worse.

As you seemed to miss that logic first time round, does repeating it help?

And this is brand agnostic. Any company that starts such a price band had better be prepared for a shitstorm of bad profit warnings. The only long term result would be Sony pulling out because they have better things to do with their money, Nikon not surviving (they have no other business areas to supplement the imaging business) and Canon deciding they will make more money with security and surveillance cameras.

 

[neuroanatomist]

AvTvM just wants Canon to make his personal unicorn camera and lenses. The rest of the lineup —heck, the rest of reality— be damned.

 

[dtaylor]

Those days are really over. Today, every serious amateur (not even to mention pro's) should be able to get decent, affordable FF-sensored cameras and matching lenses at affordable prices and not having to put up with half-format or even quarter-format sensored gear [unless they pursue such "exotic" niches of photographic interest where a smaler sensor is of advantage].

Why should they be able to do this? Because you wish it?

It's easy to show that FF sensors are more expensive just on wafer sizes/yields. But what you don't see is economies of scale where APS-C sensors are made in far larger numbers than FF.

That said, there is a $1k "FF Rebel" available right now: the Canon 6D. Yet it has not swept the market, and crop remains dominant. Why? Truth be told FF may push the IQ envelope but the envelope is already huge for APS-C systems. Any shipping crop body with a decent lens can produce stunning 16x20/24 landscape photos through ISO 800. Do you realize how few consumers ever make a 16x20? Do you think consumers are regularly producing 48" exhibition prints of Yosemite?

Crop more than meets their needs and they either get to save money or enjoy extra features. The masses are not clamoring for FF.

Let's not forget the wrinkle of "matching lenses." It's not easy to make corner-to-corner sharp FF glass. FF buyers demand it, but it's expensive. There's not a huge market for cheap FF glass that sacrifices speed and IQ.

I know, CaNikonSony want to push hard to go always more hi-end. "Premium" [= making people pay a lot more for a product than its true, functional value] ... it will only accelerate the "spiral of death".

Have you priced Sony FF equipment?

It's not what they're pushing. It's what the market is demanding. FF has become the medium format of today. A profitable niche, but a niche where the utmost in IQ is expected. Low sales volume + perfection is priced accordingly.