Analyzing where Canon lags behind in the market - Share your thoughts

[Josh Denver]

Where does Canon fall behind the competition?

Can we make a list of that, that's completely objective and is neither fanboyish nor Sony-is-king-ish?

This list I want to make is comprehensive, meaning starts from the lowest end up to the highest end. And is divided into two sections, Bodies and Lenses.

Only where the current Canon models are inferior to an existing competitor.

I'll start with the very low end failure:

-Canon's cheapest DSLR is very poorly featured compared to Nikon's and Sony's and practically everything else.

It's the 1300D. Nikon makes a MUCH more compelling camera to draw the first SLR buyer. Their Nikon D3400 has:

-24mp class leading sensor vs the old 550D 18mp sensor with immensely lower image quality.

-Little known fact, the 24mp sensor in the D3400 up to D7200 produces very sharp HD video with no aliasing and moire. While the 1300D has moire and aliasing and softness.

-Snapbridge blutooth connectivity is very fast and very appealing to today's teen/social media oriented market.

-The 1300D has the lowest screen resolution in the current world of SLRs.

-The 1300D comes with the old 18-55mm non-STM lens while the Nikon comes with the newest STM like model.

-The 1300D is 3fps vs 5fps

-Aside from poor video, tops at 1080p 30p while d3400 does sharp 1080p 60p.

-Much lower end AF system

This camera model just needs to be erased or upgraded fast. Cann doesn't realize it's the entry point of the customer, and now on the shelf there's a much superior nikon.

1- So Canon's first fail is in their first Body, the T6/1300D.

There is no failing DSLR that I can think of rather than this. Given that 6D is a different line from d750 and is an old release. All Canon bodies from the 750D to 1DxII arw competitive.

_______________________________________________________

2- 50mm and 85mm lenses.

Canon were always said to be bought for their superior lenses but now, two of the most important key lenses for photography are surpassed by other manufacturers. Leaving the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.2 L two over-priced and low quality lenses. (This is in relation to Sigma ART lenses and Sony Batis lenses, etc)

2- Second current Canon fail is two lenses: 50mm and 85mm primes.

__________________________________________________

3- Third failure is the lack of interest in video. For example, all Canon DSLRs starting from a t6 to 80D have horrible moire/aliased soft video by today's nikon and Sony standards. Their lack of interest and fail also comes in the form of Sony A6300 to A7sII cameras which have superior video quality and video features and Even Nikon D3400 to D7200 superior HD (This Canon fail does not include the 1DxII, 1DC which are a different class or 5DIV which is yet to be tested. Everything below that shooting video with a Sony will give you better detail and more aggressive video features like S-Log and peaking and EVFs and if you want to retain canon's pleasing Colours/motion then shooting on Nikons is much better for anything below 5D4. They also make pretty images SOOC)

__________________________________________________

I know the market really well and shot a lot of these cameras and lenses and see that:

Canon, when analyzed generally (as is whole models not small features) are failing and vastly behind the competition in:

1- Entry Level SLR. T6/1300D
2- 50mm prime and 85mm prime lenses
3- Overall video quality & features


What do you have to add?

Remember, this is not a camera vs camera debate, just a general zoomed out look of where Canon is behind in the competing market.

-Wedding FF camera with tilty/swivly screen?

Might be a fail vs the D750 but will leave that to you guys. Remember this is not ''what I want from Canon'', it's where are they failing behind rivals?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'll start with the very low end failure:

-Canon's cheapest DSLR is very poorly featured compared to Nikon's and Sony's and practically everything else.

It's the 1300D. Nikon makes a MUCH more compelling camera to draw the first SLR buyer. Their Nikon D3400 has:

What do you have to add?

I'll add that Nikon's 'MUCH more compelling camera' costs $150 more right now on Amazon (body + 18-55), that's 30% more expensive. That is probably one of the reasons the D3400 which you call 'MUCH more compelling' is #81 in Amazon's DSLR sales ranking, while the T6 which you call a 'poorly featured failure' is #20 on that list. So it would seem that from the perspective of both buyers and Canon, the T6 is rather successful.

Incidentally, another Canon 'failure', the 50/1.4, outsells the much cheaper Nikon 50/1.8 and far outsells the Nikon 50/1.4 on Amazon. So when people wonder why Canon hasn't updated this aging lens, there's your reason – it remains very popular.

 

[dak723]

Good lord, man! How many hours did you waste writing this up?

Repeat after me: Every camera maker makes cameras that take excellent pics. The cameras are all far better than anything made years ago. I am able to enjoy photography like never before in history.

There is so much negativity and whining that kills this forum it is truly disgusting. If you don't enjoy photography with the fantastic cameras that are made today - coupled with the ease of manipulating images on your computer - then you have real problems.

And by the way, Canon's 1300D is NOT the camera to compare with Nikon's D3400. That would be The 750D. The 1300D is Canon's "budget" model using the older tech from Rebels of a couple generations back. The fact that you are unaware of this basic fact makes your entire argument against it meaningless.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I'd focus more in areas like lower performance in sensors WRT DR and noise at high ISO.
Another aspect is the mirrorless camera offerings, despite the newly announced EOS-M5, which lags behind the market competitors in many aspects and obviously EF-M lenses offerings being very limited with no fast zoom lens at all.

 

[Josh Denver]

I'll start with the very low end failure:

-Canon's cheapest DSLR is very poorly featured compared to Nikon's and Sony's and practically everything else.

It's the 1300D. Nikon makes a MUCH more compelling camera to draw the first SLR buyer. Their Nikon D3400 has:

What do you have to add?

I'll add that Nikon's 'MUCH more compelling camera' costs $150 more right now on Amazon (body + 18-55), that's 30% more expensive. That is probably one of the reasons the D3400 which you call 'MUCH more compelling' is #81 in Amazon's DSLR sales ranking, while the T6 which you call a 'poorly featured failure' is #20 on that list. So it would seem that from the perspective of both buyers and Canon, the T6 is rather successful.

Incidentally, another Canon 'failure', the 50/1.4, outsells the much cheaper Nikon 50/1.8 and far outsells the Nikon 50/1.4 on Amazon. So when people wonder why Canon hasn't updated this aging lens, there's your reason – it remains very popular.

What do sales rankings have to do with the quality/performance of a product. So by the site's market sales, I announce the 1300D better than the D3400.

________________

The 1200D series line compares directly with the D3300 line. The 750D line with a swivle screen compares directly with the D5500 line. So the ''fact that makes my argument baseless'' is a wrong one,

_____________________

This is a topic for you, using experience from other cameras/lens experience, to list what Canon lacks behind the competition. Not to hate on Canon. In fact if you take time to check my previous posts you'll find me a Canon fanboy

______________________

4- Mirrorless camera performance and small lens selection

Thanks Hjalmarg1 for adding No.4

 

[Tugela]

I think Canon are not doing too much wrong in general, except that they have badly miscalculated the growth of the hybrid camera in the advanced consumer market, which has opened the door to very vigorous competition. And that door is just staying open longer and longer. Canon's efforts to catch up are just sad and a joke. As a strategic business decision it is just mind bogglingly short sighted.

 

[Mikehit]

What do sales rankings have to do with the quality/performance of a product. So by the site's market sales, I announce the 1300D better than the D3400.

I don't believe Neuro said 'better' but was pointing out that they are in different price brackets which could well explain why the Canon model you mentioned outsells the Nikon model you mentioned.
You compared the Canon 1300 and the Nikon 3400 - it is hard to say which is 'better'until you know why the Canon sells more units and price seems to be the main differentiator - people go into a shop wanting a camera at a certain price point, not saying 'I want the best entry level camera in that range'.


But I disagree with the basic premise of your original post. A manufacturer decides on a price point and then designs/builds the camera to that price point - so the only real way to not turn this into a Canon-beatdown is to ask 'what areas do Canon lag behind and what areas do they do better than the competition' and see if the compromises are justifiable. Cherry-picking the best features from each competitor is meaningless because each manufacturer has their own hot buttons and not all 'best features' will be incorporated into one camera.

 

[Sporgon]

What do sales rankings have to do with the quality/performance of a product. So by the site's market sales, I announce the 1300D better than the D3400.

I don't believe Neuro said 'better' but was pointing out that they are in different price brackets which could well explain why the Canon model you mentioned outsells the Nikon model you mentioned.

Yes, exactly. You could argue 90% of people wouldn't notice any performance difference between the cameras; 99% would notice the 150 saved.

Because we have to purchase these things with that wretched thing called money you can make a case for saying that if one is affordable and the other not the affordable one is ahead, especially when in reality there is naf all difference in performance to most people.

 

[Sharlin]

You seem to have an unfounded assumption that it matters to Canon whether the 1300D is "better" than the D3400 by some metric that you happen to find relevant. Newsflash: it doesn't. What matters to Canon is that the 1300D has a feature set and price point that's attractive to the target audience. It appears they have succeeded in doing that. The point of entry-level cameras is to sell a lot of units, period. It's totally immaterial what people who wouldn't buy one anyway think about them.

 

[Sharlin]

BTW, I find it amusing that Canon got flak because the 1300D had so few improvements compared to the 1200D... Well, the D3400 has mostly removed features compared to the D3300

 

[Mikehit]

BTW, I find it amusing that Canon got flak because the 1300D had so few improvements compared to the 1200D... Well, the D3400 has mostly removed features compared to the D3300

What? You mean that Nikon indulges in....[cue ominous music]....market segmentation?

 

[Sharlin]

What? You mean that Nikon indulges in....[cue ominous music]....market segmentation?

I guess when Nikon does that it's called "streamlining" and "making usability improvements" :

 

[bholliman]

This is just another round of Canon bashing. Despite "lagging the market" as you put it in many areas, they continue to be the #1 camera maker in the world and are not losing market share. I'd call that good business. Their overall EOS system is the best top to bottom "system" out there. Sure, they don't have top products in all areas, but would you really expect any company to?

I think Canon are not doing too much wrong in general, except that they have badly miscalculated the growth of the hybrid camera in the advanced consumer market, which has opened the door to very vigorous competition. And that door is just staying open longer and longer. Canon's efforts to catch up are just sad and a joke. As a strategic business decision it is just mind bogglingly short sighted.

We can think Canon is "wrong" as much as we like and it won't change their business strategy. They are doing just fine in the market place and that is what matters to corporate leaders and investors.

The M5 may not have a bunch of bleeding edge technology, but is a very solid mirror less offering based on the specs. It will sell well since its part of the EOS system and has Canon's market leading service and support network behind it.

 

[Hillsilly]

"Where does Canon lag?" is an odd question for this site. We're all Canon users. We've all weighed up the alternatives and have decided that Canon doesn't lag behind, but, on balance, is the number one choice. And that's why some of us are perplexed.

You might get more interesting answers asking this question on other forums. It would be interesting to hear why people don't choose Canon.

When people ask me what camera to buy, I can't logically recommend anything except Canon (and I personally shoot Fuji 90%+ of the time.) You can cherry pick details to your hearts content, but even most ardent non-Canon shooters acknowledge that the Canon system is the most comprehensive.

That being said, as a Fuji Fanboi, I'd say Canon lags the market by not having a medium format alternative.

 

[IglooEater]

If you look at Samsung's NX1, or Sony and Nikon's fiscal reports, it would seem that canon is lagging behind quite a bit on the road to fiscal insolvability.

 

[Maximilian]

Hi Josh!

To make it short: I am no Canon fan boy, I try to be as objective as possible and I really can't follow your argumentation. Esp. because it seems to focus mostly on the entry level body.
For a few bucks more you already get a 100D/SL1 or 700D/Rebel ??. Both still cheaper than the Nikon D3400.

And I can't follow you especially because such Canon bashing threads OPs only show the negative sides and are not willing to weight up the positives at the same time as well.
And the bashing always ignores the market position of Canon, showing that their overall package is fitting to the customer needs better than other offerings.


When it comes to being more specific about where Canon lags behind, here is my impression:

1. Sensor tech:
Yes! although Canon caught up here lately, other sensors a still a little bit better.
For some this is a deal breaker for a lot it isn't, because in RL photography it seems not that important.

2. Lenses:
Yes! Some lenses seem to be or are outdated but others are upgraded lately and blow the competition out of the water.
AND:
When it comes to your mentioned FL of 50 mm you totally ignore the absolutely fantastic value of the 50/1.8 STM.
This lens is 50% or more cheaper than anything comparable from the competition. And this is a great entry level prime lens attracting people into the Canon system (if interested in more than just double zoom kits).
Same to the EF-S 10-18 STM.
This in combination with a cheap entry level body gets people attracted.

3. Video:
I am no videographer, so here I cannot offer detailed arguments.
But I am very sure that Canon is NOT ignoring that market.
It seems they have a different market approach than some expect them to do.


So I would recommend you to be more objective and at the same time mention where the competition lags behind.
And if you find out that there are more points pro than con Canon that maybe you only have to patient until Canon fixes that or the competition is finally able to catch up and then it's up to you to jump ship.

Yours,
Maximilian

 

[Sabaki]

So I'm using this thread to throw my own question into the mix

Here's me being super-duper hyper critical here but I'd like to know how Canon's top lenses compare to the comparable Zeiss offerings.

Zeiss's lenses offer have metal bodies, including filter threads and the image quality just seems that bit better, even if marginally, than what Canon are offering.

So my question: would the average Canon user prefer Canon's lenses were made using more metal and would Zeiss level optical quality delight you more?

 

[JohanCruyff]

Canon often seem to lag behind when people read the specs. When people use cameras, it seems to be a completely different story.


Back to topic:

• AA filter removal? Maybe it's time to extend the 5DSR experiment to other models (starting with the 6D Mark II?).
• Crop mode (APS-C style) for all the full frame models?

 

[Hillsilly]

Sabaki, which Zeiss lenses are you curious about? A lot of people are excited by the Otus lenses. But at $4k+ you'd expect them to be good. I'm sure if Canon wanted to sell a $4k 50mm lens, it would pretty good too. Whether anybody would buy it is another question.

 

[neuroanatomist]

What do sales rankings have to do with the quality/performance of a product.

Why does lacking some features that a competitor offers make a product a 'failure'? My 1D X lacks in-camera HDR...so it's 'lagging behind' my PowerShot S100 and it's a failure, right?

You're arguing that all those D3400 features you list make the D3400, in your words, "a MUCH more compelling camera." More compelling to who? To you? Who the heck cares? If the D3400 better meets your needs, go buy one. The sales rankings suggest that a lot more people find the T6 to be a more compelling camera that better meets their needs than the D3400.

Thus, your characterization of the T6/1300D as a 'failure' – along with several of your other conclusions – is clearly at odds with objective reality.