Back to the Future Parts 1/2/3 Canon Strategy

[Sella174]

In that spirit...

Brilliant!!!


Back to the Topic ... I think Canon is somewhat worried about their "mid-range" cameras, as they cannot (a) make them too good, as that will pull sales away from their xD lot; but they've (b) raised the bar considerably with the xxxD range, which means they have to offer a lot more to entice people into buying the xxD offering.

Sure they had a whale of time when digital took off, as it basically gave them the opportunity to "downgrade" the specs on their cameras to pre-2000 "Rebel" level ... I mean, it took them until last year (2012) to finally present us with a non-1D camera that has an AF system nearly as good as the EOS 3 (of 1998) - that's fourteen (14) years! But now the end has come ... m4/3 has proven viable and is now a stable system that is getting better by the month ... mobile device cameras are more than adequate for daily snaps ... and still Canon insists on crippling their cheap DSLR cameras ... hey, if you're gonna put a DiG!C5 inside the 100D, enable all its features ... otherwise, what's the point?

Canon will continue dominating two markets ... the sports slash nature scene (extreme telephoto & FPS) and the beginner segment (until Olympus and Panasonic cotton that they should make DSLM cameras at xxxD prices and get their distribution network up to standard).

 

[paul13walnut5]

I mean, it took them until last year (2012) to finally present us with a non-1D camera that has an AF system nearly as good as the EOS 3 (of 1998) - that's fourteen (14) years!

I know what you are getting at, but the EOS 3 cost nearly £1000 new 14 years ago, so it wasn't a mass market product, and to be fair, most folk don't need that kind of AF performance.

I do wish that in the intervening 14 years ECF had made a comeback, because I loved it. I think the EOS 3 had the best AF of any EOS camera to date. I would buy a 5D4 or 1DXI if it had ECF.

 

[noisejammer]

I'll chip in my $0.02

First I'll fess up. I'm a luddite, I bought my first smart phone last October. (Before that I had a Blackberry...) Anyway, I have used my phone to make some images and the quality is limited by the pixel size. I'm a physicist so you can trust me on this - Physics says it will ever be thus. Of course, the signal to noise may improve by 2 stops (using a Foveon-like flip chip) - but the same can be done for other sensors.

However... I like call myself a photographer too. To prove this to myself, I bought a 1D4 and a 5D2. By any realistic measure, both are excellent cameras. I have a bag full of ZE glass and a few white lenses too. Lenses are not the problem either.

Weight and bulk are. They are VERY BIG problems indeed.

The only reason I will carry 30 lbs of camera gear is maximise image quality. Offer me something that does the same job but can be used more frequently and I may buy it. I doubt that makes me unusual. I got fed up leaving my camera at home so I took a flyer at a used Fuji X-E1 and a couple of lenses.

Here's the message - the image quality is the equal of my DSLR's.

I think this means the SLR camera is about to disappear. Fuji caused it with the X100. Zeiss has realised it too - they've figured there's lots of money to be made with lenses suited to mirrorless APS-C cameras. Sony evidently suspects it (witness the RX1.)

Of course, it won't happen this year, or maybe even next... but don't hold your breath, waiting for a 5D Mk V.

BTW - I have an EOS 3. To the person who claimed its autofocus was better that a 1D3... dream right on. There are three points to choose from but the resolution of film is about equal to 2 Mp so you can't actually tell if it misfocused...

 

[Singsling]

Ces't moi! (thats French for I'm back) Thankyou for the words of encouragement.
First I apologise for calling the 1100D a Dog, it was somewhat harsh, I should have said somthing like "it's specifications are dated now"

Second: The hole point of this thread was to get a great discussion going on the topic of future strategy by Canon and how it might affect us, by the quality of the responses this descussion seems to be shaping up nicely.

Third: Still dont get it Wickidwombat/pdirestajr then I suggest you split like a bananna.

P.S Hope you approve of that one Sith Zombie

 

[paul13walnut5]

I'll chip in my $0.02

First I'll fess up. I'm a luddite, I bought my first smart phone last October. (Before that I had a Blackberry...) Anyway, I have used my phone to make some images and the quality is limited by the pixel size. I'm a physicist so you can trust me on this - Physics says it will ever be thus. Of course, the signal to noise may improve by 2 stops (using a Foveon-like flip chip) - but the same can be done for other sensors.

However... I like call myself a photographer too. To prove this to myself, I bought a 1D4 and a 5D2. By any realistic measure, both are excellent cameras. I have a bag full of ZE glass and a few white lenses too. Lenses are not the problem either.

Weight and bulk are. They are VERY BIG problems indeed.

The only reason I will carry 30 lbs of camera gear is maximise image quality. Offer me something that does the same job but can be used more frequently and I may buy it. I doubt that makes me unusual. I got fed up leaving my camera at home so I took a flyer at a used Fuji X-E1 and a couple of lenses.

Here's the message - the image quality is the equal of my DSLR's.

I think this means the SLR camera is about to disappear. Fuji caused it with the X100. Zeiss has realised it too - they've figured there's lots of money to be made with lenses suited to mirrorless APS-C cameras. Sony evidently suspects it (witness the RX1.)

Of course, it won't happen this year, or maybe even next... but don't hold your breath, waiting for a 5D Mk V.

BTW - I have an EOS 3. To the person who claimed its autofocus was better that a 1D3... dream right on. There are three points to choose from but the resolution of film is about equal to 2 Mp so you can't actually tell if it misfocused...

It was me!

Some 1d3 users would have had it that a M is better than their copy.

Film at 2MP? I used to get clean detailed 40mp scans on my minolta dimage scan elite 5400 with velvia 50.
And as I was scanning rgb emulsion you could argue (a la foveon since you seem keen) that it was equivalent to a 120mp bayer scan. But I won't. Even if you go down the inverse square route of digital sampling thats still a strong 6mp and certainly with zero colour interpolation inlike bayer sensors....

And I was talking about the Af system, specifically ECF. We can't do a comparison with any digital camera as it wasn't implemented on any. I didn't want this to become a film vs digital debate.

 

[Hillsilly]

... so I took a flyer at a used Fuji X-E1 and a couple of lenses...

Not wanting to divert too much, but as the owner of some nice Canon cameras, how do you think the X-E1 stacks up in comparison? You're obviously happy with the image quality and the size of the system. But how are you finding the AF speed and EVF? Since buying it, have you tended to use it a lot, or do you still predominantly use the 1D4 and 5D2?

I'm curious how much further mirrorless cameras need to go in order to be regared as comparable with DSLRs for non-sports / non-action photography. Or do you think they are there already?

 

[dick ranez]

Two truths - 1. you gets whats you pay for, and 2. the best camera is one with you.
The smart phone market plays to both, and it also explains the size and price variance of the p&s offerings by all
manufacturers. As camera manufacturers add none photographic features such as wi-fi and gps, many of the
"advantages" of the cell phone camera go away. Cell phones are getting bigger (look at the new Samsung
Galaxy) and p&s cameras are getting smaller to the point that the display takes the whole back panel. The pixel
wars on the low end are about done - rumors about Nokia's 40+ megapix phone not withstanding - as there
is little practical difference between 8/12/16 mp cameras in image quality terms = particularly at 4X6. I think the
market leaders in this segment will be the ones that manufacture their own chips - canon, samsung, sony, panasonic as examples. One way or the other, this segment will remain important for manufacturers as a
profit center and for "brand capture" purposes.

 

[noisejammer]

... BTW - I have an EOS 3. To the person who claimed its autofocus was better that a 1D3... dream right on. There are three points to choose from but the resolution of film is about equal to 2 Mp so you can't actually tell if it misfocused...

It was me!

Some 1d3 users would have had it that a M is better than their copy.

Film at 2MP? I used to get clean detailed 40mp scans on my minolta dimage scan elite 5400 with velvia 50.
And as I was scanning rgb emulsion you could argue (a la foveon since you seem keen) that it was equivalent to a 120mp bayer scan. But I won't. Even if you go down the inverse square route of digital sampling thats still a strong 6mp and certainly with zero colour interpolation inlike bayer sensors....

And I was talking about the Af system, specifically ECF. We can't do a comparison with any digital camera as it wasn't implemented on any. I didn't want this to become a film vs digital debate.

Hi Paul - I didn't want to either. I'm still a self-confessed Luddite and I shoot film too....

However... You might want to look at the resolution of 20+ year old lenses. Very few have spot sizes that are smaller than 20 microns. This means you can't capture more than 50 lp/mm and intrinsically not more than 1800x1200 spots. The fine structure gives the illusion of extraordinary high resolution, which you can capture in scanning but it's really a form of noise.

On the 1D3 vs EOS 3 - I shot tens of thousands of frames with my 1D3. The focus was comparable with my 1D4. The few who had difficulty could have had it resolved with a trip back to Canon. Mark you, they disbelieve us as a matter of routine and it might have taken several trips.

 

[noisejammer]

... so I took a flyer at a used Fuji X-E1 and a couple of lenses...

Not wanting to divert too much, but as the owner of some nice Canon cameras, how do you think the X-E1 stacks up in comparison? You're obviously happy with the image quality and the size of the system. But how are you finding the AF speed and EVF? Since buying it, have you tended to use it a lot, or do you still predominantly use the 1D4 and 5D2?

I'm curious how much further mirrorless cameras need to go in order to be regared as comparable with DSLRs for non-sports / non-action photography. Or do you think they are there already?

Several questions... apologies for the OT but I was asked.

EVF - not as good as an optical finder (particularly if you have a $200 aftermarket screen fitted) but quite usable. The resolution is 2.3 Mp and I can't see granularity. It's fast enough but needs better dynamic range. On the upside, you get the benefit of enhanced ISO in dim conditions. The dioptre range is excellent.

Even though the resolution is higher, I find the viewfinder is not as good as live view on a Canon with a Zacuto loupe. However - if you have it in MF mode, you can click the scroll wheel and get magnified live view of the focus spot in the eyepiece. This is fantastic if you're recycling old MF lenses from another system. (I have a set of Zuiko OM's from years gone by.)

AF - this takes some setting up. Once you configure the camera correctly, the AF is better than a 5D2 (but that's easy.) It's more than sufficient for most of the photography I do (but that's easy too.) There's a focus mash technique that makes the AF near instantaneous but I don't think its good enough for sports or BIF.

Like the AF, correct set-up gets the shutter release well into high-end SLR territory. It clicks at 6 frames per sec and does this without any drama.

On the whole, the best camera is the one you have with you. I still want to use my 5D2 and 1D4 but I've become somewhat reluctant to drag one everywhere I go...

To be fair to the Canon's -

The Canon user interface is streets ahead of the X-E1. Some of the X-E1 button placements are dumb. In particular, you can't select AF point without sticking your left thumb in your right nostril. Someone must have done this to be funny....

It could do with a dedicated DOF preview button and maybe greater flexibility on the assigning of buttons.

The position of the tripod screw is moronic (but RRS fixed that) and it needs a larger grip.

Battery life is ok - in fact it's better than a 5D2 when used as a live view camera.

I find it takes a long time to write files but raw + jpeg is 30Mb and I don't have the world's fastest SD card either. I think this speaks to not enough processor grunt which may be related to battery life.

To summarise - I think Compact System Cameras are already very serious competition for the SLR. There are some wrinkles to work out but the jump in performance between the X100 > X-Pro1 > X-E1 is profound.

 

[paul13walnut5]

... BTW - I have an EOS 3. To the person who claimed its autofocus was better that a 1D3... dream right on. There are three points to choose from but the resolution of film is about equal to 2 Mp so you can't actually tell if it misfocused...

It was me!

Some 1d3 users would have had it that a M is better than their copy.

Film at 2MP? I used to get clean detailed 40mp scans on my minolta dimage scan elite 5400 with velvia 50.
And as I was scanning rgb emulsion you could argue (a la foveon since you seem keen) that it was equivalent to a 120mp bayer scan. But I won't. Even if you go down the inverse square route of digital sampling thats still a strong 6mp and certainly with zero colour interpolation inlike bayer sensors....

And I was talking about the Af system, specifically ECF. We can't do a comparison with any digital camera as it wasn't implemented on any. I didn't want this to become a film vs digital debate.

Hi Paul - I didn't want to either. I'm still a self-confessed Luddite and I shoot film too....

However... You might want to look at the resolution of 20+ year old lenses. Very few have spot sizes that are smaller than 20 microns. This means you can't capture more than 50 lp/mm and intrinsically not more than 1800x1200 spots. The fine structure gives the illusion of extraordinary high resolution, which you can capture in scanning but it's really a form of noise.

On the 1D3 vs EOS 3 - I shot tens of thousands of frames with my 1D3. The focus was comparable with my 1D4. The few who had difficulty could have had it resolved with a trip back to Canon. Mark you, they disbelieve us as a matter of routine and it might have taken several trips.

Okaaaaay, but I'm talking AF...

Did you use ECF on your 3? Would you like to see it on an EOS DSLR?
Most of the lenses I used (and occassionally still use) on my 3 weren't quite 20 years old (the design of my 70-200 dates from 1996 I think - and can still hold it's own in imatests)

 

[Hobby Shooter]

I wish for Canon and everybody else to stop classifying cameras (and lenses) into "entry-level" and "pro" categories. The purchase of a DSLR should be based on (a) budget and (b) requirements. Unless somebody gives me a 1DX (for free), I will never purchase one. For the type of photography that I do, an xxxD is more than adequate.

Hear Hear! A more eloquent version of my earlier point.

In that spirit...

Canon 5D vs 1D

Best ever!
Said from a guy who doesn't know how to use good hardware.

 

[Sella174]

Most of the lenses I used (and occasionally still use) on my 3 weren't quite 20 years old ...

I regularly use my EF 40mm f/2.8 STM on the ol' EOS 3 ...

 

[RLPhoto]

Lets be clear on one thing.

When canon inc filled out the Forms to make a corporation their is two boxes to choose from.

For profit or for non-profit

I believe canon chose wisely.

 

[Sella174]

For profit or for non-profit.

Unlike cattle, goats and chickens which generally multiply by themselves, a for-profit company is dependent on consumers buying their products (or services). If Canon cannot deliver the goods, then consumers will stop giving them money. (Cf. Pentax Corporation.)

 

[RGF]

Welcome to the part 1 thread which deals with Entry Level and Camera's for the Novice. Part 2 will address Amatuer and Enthusiast users. Part 3 will address Advanced user and Pro Camera.

The Idea is to discuss Canon strategy for these three groups so that we as the consumer can take benefit.

So I will start with my take, parts 2 and 3 will be started in one and two weeks time respectively.

Assumptions that Canon has made:

1. The Smart Phone and Tablet Market will advance and grow to the point where it more or less destroys the Point and Shoot/CSC/Mirrorless market this process will take around 5 years. What customer wants to carry or use up the space of 2 portable devices in their Handbags. We must prepare and protect ourselves for this.
2. There has to be a differentiator What is it: Everyone aspires to be a photographer, people who walk around with Smart Phones and Tablets are not photographers they are simply casual tourists or they are out with their friends having a good time. A real photographer carries a DSLR. OK we found it! Carrying A DSLR is a lifestyle statement it sets Photographers apart from the SP/T users, everyone in the world realises this difference, so as all as we have to do is feed and maintain this differentiator and we stay in Business.
3. We are the Market Leader and to a great extent we will ignore what our competition is doing, we will follow our Strategy through the peaks and troughs and in the end we will survive and still be market leader. We believe this wholeheartedly.
4. Our current and our competitors product range is all over the place, first thing we need to do is standardise the products we sell for each market segment.

Let the story begin welcome to the Back to the Future Part 1 thread relating to Entry Level Camera's for the Novice

re #4. forget competitors. Products are more or less standardized with common sensors. Electronics probably also standardized except for lower performance components. Difference is firmware.

More important, is how to differentiate vs competitions (smart phones - which BTW have fixed lenses). Think Marketing 101

 

[paul13walnut5]

For profit or for non-profit.

Unlike cattle, goats and chickens which generally multiply by themselves, a for-profit company is dependent on consumers buying their products (or services). If Canon cannot deliver the goods, then consumers will stop giving them money. (Cf. Pentax Corporation.)

Pentax seem to be hanging on, and have some very nice design work coming out, I thought the K-01 was excellent and the new MX-1 very nice also. They've always ploughed their own furrow, Pentax, I reckon if I didn't shoot Canon I'd shoot pentax. Certainly what you get for the money (that 16MP sensor, weather sealing, massive legacy of inexpensive lenses) lang may the pentax lum reek. They are an interesting company making capable cameras at sensible prices. Canon could learn a lot from them.

 

[Sella174]

Problem with Pentax is that over here in South Africa they are very difficult to find - forget about "Limited Edition" lenses - and the price is such that a Canon EOS 7D is cheaper. Also, they've crippled the K-mount so much that all that nice legacy lenses - especially PENTAX-M - is too much of a hassle. The K-01 ... never saw one for sale anywhere over here.

 

[Singsling]

Why did you buy your first DSLR and under what circumstances:

I had the desire to create good photo's better than I could achieve with a phone camera, so I made the decision to finally purchase the type of Camera I had always wanted a DSLR.

To be honest I dropped lucky, at that time I did not really know anything about photography, I had never heard of this forum and I had never really read anything on the subject. Worse I purchased the Camera from a Department Store and in hindsight it transpires that the Salesman knew very little either. Today I would not do such a thing because I am much wiser.

When I say I dropped lucky I fell for the 550D this was opposed to all the other brands and Canons other offerings. Why? I liked the feel of it and I suppose I liked the package that came with it (ignorant or what!) I do remember considering the 5D2 and I had the money to purchase it but as a newbee it somehow made me feel intimidated (How dare you and you have no right to own me with your current skill level and no I don't have a pop up flash you idiot) so I left it on the shelf.

Following the purchase the Camera never left my Hand and the instruction manual became dog eared very quickly. I bought Books and surfed the net, began to understand DOF/Aperture/ISO and the like. My photography improved no end.

So I come back to one of my original points owning a DSLR allows a newbee to improve their level of competence and sets you apart from being a smart phone or tablet photographer and I wonder how many newbees started out with a similar story. But in point owning a DSLR sets you apart from the crowd and starts you off on the journey to improve your photographic skills. Unfortunately it is a lifestyle statement that we have to live with. So hold your trophy with pride as you shoot away.

So what's your story and what got you into Photography what prompted you to purchase your first DSLR?

 

[East Wind Photography]

My desire to take the best quality photographs possible. I was tired of taking sub par photos and then open up Nat Geo and see such breath taking work. I now regularly, daily, produce such quality and now I can focus more on the subject instead of blurry images with bad CA and barrel distortion.

I shot with film 30 years ago and during the 90s and early 2000's digital was just not there yet and film was getting more difficult to work with (I had my own full color darkroom). Chemicals were getting scarce and more expensive and a lot of local suppliers were closing shop. For a time I had little options available so started a family. During that time the digital revolution took hold and today the equipment far exceeds what was available back then...we also now have instant gratification of seeing what we just shot (chimping)!

Some of us need a 12 step program but in the mean time, the wonders of the world beg to be captured and shared and that is my mission.

Why did you buy your first DSLR and under what circumstances:

I had the desire to create good photo's better than I could achieve with a phone camera, so I made the decision to finally purchase the type of Camera I had always wanted a DSLR.

To be honest I dropped lucky, at that time I did not really know anything about photography, I had never heard of this forum and I had never really read anything on the subject. Worse I purchased the Camera from a Department Store and in hindsight it transpires that the Salesman knew very little either. Today I would not do such a thing because I am much wiser.

When I say I dropped lucky I fell for the 550D this was opposed to all the other brands and Canons other offerings. Why? I liked the feel of it and I suppose I liked the package that came with it (ignorant or what!) I do remember considering the 5D2 and I had the money to purchase it but as a newbee it somehow made me feel intimidated (How dare you and you have no right to own me with your current skill level and no I don't have a pop up flash you idiot) so I left it on the shelf.

Following the purchase the Camera never left my Hand and the instruction manual became dog eared very quickly. I bought Books and surfed the net, began to understand DOF/Aperture/ISO and the like. My photography improved no end.

So I come back to one of my original points owning a DSLR allows a newbee to improve their level of competence and sets you apart from being a smart phone or tablet photographer and I wonder how many newbees started out with a similar story. But in point owning a DSLR sets you apart from the crowd and starts you off on the journey to improve your photographic skills. Unfortunately it is a lifestyle statement that we have to live with. So hold your trophy with pride as you shoot away.

So what's your story and what got you into Photography what prompted you to purchase your first DSLR?

 

[Aglet]

Pentax seem to be hanging on, and have some very nice design work coming out, I thought the K-01 was excellent and the new MX-1 very nice also. They've always ploughed their own furrow, Pentax, I reckon if I didn't shoot Canon I'd shoot pentax. Certainly what you get for the money (that 16MP sensor, weather sealing, massive legacy of inexpensive lenses) lang may the pentax lum reek. They are an interesting company making capable cameras at sensible prices. Canon could learn a lot from them.

I agree. I started with a great deal on a Q, liked the interface so much I sprung for a K-01 when it was being dumped at super low prices. Liked it so much I bough a 2nd one and another Q to use for, well, I'm not sure yet.
I now have K-5 IIs and a pile of K-mount glass, new and old, to play with.
I'm really enjoying shooting with Pentax more than with Nikon or even Canon, despite how familiar I am with the latter and how much I like the clean raw files of the former. Pentax is like a decent combination of Canon operability with SoNikon raw file quality. Sensible control layout, lots of customization and good ergonomics. Some poor ergonomics and control layout options too but, overall, I enjoy using my K-5 like I enjoyed the 7D and I feel more comfortable with knowing I can push that raw file pretty hard if I want to.
OTOH, the non-AA-filtered K-5 IIs (k52s from now on) delivers great per-pixel sharpness with a good lens, but is also showing up false color in some shots I didn't expect to have problems with so I may have to opt for a regular K5 for those scenes where I'm dealing with lots of specular hilites.

EDIT: forgot to add, I wish Ricoh-Pentax would learn a few marketing tricks from CANON. I don't ever recall ever seeing a Pentax ad. If it wasn't for the encouragement of ONE Pentax shooting friend, and plenty of solid convincing from my local Pentax rep, I'd likely have never bought into the system. I'd have been more tempted to go Fuji.
And that's my ABC (Anybody But Canon) story. I'll likely end up using the weather-sealed Pentax gear more for foul-weather work than my other systems. Their weather-resistant consumer level lenses are a great idea and they work well enough to use them in inclement conditions where better sharpness and optical performance is not essential.