Canon’s upcoming announcements recap
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
At the low end, the best reason to switch is that another system may open up a new facet of photography as lower net price, because the system (including lenses, bodies, etc has a better priced offering.
I think the best reason to switch (or not to switch) on the high end is availability of your dream lens. Unlike the final days of dslr where everyone had very similar zooms and primes, the lens offerings on MILC are NOT the same, especially in the high end, but also in the midrange.
Upvote
0
That is very true if current EF users have a significant number of L lenses... as I did. I now have only two EF L lenses left 4 years after migration. One should be migrated to the RF14-35/4 at the end of the year. The zoom fisheye has no comparable RF option but the 14mm width of the 14-35mm will negate a lot of the fisheye uniqueness.
It may be possible for Sony to be competitive overall in a migration if 3rd party lenses are sufficient at lower cost and sale of EF lenses still has value in the market.
Upvote
0
I have the impression that there are a bunch of 1DXiii users out there waiting for the R1. The 1DXiii was available Feb 2020 ie just over 4 years ago so the "decade" comment doesn't apply there. The total number of 1D users would't move the unit marketshare needle though.
The R3 may have attracted some to migrate but the R1 is what they are keen to see.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yeah, I think a 1 series -> 1 series upgrade makes sense, but I wonder how much volume we'll actually see from the upgraders. The 1DXIII users are probably a small segment of the overall market in terms of volume, and wedding pros etc seem to mostly use the 5/6 series cameras.
Upvote
0
The instructor for the workshop I followed last week is still using an EF 1 series and is waiting for the R1. He didn’t like the R3 enough to go mirrorless and he is weary
of the expected €8500 price tag for the R1.
He is still very happy with the wildlife shots he gets and rents a MILC every now and then to stay informed, but doesn’t feel switching is worth it, yet. And he’s a Canon Ambassador
Upvote
0
Zenfolio (link) published the 2024 state of photography, with 7600+ respondents (+/- 75% in the USA, roughly half of the respondents are full-time photographers).The “marketshare“ of DSLR is still 40%. If this is representative of the whole professional market, there is a substantial “replacement” market for high end MILC’s.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That is only a safe assumption if Sony sells a lot more FF mirrorless than Canon.
The lead could be small enough to make FF DSLR sales significant.
I do not know either way,
Upvote
0
I would say that Nikon had more unusual lenses than Canon.
However, the perception was that Canon lenses were generally superior.
Upvote
0
Maybe, but I would not assume they will all automatically upgrade.
Also, in my experience, quite a lot have already switched to the R3.
Upvote
0
Lots of talk about sales, who is the leader in market share, etc. Since this is not sports, where one roots for a particular team, often for no rational reason, I could not care less who sells the most. I am often amazed at the number of people who seem to care so much about this. Maybe because over the years I have owned Canon, Olympus, Nikon and Sony cameras, I have no particular allegiance. But even if I only owned Canon, I doubt I would care if they were number 1, 2, or 3 in the market share race. What I think is more important is who makes the best equipment. Who makes it easier to get the shot you want. This is the reason I often praise or defend the companies I think do the best job and criticize those that don't. Obviously, I do not have any actual data in regards to repair figures or what materials and workmanship go into the products from the various brands. I only have my own experience and whatever anecdotal information one sees on forums over the years as well as internet articles, reviews, and Facebook groups. Based on that quite possibly inaccurate information, I form my opinions. Which is why I often praise Canon, Olympus (now OM Systems) and Nikon and trash Sony. And am amazed at the popularity that Sony has, and credit that success to their less than admirable marketing success. I would never recommend Sony to any new photographer, but would have no problem recommending Canon, OM Systems or Nikon. While spec-wise the brands are all similar, my opinion is that Sony makes the cheapest (not talking price here) cameras, taking numerous shortcuts when it comes to overall quality, and one's shooting experience. I believe their shutters have been the cheapest and most fragile. I have seen numerous posts on Facebook groups of people with torn shutters and comments that indicate that this is pretty normal after about 100,000 shots. There was also a class action lawsuit a couple years ago in regards the shutters tearing with less then 5,000 shots, if I remember correctly. Reviewers comparing the EVF of The Nikon Z9, compared it to the latest comparable Sony and wished the Nikon had the same higher resolution, but all of the reviewers preferred the NIkon EVF! Clearer, better image, leading them to conclude that Sony was using cheaper glass in their EVF. Sony's issue with dust on sensors was well known, thus leading me to believe that the dust removal system was either much cheaper (or perhaps non existent). Ergonomically, Sony has clearly cut corners and only in their most recent models has made major improvements, but even now, the distance between grip and lens is insufficient for many. I will admit that that the last Sony I owned was their 2nd generation A7. So, things are obviously better now, but I have to wonder if the philosophy has actually changed much, That camera was nowhere near the quality of my Canon 6D that I thought I was going to replace, or my Olympus E-M1 mark II. It was, by far, the worst camera I have ever owned. I see no reason to think things have changed at Sony. They seem to prioritize specs and cut corners when it comes to everyhting else. Just my opinion, of course, but that is far more important to me than sales figures or who is market leader.
Upvote
0
Right, Nikon had some very particular lenses, unlike Canon (220° fisheye, 2000mm mirror tele, Medical Nikkor...).
Now, it's just the other way around.
My experience with the mechanical quality of "normal" Nikkors was not so great, loose helicoids were the rule like, very quickly, dust inside the lenses. After having jumped into the Leica R & M ship, going back to Nikon became impossible, in comparison the "normal" Nikkors felt kind of cheaply made. Yet, the Nikon bodies were mechanically superb, like their super-teles!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
