Canon Announces The PowerShot N

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,265
1,935
Canada
Zlatko said:
Famateur said:
By the way, to all those upset at Canon for not announcing a new lens or DSLR body: I understand the disappointment, but remember, this is the Consumer Electronics Show, not the Photographer Electronics Show. This is exactly the venue to unveil consumer-oriented (even gimmicky) products.

I don't understand the "upset" at all. And yet it happens every year. They announce products that are intended for someone else -- that meet someone else's needs very nicely -- and everyone else has to complain. It goes something like this:

"They announced the Powershot N. That's a toy! Where is my 7DII!?"
"They announced a 200-400/4 IS zoom. That's for pro sports and wildlife photographers! Where is my 50/1.4 with IS!?"
"They announced a new printer/copier. Oh crap, it's a printer/copier! Where is my 12-24/2.8L!?"

Why don't people realize that the day they announce the exact thing you wanted is the day when thousands of other people will be awaiting something completely different? Not every announcement is going to fill your personal sweet spot for the thing you need to be new that month.
+9999
I look at at and think:
1)-COOL!!!
2)-It's not for me
3)-Bet it sells like hotcakes
4)-Hotcakes.... maple syrup.... mmmmm...... think I'll go make something to eat :)
 

sandymandy

EOS RP
Mar 5, 2012
620
0
Don Haines said:
Also, what does one use for a sarcasm tag..... this and the preceding three posts could really use it.

Use this icon:
trollface.gif
 

Famateur

EOS R
Oct 9, 2012
839
209
Why don't people realize that the day they announce the exact thing you wanted is the day when thousands of other people will be awaiting something completely different? Not every announcement is going to fill your personal sweet spot for the thing you need to be new that month.

Agreed! And well-put...

1)-COOL!!!
2)-It's not for me
3)-Bet it sells like hotcakes
4)-Hotcakes.... maple syrup.... mmmmm...... think I'll go make something to eat :)

Spot-on...for me. ;)
 
C

crasher8

Guest
looks fun and easy to use. there IS a market for this and it isn't on CR. Unless it has a 14-24 2.8 inside and it's under 1800.00
 
H

Hobby Shooter

Guest
Famateur said:
^^^ LOL. You posted the same thought (only much shorter) while I was writing. Great minds...

-------------

Looks interesting, although I'd probably not buy one. Nice to see Canon taking a stab at fending off the threat of camera phones to its point-and-shoot market. Not sure there is a solution as camera phones advance in capability, but it's an interesting effort. Either way, it's a clever design to make it easy to shoot from any angle...perhaps too clever for the average consumer? For the sake of all Canon fans, I hope it performs well in the market.

By the way, to all those upset at Canon for not announcing a new lens or DSLR body: I understand the disappointment, but remember, this is the Consumer Electronics Show, not the Photographer Electronics Show. This is exactly the venue to unveil consumer-oriented (even gimmicky) products.

I don't know Canon's segment-specific revenue figures, but I would expect that the consumer market is the bread and butter that pays for the R&D that makes the pro market possible. If we expect camera phones to significantly harm the point-and-shoot market, wouldn't we all be praising Canon for coming up with creative ideas to address that? Not sure this one will be the answer, but Canon has to try.

Incidentally, I wonder: does Canon provide any camera phone makers with sensors, lens elements, et cetera? I wonder if the solution is to stop trying to beat camera phones as a form factor and simply make better camera components for phone makers than the phone makers can (or source). Anyone wonder the same thing or have thought through with more info?
I agree with you here, I think this is a cool effort. They might have a shot of being successful breaking into the smartphone 'instant photo with cool filter' with this product, only that it seems to have a much more advanced sensor and other capabilities. This might actually start to change these people's minds of what constitutes a good image. This could prove to be a disruptive change in this market, I hope we will see the other manufacturers follow Canon here, creating a new segment.

I do not though understand any disappointment about this launch. All products are not aimed for the DR-crowd, they need to go to Nikon.
 
Aug 6, 2012
1,464
0
www.flickr.com
I've had a fun time reading those disappointed comments. It seems that they want Canon to announce products that are specifically for them. They didn't realize that they're not the only customers Canon cater to. Frankly, they need to grow up. The world will not always conform to their wishes.
 

EchoLocation

EOS RP
Dec 26, 2011
317
0
Chongqing, China
neuroanatomist said:
He slams the 5DIII as an upgrade - in what world is the 5DIII not a decent upgrade to the 5DII? Yes, the 5DIII has DR capabilities (and IQ) equivalent to 5DII, but if it's crap, why are he and his friends still using it? I contend that the thing about the 5DII that didn't need upgrading was the IQ - and Canon did a great job with AF, frame rate, dual slots, sealing, etc., i.e., everything else.
The 5DIII is an ok upgrade to the 5DII. In terms of what matters to me, the 5DIII basically is a 5DII, except with a vastly superior AF. They have similar sensors, MP, DR, etc. The 5DII had awesome image quality, when the 5DIII came out, no one was shocked or astounded by how good it was. Rather, we were told that in JPG, we might get 2 stops better ISO, maybe 1 stop better in RAW. I'm sure the 5DIII is better, but it is rather similar to the 5DII image quality wise and I'm not hearing many 5DII owners complaining about IQ compared to the III. In fact, for months after the 5DIII came out, when Nikon fans were showing reflections in eyeballs at full screen and giggling about how good the D800 was, Canon users were complaining about black borders at high ISO, smearing of details, and overly aggressive AA filtering. Now, the firmware is a little better, LR has better tools in place for editing, and now the 5DIII has settled in as a great camera(as the 5DII was.)
However, for me, the 5DIII is what the 5DII SHOULD HAVE been. If the 5DII had the AF of the 5DIII, then it would have KILLED the D700 in every way. Instead, the 5DII was awesome for video, while the D700 was more of a sports camera. If you want video and great skin tones, you went Canon, if you wanted AF you went Nikon(or 1D.) When the 5DII was current, all I wanted was better AF and I would have bought it. Me, and many other people think the 5DII should have had a better AF to begin with. Thus, prior to the 5DIII, all I really wanted was a 5DII with a better AF. However, given time, technology, etc. I thought that this upgrade would come in at a similar price point(every new Macbook pro with better features remains similarly priced to previous models.)
INSTEAD, the 5DIII came in at 1000 dollars more than the 5DII. The most obvious difference is the AF. So, in 4 years of waiting, Canon managed to release a somewhat similar camera to the 5DII, but with the AF the II should have had to begin with, and at a $1000 higher price.
So yes, for me the 5DIII was just an updated II with an inflated price tag. It looked like a great camera, but it should be for $3500!!!
I realize that you love Canon Neuro, but you need to understand that many people want to love Canon and were very disappointed in their products. I was a huge Canon fan for several years, but in the past 2 years got sick of their ridiculously inflated pricing on release(obv not a problem for some people here.)
Yes, the 5DIII was an upgrade, but it didn't come cheap, the price was also significantly higher.
 
Aug 6, 2012
1,464
0
www.flickr.com
EchoLocation said:
neuroanatomist said:
He slams the 5DIII as an upgrade - in what world is the 5DIII not a decent upgrade to the 5DII? Yes, the 5DIII has DR capabilities (and IQ) equivalent to 5DII, but if it's crap, why are he and his friends still using it? I contend that the thing about the 5DII that didn't need upgrading was the IQ - and Canon did a great job with AF, frame rate, dual slots, sealing, etc., i.e., everything else.
The 5DIII is an ok upgrade to the 5DII. In terms of what matters to me, the 5DIII basically is a 5DII, except with a vastly superior AF. They have similar sensors, MP, DR, etc. The 5DII had awesome image quality, when the 5DIII came out, no one was shocked or astounded by how good it was. Rather, we were told that in JPG, we might get 2 stops better ISO, maybe 1 stop better in RAW. I'm sure the 5DIII is better, but it is rather similar to the 5DII image quality wise and I'm not hearing many 5DII owners complaining about IQ compared to the III. In fact, for months after the 5DIII came out, when Nikon fans were showing reflections in eyeballs at full screen and giggling about how good the D800 was, Canon users were complaining about black borders at high ISO, smearing of details, and overly aggressive AA filtering. Now, the firmware is a little better, LR has better tools in place for editing, and now the 5DIII has settled in as a great camera(as the 5DII was.)
However, for me, the 5DIII is what the 5DII SHOULD HAVE been. If the 5DII had the AF of the 5DIII, then it would have KILLED the D700 in every way. Instead, the 5DII was awesome for video, while the D700 was more of a sports camera. If you want video and great skin tones, you went Canon, if you wanted AF you went Nikon(or 1D.) When the 5DII was current, all I wanted was better AF and I would have bought it. Me, and many other people think the 5DII should have had a better AF to begin with. Thus, prior to the 5DIII, all I really wanted was a 5DII with a better AF. However, given time, technology, etc. I thought that this upgrade would come in at a similar price point(every new Macbook pro with better features remains similarly priced to previous models.)
INSTEAD, the 5DIII came in at 1000 dollars more than the 5DII. The most obvious difference is the AF. So, in 4 years of waiting, Canon managed to release a somewhat similar camera to the 5DII, but with the AF the II should have had to begin with, and at a $1000 higher price.
So yes, for me the 5DIII was just an updated II with an inflated price tag. It looked like a great camera, but it should be for $3500!!!
I realize that you love Canon Neuro, but you need to understand that many people want to love Canon and were very disappointed in their products. I was a huge Canon fan for several years, but in the past 2 years got sick of their ridiculously inflated pricing on release(obv not a problem for some people here.)
Yes, the 5DIII was an upgrade, but it didn't come cheap, the price was also significantly higher.

I think we already know the price trend of Canon products. Inflated pricing is only for early adopters. Knowing is always half of the battle. 5D3 isn't overpriced as it is...
 

infared

Kodak Brownie!
Jul 19, 2011
1,416
16
Looks like fun!
The white one almost looks like something Apple would have designed and brought to market.
 

Famateur

EOS R
Oct 9, 2012
839
209
I do not though understand any disappointment about this launch. All products are not aimed for the DR-crowd, they need to go to Nikon.

My sympathy for disappointment is more for what wasn't announced than for what was. I've been waiting so long for an announcement for a 70D that any event is a reason to hope, even just a little bit (and admittedly unrealistically for CES).

What I don't understand at all is the attacks on Canon for producing consumer products -- and announcing them at a consumer-oriented venue.

I agree: different market, different audience. Some who have posted seem oblivious to the idea that there are, in fact, entire markets -- profitable ones -- that exclude them. ::)
 
Z

Zlatko

Guest
EchoLocation said:
neuroanatomist said:
He slams the 5DIII as an upgrade - in what world is the 5DIII not a decent upgrade to the 5DII? Yes, the 5DIII has DR capabilities (and IQ) equivalent to 5DII, but if it's crap, why are he and his friends still using it? I contend that the thing about the 5DII that didn't need upgrading was the IQ - and Canon did a great job with AF, frame rate, dual slots, sealing, etc., i.e., everything else.
The 5DIII is an ok upgrade to the 5DII. In terms of what matters to me, the 5DIII basically is a 5DII, except with a vastly superior AF. They have similar sensors, MP, DR, etc. The 5DII had awesome image quality, when the 5DIII came out, no one was shocked or astounded by how good it was. Rather, we were told that in JPG, we might get 2 stops better ISO, maybe 1 stop better in RAW. I'm sure the 5DIII is better, but it is rather similar to the 5DII image quality wise and I'm not hearing many 5DII owners complaining about IQ compared to the III. In fact, for months after the 5DIII came out, when Nikon fans were showing reflections in eyeballs at full screen and giggling about how good the D800 was, Canon users were complaining about black borders at high ISO, smearing of details, and overly aggressive AA filtering. Now, the firmware is a little better, LR has better tools in place for editing, and now the 5DIII has settled in as a great camera(as the 5DII was.)
However, for me, the 5DIII is what the 5DII SHOULD HAVE been. If the 5DII had the AF of the 5DIII, then it would have KILLED the D700 in every way. Instead, the 5DII was awesome for video, while the D700 was more of a sports camera. If you want video and great skin tones, you went Canon, if you wanted AF you went Nikon(or 1D.) When the 5DII was current, all I wanted was better AF and I would have bought it. Me, and many other people think the 5DII should have had a better AF to begin with. Thus, prior to the 5DIII, all I really wanted was a 5DII with a better AF. However, given time, technology, etc. I thought that this upgrade would come in at a similar price point(every new Macbook pro with better features remains similarly priced to previous models.)
INSTEAD, the 5DIII came in at 1000 dollars more than the 5DII. The most obvious difference is the AF. So, in 4 years of waiting, Canon managed to release a somewhat similar camera to the 5DII, but with the AF the II should have had to begin with, and at a $1000 higher price.
So yes, for me the 5DIII was just an updated II with an inflated price tag. It looked like a great camera, but it should be for $3500!!!
I realize that you love Canon Neuro, but you need to understand that many people want to love Canon and were very disappointed in their products. I was a huge Canon fan for several years, but in the past 2 years got sick of their ridiculously inflated pricing on release(obv not a problem for some people here.)
Yes, the 5DIII was an upgrade, but it didn't come cheap, the price was also significantly higher.

The 5D3 came out at $800 more than the 5D2 at its introduction ($2700). So the $1000 price increase is an exaggeration. Now the 5D3 has dropped about 15% in price at reputable dealers ($3500 > $3000), but Canon still gets bashed for the $1000 price increase. The 5D3 is now only $200 more than the 5D2 was in 2008 and all of 2009. Canon gets no credit for dropping the price of the 5D2 to unbelievably low levels in recent months. Price increases are always blamed on the manufacturer, while price decreases are always credited to competition forcing prices down ... as if prices are set with no regard to the market. It seems that people who liked the 5D2 enough to buy it at $2700 found a new reason to blame Canon when the price fell by $1000; the big price cut just gave them more ammunition to bash the "similar" but "overpriced" 5D3.

Canon made dozens of improvements in the 5D3, bringing it closer to the much more expensive 1D series. The whole camera is more responsive and refined. New AF, new shutter, new viewfinder, better high ISO, higher frame rate, dual cards, etc. Just because autofocus is the only improvement that matters to you doesn't mean that Canon didn't build all of the other improvements, which happen to be improvements that matter to others who requested them. These improvements made the 5D3 a viable substitute for many 1D users, and thus a much cheaper alternative to the 1D cameras they had previously bought. For them, the 5D3 was the baby 1D they wished for, and a welcome price break even at the initial price of $3500.

Whenever a new model comes out, some people always say: "This is what the previous model should have been!" But that ignores how cameras are developed. It also ignores what the cost would have been had the later model been developed that much earlier. Let me use the same logic to top your claim that the 5D3 is what the 5D2 should have been in 2008. No, ... the 5D3 is what the D30 should have been been in 2000. (Nevermind what it would have cost then.) And the 1DX is what the 1D should have been in 2001. The 1V is what the EOS 620 should have been in 1987. The Nikon F6 is what the Nikon F should have been in 1959. The Leica M7 is what the Leica II should have been in 1932. And so on. Does this make any sense? Do we seriously want to blame manufacturers for evolving their products? Are we perpetually disappointed that all previous models where just bungled attempts at the current model, which itself is just a minor update of the previous model? Is the glass always half empty?
 

nameless

I'm New Here
Jul 11, 2012
11
0
If they had put an Android OS on the camera, it would be really great. But like this... Its just a weard camera...
 

ddashti

EOS 90D
Mar 27, 2012
144
0
Kernuak said:
Well people wanted Canon to be innovative. Certainly noone saw that one coming.
I second that. It's like this new camera came out of the blue! Canon is getting better at controlling leaks nowadays.
 

Grummbeerbauer

EOS M6 Mark II
Jan 8, 2013
58
0
While I am not really too much interested in this "instant sharing thing" and am therefore also not in the market for a "connected camera" (but I am also not the one wasting my time on generic social networks, but more on special interest sites like this ;)), I think Canon's foray into this market segment make a whole lot more sense than, e.g., Samsung's Galaxy or Nikon's Android camera.
Instead of putting the whole infrastructure (mobile OS, network, radio, etc.) into the camera and that way duplicating what any user in this market segment already has in his smartphone, connecting to and using the existing infrastructure has many benefits:
  • No need to "maintain" two Android devices -- AFAIK at least the Samsung Galaxy camera (or was it the Nikon counterpart?) does not have telephony support, so you would still need to carry a smartphone with you anyway. And even if they did have telephony and all the other features -- due to the laws of physics, to get any decent image quality, a true camera smartphone (with the emphasis on "camera") needs to be bigger (larger sensor, leading to larger lenses) than I would like my phone to be
  • Independence of the devices: Emptying the camera battery will still allow me to use the smartphone for everything else and vice versa. This independence also allows me to make the same choice I have today when shopping for a "dumb" camera, simply put, I can trade reduced camera size for a loss in image quality. If cameras from all segments offered such a kind of connectivity feature, I would not be forced to buy an inseparable bundle, where usually I have to compromise on either the camera or the smartphone side (or probably both). Instead, just like today, I could decide to bring my connected DSLR when possible, but do with my much smaller connected P&S when I can't justify the size and bulk of lugging a DSLR around, but not loose the connectivity features.
  • Decoupled development cycles: Smartphone development cycles are much shorter than those for cameras. Of course no one is really forcing you to upgrade a smartphone, but smartphone vendors are making a habit of offering OS updates for their devices for only a very limited time span. From the moment you don't get any security updates anymore, you are pretty much at risk (or have to start fiddling around with custom ROMs etc.)
    For cameras, however, technical progress, in particular in sensor technology and optics is much slower, making it much harder to justify throwing it away every two years.
    Of course this doesn't mean that camera vendors won't find ways to make you connected camera obsolete... ;)

So, while I am not too happy with Canon's recent launches in the DSLR segment (in particular the insane pricing, but also the available features), I think they got something right with the Powershot N -- at least conceptually. We'll see how it fares in practice.

Regards

Grummbeerbauer
 

cdang

EOS M50
Oct 19, 2011
36
0
I know I would probably never buy this camera but then this camera is not aimed at the likes of me but more for people like my fiance and her friends. They don't care for the IQ or noise level or full frame sensor, they want photos of friends they can edit and make it 'funny' to upload on facebook. For every friend I have that has an DSLR, I bet I will know five others with the N.
 

expatinasia

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 18, 2011
1,720
12
Asia Pacific
There seems to be two different threads going here, one 5D II vs 5D III and the other about the Powershot.

I for one agree that if you own a 5D II I would not have upgraded to the 5D III. I tend to keep my technology longer than that, and normally give such things a 5-year lifespan. Let's not forget the 5D II is a very good camera, and if you live somewhere the second hand market is not that hot, then why change.

As for the N - how heavy is it? Looks very nice and light, but not sure what the advantage is over something like a Samsung Galaxy Note II. If all people are doing with it is for FB and other social media, why carry two machines - especially as you are not likely to forget your phone?
 

RLPhoto

Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
Mar 27, 2012
3,778
0
San Antonio, TX
www.Ramonlperez.com
Ricku said:
tomscott said:
People are quick to hate. Remember when the 5DMKIII came out :eek: yet now everyone things its incredible...

Think its quite intriguing! I would give it a go!
Really? I still think the 5D3 has a craptastic sensor, with its decade old DR capabilities.

Not everyone bends over to Canon's marketing machine. Me and most of my friends are still shooting our 5D2s, happily waiting for the 5D4 / 5DX or whatever the next generation will be called.

I guess people who think the 5D3 is a great upgrade from the 5D2, will also like the Powershot N. They will buy anything that Canon throws at them.

The 5d2 was a flawed camera and never bothered with one. The d700 was brilliant in AF + Noise, but no better than my 5Dc for resolution and video.

I jumped from the 5Dc ----> 5D3 but I freely admit that 3500$ retail was overpriced. After it all said and done, I rather have the 5D3 over D700 or D800.
 

Dylan777

EOS-1D X Mark III
Nov 17, 2011
5,514
8
SOLD my s100. No more little tiny sensor nor crop for me :-X

Standing by for FF mirrorless. Otherwise, the Sony RX-1 is look real good. Both body and lens are so SOLID
 
<-- start Taboola -->