Canon continues its dominant hold on global market share for digital cameras

[EricN]

Out of curiousity for someone, lets say 45, what do you think that looks like. For example how many new camera bodies would you expect that person would purchase over the remaining decades?

I'm 45 and buy a new body between 5 years and a couple for my niece and nephew every five years.

They should NOT be selling M mount cameras at this point for example.

Why shouldn't they sell them? They've already been manufactured. Most people will only buy the kit lens and never think about if canon drops support after the warranty period. The people who do care most likely buy a canon care pack or other extended support plan. by the time that expires, a reasonable person will be willing to buy a new camera and lens kit if the M mount camera becomes unusable.

Agree here. I'm curious to where AI will go. I can see a future where as vapid as people are they would prefer AI generated wedding pictures. You have an average skill photographer take a few pictures at the wedding for reference. Feed thost pictures into the AI and then the AI generate the actual pictures where everyone is always in the perfect pose as though they are models

As a painter, I can tell you almost nobody will want AI artwork of a wedding. They want mediocre photos and videos for a cheap price.

Doesn't even have healthcare, let alone a 401k plan.

Smort!

 

[CJaurelius]

Sony tech is flashy, and always has been. Not just their cameras, but everything they make is shiny and has the latest technology and craziest features. New versions and models are released every year and each model number is crazier than the previous one. Sometimes their products don't go anywhere or remain one-off curiosities, sometimes they become a big hit. (side note: the Youtube channel "Techmoan" has great videos on obscure tech devices from the 70s/80s/90s, some interesting Sony ones as well).

When I was younger I used to buy a lot of Sony stuff like audio equipment, phones, cameras, gaming consoles, and even new exotic niche products. So I do understand where you're coming from in terms of "coolness", their stuff certainly fits the bill.

However as I got older I experienced many of my Sony products became rapidly outdated or obsolete, only to be immediately replaced by something shinier. Many (most?) of the cool bleeding-edge tech features turned out to be nothing more than lines on a spec sheet, gimmicks or not as useful in practice as I thought, and their stuff isn't cheap.

I think many people who fall in the older camp today have made a similar transiton to you over their life, me included. I thnk the questions is will the generations behind us do the same.

Funny you mentin gimmicks. This year Sony released 3 new cameras that are essentially smaller versions of existing camers. They have the same sensor and image/video quality but a smaller cheaper body with less features. To compensate they added software features like product showcase and auto framing which to most professionals are gimmicks. I thnk they are using these gimmicks for the opposite reason.

In todays market it isn't that cameras are becoming obsolete too quickly. If fact the problem seems to be the opposite. Camera technology just doesn't move as fast as say smartphones. People are now used to getting updated models on a yearly basis. Meanwhile it's taking camera makers years to add major updates.

Example. A7III came out in 2018. By 2020 the A7SIII was out and by then 4k120 was all the rage. The A7IV came in 2021 and still no 4k120 for the masses. Canon released the R6MII in 2022 and again no 4k120. The technology isn't their yet in a relatively affordable camera. To do 4k120 at a $2500 price range it has to be on a low megapixel camera or the processor cant keep up. So none of the middle of the road hybrid cameras have 4k120 in a full frame format.

If "insert any camera maker" made a 24-35mp full frame camera that does 4k120 and sold for $2500 it would sell like hotcakes. Sony released the ZV-E1 which is essentially a stripped down A7SIII that has the same sensor and does 4k120 and only cost $2200. But again this is a 12mp camera so its not great for photos and its not really up to snuff for paid work. It only has 1 sd card slot for example. Its really aimed at a vlogger but for that market it cost a little bit to much.

Long-term usefulness and reliability has also been an issue, with several of my Sony products having severe hardware issues leading to breakage that couldn't be repaired (buy the new version) or firmware bugs that were only ironed out in version N+1 of the product, but never in version N.

The point being that as I got even mildly older, I started gravitating more and more towards tech that is less flashy, less gimmicky, with longer and more predictable release cycles and better support. Not to mention ergonomics, I just physically cannot use unergonomic things anymore.

I'd rather have a more basic tool that would hold up to professional use instead of a flashy toy for enthusiasts. As consumers get older, I suspect many will come to feel the same.

Here while again I agree people in the past may have traveled this road, I don't see many people feeling the same. It's just a different landscape today. For one if you are using your camera to shoot Youtube video content for example, you're not even going to be holding the actual equipment. and if you are it is likely in a camera rig so you're not actually toughing the camera.

Here is Peter Mckinnon's (5.88M subscriber Canon Shooter) setup with a 1DXMII back in 2017.

In the past, Canon had the edge here. If they released a 1D or 5D you knew it would do the job, and you knew exactly how for how long and which model was better.

Sony not so much, with confusing line-ups, exotic but flawed technology (remember SLT?), etc. It seems to me that they have indeed worked to improve on this, but even today they have a dizzying list of camera releases with confusing names and conflicting feature sets, like e.g. newer lower-end cameras getting features the high-end A1 doesn't have, etc.

I thnk you look at Sony the way I looke at Kia. The past is the past and its gone. People today have no recolection of how you feel about how Sony used to be and today their lineup is straigt forward. Starting with the fact that there is only one mount. You buy any camera and any lens will work with it.

ZV Line - Content creators/Entry Level

A7 Line - Prosumer
-A7 - Hybrid Photo & Video - middle megapixel
-A7S - Video - low megapixel
-A7R - photo - high megapixel

FX - Cinema line

The ZV lineup I would agree is gimmicky markety ploy. But they want to be clear to a person who isn't going to do research and just wants an entry level camera for Youtube. So the reality is there are 3 lines. Do you want to focus on Video, Photo or do you want to compromise between the two with a hybrid.

To me it remains to be seen if Sony can pull through and retain all their new camera users as they get older and less interested in spec sheets or "coolness". They may not be in the "most relevant to advertisers" 18-34 age group anymore, but they do have a lot more money to spend.

And thats the thing. As that age group gets older I don't think they are going to care about cameras all the much if its not something that supports their lifestlye. Outside of "Content Creation" if you are 20 years old today you really don't have much need to ever pick up a dedicated camera. And the camera on your smartphone in your pocket is getting better year by year. So by the time you age out of the 18-34 demo group, if you aren't producing "content" you will never have need to pick up a camera.

A 40 year old 15 years from now most likely isn't going to Bestbuy to pick up a camera because he wants to shoot pictures of his kids soccer games. Apple just announce a 120MM optical zoom on the Iphone yesterday.

 

[CJaurelius]

I'm 45 and buy a new body between 5 years and a couple for my niece and nephew every five years.

Good on you, any chance were related?

Why shouldn't they sell them? They've already been manufactured. Most people will only buy the kit lens and never think about if canon drops support after the warranty period. The people who do care most likely buy a canon care pack or other extended support plan. by the time that expires, a reasonable person will be willing to buy a new camera and lens kit if the M mount camera becomes unusable.

If there already manufactured, then sure. But they should've stop manufacturing many of these camera a while ago considering new R mount replacements are already here:

"Which brings me to this: I've written for some time that Canon's M line is a dead-end. No amount of juggling by Canon could keep that from not being the case, particularly when they made the wrong mount decision in 2012 when they first came out with it. (Note that Nikon also made the wrong mount decision with their CX line in 2011, but also look at how fast they realized that and discontinued it.) The problem today is that Canon can't afford to put any additional R&D money into M, as the overall trend for consumer cameras like that is down. Spending more money on low-margin products that are being squeezed out of the market is not shareholder-friendly. I expect Canon will try to milk the M for as long as they can, but that's going to look more and more problematic on their bottom line."

As a painter, I can tell you almost nobody will want AI artwork of a wedding. They want mediocre photos and videos for a cheap price.

Smort!

I agree but rephrase. They want GREAT photos and videos for a cheap price and will settle for mediocre ones instead of paying more.

And AI will be able to give them that. Essentially all you will need is a below avearge photographer to simply take pictures of the people in the wedding and the environment. These photos can be terrible photos as they are only used as reference information for the AI. Then AI can take those refrence photos and generate the most beautifuil pictures of all the people in the best poses with the best lighting in every single shot. The AI can then adjust the background so that while they represent the acual location they are actually improved so essentially every photo is picture perfect.

Since its AI you don't have to actually pay a single skilled person making int affordable. Then people get to share once in a lifetime photos of how awesome their wedding was on social media even though the actual real wedding was boring. Its already here, it just needs to get a bit better.

 

[CJaurelius]

I am not sure if this forum is for you.
A Sony user (because their friends use them) arguing that Canon doesn't have the right strategy for the (long term) future.
Using current data and strategy but extrapolating to a future scenario during a changing market assuming that Canon can't or won't change in the interim and hence Canon products and brand will be irrelevant in 15 years time.
Very strange!

I like interacting with people with differing viewpoints than my own. I find I learn a lot more that way than being in an echo chamber.

As a side note when I'm in a pro Sony environment I find myself going agiant the grain there. I'm not a fan of Sony's current pricing strategy for example. Canon released the R8 at $1500. They aren't trying to hit this pricepoint and instead are pushing to move camera prices up faster. I think they are less concerned because as a business cameras are such a small portion of their portfolio. And since they use their CMOS sensor for a variety of uses and are heavily invested in the major camera competition of smartphone cameras they are less worried about dedicated cameras dying out and becoming niche.

Between the two companies I want Canon to continue to be the larger company because they are more incentivised to keep dedicated cameras alive. I would not put it past Sony to take all the R&D to move into a new field leaving dedicated cameras in the past like betamax or those crappy propretary memory sticks.

 

[koenkooi]

I think many people who fall in the older camp today have made a similar transiton to you over their life, me included. I thnk the questions is will the generations behind us do the same.

Funny you mentin gimmicks. This year Sony released 3 new cameras that are essentially smaller versions of existing camers. They have the same sensor and image/video quality but a smaller cheaper body with less features. To compensate they added software features like product showcase and auto framing which to most professionals are gimmicks. I thnk they are using these gimmicks for the opposite reason.
[...]

Canon kinda did that with the R8 and I hope they will continue to do that. I'm very fond of my M system for travel, the R8 is nice, but a lot bigger than e.g. M6II.

 

[CJaurelius]

Sadly, trolls are far more the norm than strange these days.

Especially here, Sony trolls (paid shills or otherwise) have become downright trite.

I think its sad that you have this viewpoint simply because we disagree. Imagine we met in person and we realized we both loved photography. I talk about how much you like your Canon and talk about why I bought a Sony. I cant imagine that would resort to you calling me a troll and a paid shill.

I joined this forum thinking I was going to buy an R8. IF you look at my initial post I was really on the fence between the R8 and the ZV-E1. I was actually hammering Sony for intentionally crippling the A74. My only issue was Canon was the lens selections. Then you came in and immediately took the Canon is awesome and cant do wrong and Sony is crap approach and my contrarian insticts were to research if you were right.

I ultimately bought an A7C on sale for $1400 mainly because of cheap lenses and the people I know have exspensive lenses I can borrow for free. The Canon R8 is not only a better camera but feels better in my hands. I've stated this multiple times. I've stated that after shooting Nikon, I wanted to switch to Canon. I had no clue about the Sony's.

The 35 year old friend who shoots Youtube content is what got me back into the hobby. Clearly him and all his friends with their Sony gear are the ones who influenced me that way. I told them after months of research I was going to pull the trigger on the R8 and they talked me out of it. When it comes to the views of the two companies I'm clearly reflecting THEIR views and not my own as Canon was the bigger company in mind.

But I'm big enough to understand that this industry doesn't revolve around me. So instead of being the old "get of my lawn" guy, I decided to join the group and have fun with the youngins.

 

[CJaurelius]

Canon kinda did that with the R8 and I hope they will continue to do that. I'm very fond of my M system for travel, the R8 is nice, but a lot bigger than e.g. M6II.

For my use case I've found that for travel its mostly about the lens. I recently took a trip to Tulum and I essentially used a sling to carry my camera everywhere. So the R8 with the 24mm1.8 would've been fine for me. I took the A7C with the Samyang 24mm 1.8 which is a smaller package but honestly both would've fit in the sling the same.

The sling was the Peter Mckinnon 8L made by nomatic. They've essentially made the camera bags fashion accesories now so you don't feel out of place carrying it around. Heck I could've fit the M6II in there no problem, with the issue mainly being the weight. So agan for me it goes back to having a lightweight lens.

 

[EricN]

Apple just announce a 120MM optical zoom on the Iphone yesterday.

It's important to note it is 120mm equivalent and the sensor was said to be 12mp. I don't think anyone is going to sell their dslr or milc and lenses over this. I expect improvements to continue with phones, but they'll continue with MILCs too.

they should've stop manufacturing many of these camera a while ago considering new R mount replacements are already here

I haven't seen anything stating exactly when the M bodies and lenses ceased manufacturering. I'm guessing they stopped before the announcement, whichisa little different.They want GREAT photos and videos for a cheap price and will settle for mediocre ones instead of paying more.

AI will be able to give them that. Essentially all you will need is a below avearge photographer to simply take pictures of the people in the wedding and the environment. These photos can be terrible photos as they are only used as reference information for the AI. Then AI can take those refrence photos and generate the most beautifuil pictures of all the people in the best poses with the best lighting in every single shot. The AI can then adjust the background so that while they represent the acual location they are actually improved so essentially every photo is picture perfect.

Typically they have a budget and don't care much about quality as long as it fits the budget. In almost every situation I've encountered regarding weddings, they did not care about seeing previous work either photos or paintings and they were not interested in paintings at all, only photos and videos for a low price. This tells me they want the real moment at a low price. Yes, I'm only one person living in a small city, so YMMV....Some people *might* try liike that, but I don't think it will be a big number. Norrmal people will want actual photographs and videos. Unless there are some major advances related to little people found in Peru , the AI can't make the photos look like the real people in any pose and lighting without having enough photos of reference to learn from.
A reasonable person might play with it for some drunken night at a club, but they aren't going to settle for something they deem important like a wedding.

Between the two companies I want Canon to continue to be the larger company because they are more incentivised to keep dedicated cameras alive. I would not put it past Sony to take all the R&D to move into a new field leaving dedicated cameras in the past like betamax or those crappy propretary memory sticks.

I thought most people would take that as a reason to choose Canon... I don't follow your decision making process here.

Canon kinda did that with the R8 and I hope they will continue to do that. I'm very fond of my M system for travel, the R8 is nice, but a lot bigger than e.g. M6II.

R-50 is tiny and I think r-100 is even smaller.

I talk about how much you like your Canon and talk about why I bought a Sony. I cant imagine that would resort to you calling me a troll and a paid shill.

To be fair, when you ignore reasonable points and reply with things that aren't exactly relevant, it does make you appear to be such a person.

 

[David - Sydney]

This reminds me not long ago, someone was saying "Canon is not Ethical." We can all probably agree Canon UK pricing items higher isn't ethical, but I can't think of anything that compares to what you wrote about Qantas.

Not sure that "ethical" comes into the pricing from a moral perspective... I mean it isn't like doctors advertising for instance.
Grubby anti-competitive capitalism is more like it

 

[David - Sydney]

I like interacting with people with differing viewpoints than my own. I find I learn a lot more that way than being in an echo chamber.

Yeah, but if you want to be taken seriously then talking about strategy 15 years out is not realistic for anyone except perhaps for Canon and Nikon.
Trying to even guess about market trends and available technology that far out shows hubris let alone arguing about it.
Sony is much more short term than Canon/Nikon given their consumer focus. I would highly doubt that they even have a 15 year plan.

 

[David - Sydney]

Geez, the responses are getting longer and my attention span shorter.
Debating about future generations or buying decisions 15 years out is not relevant in a gear forum except - and only maybe -over a long night over drinks between consenting adults
Sensors haven't fundamentally changed dynamic range for some time now. Yes, stacked has reduce rolling shutter etc but the next jump in technology is yet to come.

I think many people who fall in the older camp today have made a similar transiton to you over their life, me included. I thnk the questions is will the generations behind us do the same.

In todays market it isn't that cameras are becoming obsolete too quickly. If fact the problem seems to be the opposite. Camera technology just doesn't move as fast as say smartphones. People are now used to getting updated models on a yearly basis. Meanwhile it's taking camera makers years to add major updates.

A 40 year old 15 years from now most likely isn't going to Bestbuy to pick up a camera because he wants to shoot pictures of his kids soccer games. Apple just announce a 120MM optical zoom on the Iphone yesterday.

 

[David - Sydney]

In the last 15 years (prior I had Ixus870/S90/S100), I have bought 7D, 5Diii, 5Div (second hand), R5 and recently RP. I had no issue to buy such an ancient 6Dii-based sensor as a backup/secondary astro body... a big bunch of lenses, underwater gear and accessories worth far more than the bodies.
I have no idea I would spend that much 15 years ago and hence I have no idea how much I will spend in the next 15 years except I know exactly how much it will cost to replace my current kit based on my insurance premium. I have only 1 item that I would sell today and it is pretty esoteric.

Canon can sell whatever they like including the M series. Finally you are talking about current strategy and your premise is flawed. If there are buyers, it is profitable and they have manufacturing capacity then why not? You assume a western/1st world consumer when there is a huge market in lower salary countries where the cost difference is significant.

I buy lenses that suit my system... see my signature. Why would I buy a E mount lens that is "newer" but doesn't fit my bodies? I don't need AF but commented that it was noisy and inconsistent with my use case and previous lens purchases. It is up to Sigma not to sell upgraded lenses in EF (or manual AF in RF) and hence I bought second hand... their loss.

I think for many people in your position that is true. Again, I think if someone has already invested in the Canon ecosystem they are highly unlikely to switch.
Out of curiousity for someone, lets say 45, what do you think that looks like. For example how many new camera bodies would you expect that person would purchase over the remaining decades?

So i'm in agreement that Canon is going to have a steady base of people that will purchase new Canon products for the forseeable future. But as this group phases out what are they getting replaced with? 20 years from now when a 20 year old is turning 40 what you would need that 20 year old to have connected with Canon TODAY. And that is what I'm looking at. I think Canon is great for what older people (especially here) want. But what are they doing to attract younger people so they'll be customers of the future.

They should NOT be selling M mount cameras at this point for example. They have an RF mount camera that sells for $679. Ditch all the other stuff and force people to RF mount now and stop throwing money down the drain to claim you have the largest market shar.

Wait, do you have the old 20mm f1.4 DG HSM Art for DSLR or the newer 20mm f1.4 DG DN Art for mirrorless. I'm assuming the former as you're a Canon shooter and they don't make the new one for any Canon mounts.

And this highlights the difference. They updated the lense for mirroless and now for the same price you get a better lense that is SILENT for the same price. So if you use an EF adapter you only have the option of the older lens.

 

[Czardoom]

...

The 35 year old friend who shoots Youtube content is what got me back into the hobby. Clearly him and all his friends with their Sony gear are the ones who influenced me that way. I told them after months of research I was going to pull the trigger on the R8 and they talked me out of it. When it comes to the views of the two companies I'm clearly reflecting THEIR views and not my own as Canon was the bigger company in mind.

But I'm big enough to understand that this industry doesn't revolve around me. So instead of being the old "get of my lawn" guy, I decided to join the group and have fun with the youngins.

Needless to say, every Camera today is more than capable of things that we could only dream of even 15 years ago. But what I think many of us are annoyed at, is the persistence of Sony fans trying for many years now, to talk people out of buying Canon or Nikon or any other brand. Their devotion, in many cases, went far into trolling territory. Not at all saying your friends are trolls, but it just made me laugh and shake my head when I read you were leaning towards Canon, but Sony folks convinced you otherwise. That, in my opinion, is what has led to Sony's great success. Infiltrating forums, convincing young YouTube infleuncers that Sony was "trendy" or "with it" or "hip" as we used to say. Great marketing, clever propaganda with its exaggerations, hyperbole, and downright lies in many cases. Concentrating on specs, rather than quality. Constantly stating how they were the "innovators" when they were no more innovative than other brands (and quite frankly far less innovative then Olympus, for example, but Olympus had no fan network and eventually went under).

Today, my guess is that almost all younger folks get their information about products from the internet and social media. Looking to buy? You to YouTube, go to Facebook groups, go to websites like DPReview. Sony understood this and still understands this better than any other camera brand. Get those reviewers and creators on your side and you succeed! Get a lot of folks praising your camera and more importantly trashing other brands in the comments and on social media in general! That way they don't actually have to make a better camera or better lenses if enough people say so! So, they can get away with tearing shutters that prompted a class action suit against them. They can get away with years of having awful dust removal. They can get away with poor ergonomics that literally bruised the hand of a popular YouTube wildlife photographer who held the camera for many hours as wildlife photographers are known to do. They can get away with duller, less bright EVFs because so many reviewers and YouTubers just compare specs! And Sony, to their credit, has understood this from the get-go.

Of course, all cameras have some issue from time to time. Not saying your Sony will have any of these issues to the extent that you will be bothered or will even notice (I hope). But I bet your friends, as they were convincing you, conveniently forgot to mention some of these fairly well known issues with Sony. And as long as Sony as seen as the "trendy" brand, they will succeed. Has very little do with quality, camera lineup, high end or low end, lenses (third party or otherwise), or any of the numerous things that have been discussed ad nauseam. Whoever wins the marketing war, and unfortunately in this era of social media and internet, the propaganda war, will likely be the leading camera brand in the future, unfortunately. Of course, the camera industry - and camera tech - may look very different in 15 years or so, so all this talk may be completely moot.

 

[CJaurelius]

It's important to note it is 120mm equivalent and the sensor was said to be 12mp. I don't think anyone is going to sell their dslr or milc and lenses over this. I expect improvements to continue with phones, but they'll continue with MILCs too.

But at some point you hit a wall of diminishing returns. 12mp for most people is fine, especially when 99% of the time the only way that pictures ever sees the light of day is on the parents social media. The $4k FX3 is a 12mp sensor. It's obvioiusly full frame, but to be fair the sensors in smartphones are getting bigger but the sensors in digital cameras aren't. The gap is narrowing.

So the issue becomes is it worth it to carry a DSLR to your kids game when the smartphone already in your pocket will give you a great picture.

https://www.techradar.com/news/smartphones-will-kill-off-the-dslr-within-three-years-says-sony

Smartphone cameras and DSLRs have been moving in opposite directions for the past few years, and image quality from phones will finally trump that of their single-lens reflex rivals by 2024, according to Sony.

As reported by Nikkei Japan, the President and CEO of Sony Semiconductor Solutions (SSS), Terushi Shimizu, told a business briefing that "we expect that still images [from smartphones] will exceed the image quality of single-lens reflex cameras within the next few years".

Sony points to a few factors, including “quantum saturation” and improvements to "AI processing". Interestingly, Sony also expects the sensor size in "high-end model" phones to double by 2024.

Sony also highlighted the development of its 'two-layer transistor pixel technology', which we heard about last year, which promises to drastically improve the dynamic range on phone cameras and help reduce low-light nois

So I don't think anyone is going to sell their DSLR over this, but I do think people are going to stop buying DSLR's over this. DSLR's are dead and Mirroless is moving toward high end models. The issue is how do camera makers adapt to this new landscape.

I thought most people would take that as a reason to choose Canon... I don't follow your decision making process here.

I'm being honest about what I think about both companies. Again, I think most people here are simply team Canon which is obvious given the name of the website. I can say where Canon is better as I really don't care about either company. My point about Sony really is that they are better at marketing their prodcut for the future. I haven't spent much time arguing that Canon is actually better. I've stated over and over we've hit a point where all these cameras are acceptable. In fact countless times I've said the R8 and R6MII are better than their Sony equivalents.

To be fair, when you ignore reasonable points and reply with things that aren't exactly relevant, it does make you appear to be such a person.

I don't know about that. I've may points over and over where I think Canon is better. I think if anyone here were to go have a discussion on a Sony forum they'd probably be called a troll. It seems in many peoples eyes a troll is someone who thinks differently from them.

 

[EricN]

Without having a perfect memory, it seems like when you wrote something positive about Canon it was "now or in the past" and then you continued to say something like, "but that will stop and Sony will win in fifteen years."
I doubt any of us want to go to a Sony, Nikon or any other message board and post in a similar manner about Canon. I don't think it is about "thinking different," but speculating in a very stubborn manner about 'Canon lose and Sony win' when none of us has enough information to predict with any accuracy about fifteen years from now. There's no indication that either company will have any problems and I feel certain they both will be adjusting their strategies in ways we can't guess. It would not only be pointless, but just plain annoying. It would be like going into a bar in the city of whatever the most successful sports team at the moment is and say, "some people think your team will win, but if you look at the number of cars in my team's parking deck, we're actually winning - NOT only that, but we have been training with legal steroids, so we'll definitely win next year and, your team is D00meddddddddddddddd

 

[CJaurelius]

Yeah, but if you want to be taken seriously then talking about strategy 15 years out is not realistic for anyone except perhaps for Canon and Nikon.
Trying to even guess about market trends and available technology that far out shows hubris let alone arguing about it.
Sony is much more short term than Canon/Nikon given their consumer focus. I would highly doubt that they even have a 15 year plan.

That sword cuts both ways. If its hubris to say Canon's business stategy now isn't setting them up for long term success 15 years from now then its hubris to say they are. Other camera makers have moved toward a different stategy. Maybe they're right, maybe Canon's right, maybe their all right and maybe their all wrong.

Its a viewpoint. I'm not presenting it as fact.

No, Nikon has made the right call. Sony seems to be making the right call. Fujifilm's mostly been adding higher-end gear to their lineup (GFX models, upcoming X-H2 models), so I think they've figured it out, too. The only Japanese camera company still racing down the wrong track is Canon. My advice to them? Bite the bullet and quickly amputate their market share strategy. Yeah, that'll end up with a big, one-time write down, but Canon really needs to go all in with RF (both stills and cinema), and they need to concentrate 100% of their energy in US$1000+ cameras now. Anything else simply dilutes their earnings, which will eventually generate the usual shareholder revolt that forces them to do what I suggest, anyway.

And I would argue the opposite about Sony's strategy. Their view seems to be the long game in that they know CMOS sensors in smartphones will eventually become good enough for most and therefore how do they leverage their company to be in the best position when that happens. Canon's strategy seems to be to focus on having the largest market share by volume today.

 

[CJaurelius]

Needless to say, every Camera today is more than capable of things that we could only dream of even 15 years ago. But what I think many of us are annoyed at, is the persistence of Sony fans trying for many years now, to talk people out of buying Canon or Nikon or any other brand. Their devotion, in many cases, went far into trolling territory.

I've made the point that ALL these cameras are capable over and over and highlighted that its mainly just marketing at this poing. I don't see where I've EVER tried to convice anyone to buy EITHER brand. My point has been one side has a poor marketing strategy for most of the young people and I see that as leading toward them not being as dominant in the future. Again over and over I've clearly state not only that the R8 and R6MII are better than the Sony equivalents but even WHY they are better.

Not at all saying your friends are trolls, but it just made me laugh and shake my head when I read you were leaning towards Canon, but Sony folks convinced you otherwise. That, in my opinion, is what has led to Sony's great success.

Wait so you are telling me that If I had a bunch of friends who shoot Canon, and I bought the R8 instead becase I now have access to $2500 lenses for free you would be shaking your head?

Infiltrating forums, convincing young YouTube infleuncers that Sony was "trendy" or "with it" or "hip" as we used to say. Great marketing, clever propaganda with its exaggerations, hyperbole, and downright lies in many cases. Concentrating on specs, rather than quality. Constantly stating how they were the "innovators" when they were no more innovative than other brands (and quite frankly far less innovative then Olympus, for example, but Olympus had no fan network and eventually went under).

Wait, so at first you say all these cameras are capable but now the Sony cameras are just overhyped, spec sheet pretenders and low quality. And Sony isn't innovating? They are the ones out there with a 61mp camera..

And infiltrating forums? Please show me one post where I've EVER talked down about a SINGLE canon camera?

Today, my guess is that almost all younger folks get their information about products from the internet and social media. Looking to buy? You to YouTube, go to Facebook groups, go to websites like DPReview. Sony understood this and still understands this better than any other camera brand. Get those reviewers and creators on your side and you succeed! Get a lot of folks praising your camera and more importantly trashing other brands in the comments and on social media in general! That way they don't actually have to make a better camera or better lenses if enough people say so!

I agree with all of this until you get to the end. Sony, Tamron, Sigma all make great lenses. Heck even companies like Viltrox and Samyang make great lenses. Are all of these lenses tack sharp for edge to edge, of course not. But that's not the goal of all of them. If a lens maker makes a lens that is decently sharp in the center at f2.8 and soft at the edges is that a poor lens? What if someone wants to primarily shoot at f2.8 where the edges will be blurry anyway and would rather pay 1/3 the price which is what that lens is sold for how is that a bad lens? It fits its primary purpose.

Canon has awesome lenses and but not a lot of options. To fault other companies for providing those options as a bad thing seems off.

So, they can get away with tearing shutters that prompted a class action suit against them. They can get away with years of having awful dust removal. They can get away with poor ergonomics that literally bruised the hand of a popular YouTube wildlife photographer who held the camera for many hours as wildlife photographers are known to do. They can get away with duller, less bright EVFs because so many reviewers and YouTubers just compare specs! And Sony, to their credit, has understood this from the get-go.

Have you ever thought that other people don't want the same thing from a camera as you. Its sort of like you saying I'm an idot because I bought a sports car with cramped leg room and your car is more comfortable and gets better gas mileage.

Some people need those specs other people don't. I know people that NEED 4k120 because it allows them to get great b roll and they're able to punch in and still have at least 1080p. Does that make 4k120 a gimmick to people that don't have a need for slow motion video?

Of course, all cameras have some issue from time to time. Not saying your Sony will have any of these issues to the extent that you will be bothered or will even notice (I hope). But I bet your friends, as they were convincing you, conveniently forgot to mention some of these fairly well known issues with Sony.

No, we actually crap on Sony all the time. Again, I think this goes back to the younger generations don't have an allegiance to legacy brands. They just want to get shoot cool content and get paid for it. They buy mostly third party lenses therefore essentially NOT supporting Sony because honestly you cant tell the difference between the two lenses in a 1080p Youtube video or Instagram post on a 6 in Iphone screen.

And as long as Sony as seen as the "trendy" brand, they will succeed. Has very little do with quality, camera lineup, high end or low end, lenses (third party or otherwise), or any of the numerous things that have been discussed ad nauseam. Whoever wins the marketing war, and unfortunately in this era of social media and internet, the propaganda war, will likely be the leading camera brand in the future, unfortunately. Of course, the camera industry - and camera tech - may look very different in 15 years or so, so all this talk may be completely moot.

I think we agree here. And your last statement is what I'm saying. Camera tech will look VERY different 15 years from now. Canon seems invested in the NOW and not even starting that transition to the future. They had to be brought kicking and screaming to mirrorless because they weren't looking toward the future.

 

[CJaurelius]

Without having a perfect memory, it seems like when you wrote something positive about Canon it was "now or in the past" and then you continued to say something like, "but that will stop and Sony will win in fifteen years."

I think this is a reccuring issue that many here see this in terms of "winning". So is Canon winning and and Sony losing? Were taling about two companies that are trying to make profit.

I doubt any of us want to go to a Sony, Nikon or any other message board and post in a similar manner about Canon. I don't think it is about "thinking different," but speculating in a very stubborn manner about 'Canon lose and Sony win' when none of us has enough information to predict with any accuracy about fifteen years from now.

I think of these cameras as tools to get something not some team that I'm rooting for. To understand the benefits of the different brands I like to discuss with people who use those brands a lot as I wouldn't have time to spend years with both. Speculating on the future is just interesting to me. More than likely I'd pop in and out to see how that speculation goes.

There's no indication that either company will have any problems and I feel certain they both will be adjusting their strategies in ways we can't guess. It would not only be pointless, but just plain annoying. It would be like going into a bar in the city of whatever the most successful sports team at the moment is and say, "some people think your team will win, but if you look at the number of cars in my team's parking deck, we're actually winning - NOT only that, but we have been training with legal steroids, so we'll definitely win next year and, your team is D00meddddddddddddddd

These are big compnaies with stategies that take years to implement and cant be turned on a dime. Most companies dont stay at the top, usually being big comes at a cost at some point.

As far as the teams, I don't really have a team as I'm on the side of new technologies, not brands.

But as far as the bar and sports goes, have you not been in anybar. You literally just described 85% of the conversations there.

 

[David - Sydney]

That sword cuts both ways. If its hubris to say Canon's business stategy now isn't setting them up for long term success 15 years from now then its hubris to say they are. Other camera makers have moved toward a different stategy. Maybe they're right, maybe Canon's right, maybe their all right and maybe their all wrong.

Its a viewpoint. I'm not presenting it as fact.

You are welcome to your viewpoint.
Like neuro, I'm tapping out.
It's not a discussion when it becomes tedious.

 

[EricN]

You are welcome to your viewpoint.
Like neuro, I'm tapping out.
It's not a discussion when it becomes tedious.

Me too...

It's hard to say nicely. To continue with the bar analogy, if the bartender notices someone is annoying others to the point they leave, that person will be asked to leave.

I don't think anyone wants to ask Canon Rumors Guy to ban @CJaurelius or anything, but it seems none of us are interested in continuing a discussion about something too far in the future to predict. When there is a person too set in a few ideas that are questionable at best and admitted in a round about way to have been chosen intentionally to be provocative.