Etienne said:
I have not seen the A6300, but if it like the A7R II then Canon should build a similar camera but rethink the user interface. Based upon my limited use of the A7R II, it is good iron but terrible firmware.
Upvote
0
Canon Executive Talks EOS M in 2016
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I have not seen the A6300, but if it like the A7R II then Canon should build a similar camera but rethink the user interface. Based upon my limited use of the A7R II, it is good iron but terrible firmware.
crashpc said:
exactly. Classical case of lacking "SUPPLY", not of lack in "DEMAND".
Always quite funny, how wannabe-economists around here [looking @ u Neuro
] love to quote imagined or real ratios of how MICLS are still outsold by DSLRs ... without any consideration of the fact, that the two Companies controlling around 2/3 of the global ILC market are both not offering even one single, competitive MILC body. If both Canon and Nikon today were to both launch an APS-C MILC fully competitive with Sony A6300 ... Canon with existing EF-M lenses plus existing EF-M/EF adapter and Nikon with a similar starting lens lineup pklzus F-Mount adapter - at the same price as Sony [MSRP $ 1000 /body - likely to turn into 799 body+kit zoom strret price before summer) ... we'd see more MILCs sold than DSLRs already in 2016.
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
I'm not a fan of these big camera bricks at all and would like Canon to at least offer better alternatives for those who don't want big/heavy/impressive (and maybe for some extremely capable) DSLR cameras.
But the fact is that there are big differences in sales numbers for DSLR and mirrorless between Asia, Europe and US markets. Do you think Canon doesn't market their DSLRs in Asia? Do you think Asians don't care about good ergonomics? For the US one could maybe say that EOS-M marketing has been insufficient, but Canon US probably has a good reason for not spending much money on that. Also, while Canon is clearly lagging in mirrorless camera features, the other suppliers in general aren't much ahead of Canon in mirrorless sales (except for some niche markets like Sony with its A7 series).
It's not supply, it's mostly demand IMHO. Of course things can change when Canon starts to offer EOS-M cameras with the features and technology of Sony, plus better ergonomics. I would be interested, but I think a lot of US/EU buyers will still prefer a cheaper, bigger DSLR ...
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
you are totally pulling stuff out of your posterior like it's fact.
the acceptance of MILC's and smaller cameras would insure that no, they wouldn't. not everyone wants an EVF. so canon would leak customers to Nikon who would still have OVF's.
cheaper cost? is it? do you know the delta of R&D in a mass produced penta mirror system and a 2.4MP EVF?
got facts to back that up?
MILC"s built in totally automated factories - since when?
you still have to shim, adjust and tune - what are you thinking or smoking?
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
AvTvM said:Always quite funny, how wannabe-economists around here [looking @ u Neuro
If both Canon and Nikon today were to both launch an APS-C MILC fully competitive with Sony A6300 ... we'd see more MILCs sold than DSLRs already in 2016.
Always quite funny, how some people around here [looking @ u AvTvM] live in some sort of fantasy world where they can ignore facts and reality (such as the fact that the EOS M line is actually very competitive in the largest MILC market geography). The numbers I quote are real, they reflect actual camera sales in the real world. What makes you think I haven't considered the fact that Canon and Nikon have made only limited efforts in the MILC segment? Why should they do more? As you say, they are dominating the ILC market...so they should make a concerted effort to alter that market?!? Fantasy land, populated by people with the business acumen of bowling balls.
If, if, if. If CaNikon made more effort in MILC, then MILCs might actually become popular. If Canon made the exact MILC he wants, then AvTvM would be happy and stop complaining. If a comet hits the Earth tomorrow, then we'll no longer have to be bothered by AvTvM's incessant, unrealistic babbling.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:AvTvM said:Always quite funny, how wannabe-economists around here [looking @ u Neuro
If both Canon and Nikon today were to both launch an APS-C MILC fully competitive with Sony A6300 ... we'd see more MILCs sold than DSLRs already in 2016.
Always quite funny, how some people around here [looking @ u AvTvM] live in some sort of fantasy world where they can ignore facts and reality (such as the fact that the EOS M line is actually very competitive in the largest MILC market geography). The numbers I quote are real, they reflect actual camera sales in the real world. What makes you think I haven't considered the fact that Canon and Nikon have made only limited efforts in the MILC segment? Why should they do more? As you say, they are dominating the ILC market...so they should make a concerted effort to alter that market?!? Fantasy land, populated by people with the business acumen of bowling balls.
If, if, if. If CaNikon made more effort in MILC, then MILCs might actually become popular. If Canon made the exact MILC he wants, then AvTvM would be happy and stop complaining. If a comet hits the Earth tomorrow, then we'll no longer have to be bothered by AvTvM's incessant, unrealistic babbling.
to be honest - I think the comet has the best odds of happening
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
People like him are the reason I very rarely post anymore. It's very difficult for me to hold my tongue, and I'm not going to break the rules I expect others to follow.
But riddle me this all you prognosticators of Canon's eminent demise... If every other company has such superior products, as is endlessly claimed, why not just go buy their stuff? Why do you feel the need to troll here? I'm genuinely interested in the reasons. I'm pretty sure I'ts just some sad attempt at validation or attention seeking behavior, but I've never gotten a decent response from the people themselves.
Upvote
0
@thetechhimself
no explanations due to bvukich or anybody else around here. They are free to write their opinion, and so are all others.
Basically akll of this is about one problem: between 2000 and about 2010 Canon offered the very best digital stills imaging gear - sensor performance, AF-performance, speed, user interface, L and Non-L lenses, FF and APS-C, a lot of it even very attractively priced.
Since a good number of yeras niow, this is not the case any longer. From being clear tech leader, Canon has turned into a laggard or essentially even a "no-show": competitive MIL system, APS-C and even more so FFs.
This is rather strange to watch, especially since there appears to be a lot of "unwilligness" to compete on Canon's part - rather than sheer technical inability or only excellent competitor efforts.
As far as competitors efforts go, they all have their drawbacks too, and thats why Nikon, Sony, Oly, and alls the others also get criticised quite a bit. Which is fine. It keeps them on their toes.
Damage for Canon? Yes, massive. Lost sales - e.g. mirrorless bodies, both APS-C and FF and new lenses - galore. Lost clients - especially those who went to get Sony or Fuji gear are not likely to return to Canon any time soon, even if Canon tomorrow would launch fully competitive MILC systems. How much does it hurt Canon's future as a stillis imaging gear company. I am convinced, it is a lot. But ... we shall see. My cameras and lenses will continue to work, even if they really "do go under" someday soon.
no explanations due to bvukich or anybody else around here. They are free to write their opinion, and so are all others.
Basically akll of this is about one problem: between 2000 and about 2010 Canon offered the very best digital stills imaging gear - sensor performance, AF-performance, speed, user interface, L and Non-L lenses, FF and APS-C, a lot of it even very attractively priced.
Since a good number of yeras niow, this is not the case any longer. From being clear tech leader, Canon has turned into a laggard or essentially even a "no-show": competitive MIL system, APS-C and even more so FFs.
This is rather strange to watch, especially since there appears to be a lot of "unwilligness" to compete on Canon's part - rather than sheer technical inability or only excellent competitor efforts.
As far as competitors efforts go, they all have their drawbacks too, and thats why Nikon, Sony, Oly, and alls the others also get criticised quite a bit. Which is fine. It keeps them on their toes.
Damage for Canon? Yes, massive. Lost sales - e.g. mirrorless bodies, both APS-C and FF and new lenses - galore. Lost clients - especially those who went to get Sony or Fuji gear are not likely to return to Canon any time soon, even if Canon tomorrow would launch fully competitive MILC systems. How much does it hurt Canon's future as a stillis imaging gear company. I am convinced, it is a lot. But ... we shall see. My cameras and lenses will continue to work, even if they really "do go under" someday soon.
Upvote
0
thetechhimself said:
Nikon filed for bankruptcy, really?? They are downsizing and reorganizing a bit but their financials aren't bad. And outsourcing sensor production is VERY common nowadays, it's Canon who is using an outdated strategy here. An in-house sensor fab doesn't mean the cost is lower, unless the production lines are always running 24/7 (which is far more likely in the case of outsourcing production).
IMHO Canon DSLR tech stopped advancing after 2008, there are some bright spots after that like the better AF in 5D3/7D2 etc. but they are few. DR has hardly increased over all those years and real high ISO performance (using RAW files) hasn't increased much either; most of the 'extreme low light' gain is from in-camera processing and much of the improvements in lower models is just going through the parts bin from older models (maybe a bit more higher up). Real innovation has been almost zero but apparently they get away with that (partly because all DSLRs are now 'good enough' for the average buyer).
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
nhz said:
We've all seen the effect the 'almost zero real innovation' has had on Canon's ILC market share...almost zero! Over many years, Canon has consistently shown they've got the right formula for selling more ILCs than anyone else.
As for 'real innovation', honestly there hasn't been much since the imaging substrate switched from gelatin to silicon. A stop of DR here, dual cross AF points there, it's all basically incremental change.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
It hurts them a lot. Had Canon released technically competitive mirrorless camera systems with APS-C and FF sensor in good time, Sony would have exited the camera business just like Samsung is doing now. And Fuji would have been a really marginal player, possibly giving up as well by now. But they did not and they're hurting. But those clinets that are not bound to die with a big fat mirrorlapper aliong in their coffin are .. hurting as well. That's the problem. Not Canon sales or profits that I don't care about one bit. What I care about is the best possible gear to create my images. And right now, what's missing is an EOS M4 Pro and a Sony A7R II equivalent + lenses.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
One more to file under 'business acumen of a tiddlywink':
Your evidence for it 'hurting them a lot' is.......?? Besides your own wild speculation, I mean.
Canon already leads the ILC market, the reason for Canon to push mirrorless would be an expanding market. But, the ILC market is shrinking, not growing. The main place Canon would get MILC buyers is switching dSLR buyers. A major investment in R&D and marketing to switch customers from one segment to another offers little to no benefit.
Fuji is a really marginal player. Their market share is barely a blip.
Hurting from the shrinking ILC market, yes. Hurting from not making the camera you want them to make? Absurd.
AvTvM said:
Your evidence for it 'hurting them a lot' is.......?? Besides your own wild speculation, I mean.
Canon already leads the ILC market, the reason for Canon to push mirrorless would be an expanding market. But, the ILC market is shrinking, not growing. The main place Canon would get MILC buyers is switching dSLR buyers. A major investment in R&D and marketing to switch customers from one segment to another offers little to no benefit.
AvTvM said:
Fuji is a really marginal player. Their market share is barely a blip.
AvTvM said:
Hurting from the shrinking ILC market, yes. Hurting from not making the camera you want them to make? Absurd.
Upvote
0
You do realize that since 2008 ISO performance has increased by 6 stops on the 1D line.... while the number of pixels has doubled... which means that per area on sensor we have a 7 stop increase.....nhz said:
Upvote
0
dilbert said:
Not sure I'd agree with 7 stops, but the 1Dx MkII 12,800 iso images look very similar to my 1DS MkIII 800 iso images, for a very similar number of pixels. That is real progress in any bodies book, if high iso performance is important to you.
Not to mention 8fps faster, 61 point af vs 45 point, video of any sort let alone first dslr or mirrorless with 60fps 4K. Hmm, yep Canon haven't been doing anything for 8 years!
Upvote
0
Bennymiata
Canon Rumors Premium
What I don't understand is if mirrorless cameras are supposed to be cheaper to manufacture, why are they so expensive?
From a performance standpoint (focus speed, iq etc.), they seem to offer less than a dslr, yet cost more money for the bodies, and have poorer choice for lenses, which are also expensive compared to dslr lenses.
I fully understand that people want smaller and lighter, but to me, mirrorless cameras are just too expensive for what they offer in comparison to mirrorslappers, and it seems from the slow sales of milcs, that the general population agrees with me.
From a performance standpoint (focus speed, iq etc.), they seem to offer less than a dslr, yet cost more money for the bodies, and have poorer choice for lenses, which are also expensive compared to dslr lenses.
I fully understand that people want smaller and lighter, but to me, mirrorless cameras are just too expensive for what they offer in comparison to mirrorslappers, and it seems from the slow sales of milcs, that the general population agrees with me.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Don't agree about that at all. The innovation at e.g. Sony over the last years has been HUGE compared to Canon. Of course there are downsides to such a fast pace and I can understand many professional photographers prefer proven technology that they are familiar with, even if it is a bit outdated ;-)
Also, in general the gains in image quality in the early years (just before and after 2000) were HUGE compared to the gains we are seeing now at Canon (if you leave out the 5Ds for a moment almost zero gain in 8 years). And the technological changes were certainly not 'incremental', there were significant new technologies introduced every year.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
