Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]

[davidcl0nel]

So my guess of a new FF body of ANY kind (a 6D, a 5D4, a mythical 0D Mark 12, etc.) is not happening at Photokina.

And if the dates of the picture are correct, it seems that the cycles are slowing down. 3 years for 5D, 3.5 years for 5D2 ... so maybe 4 years for 5D3? Same with 50/60/70D or until 1DX... So 5D4 and 1DX2 will be maybe presented at Photokina...2016.

7D succeccor is possible - maybe an additional type (megapixel monster), but no direct replacement of "long" (lol!) waited cameras..

 

[mrsfotografie]

About aspect ratio's: I compose for, and mostly stick to 2:3 or 3:2, natively or cropped. On occasion I do crop to square (1:1), especially with portraits of my cat ;D I stay away from 4:3 or 3:4 except for some product shots that I make of stuff I want to sell online (4:3 is the native aspect ratio of my Canon S90 anyway). My panorama's can be pretty much any aspect ratio depending on the amount of image data available.

 

[fragilesi]

If you saw a crime being committed, is it better to help or take photographs that could help in evidence? If there was an accident of some kind a photo of the scene could be of significant use before things get re-arranged by people helping? How much are you personally able to help realistically anyway in those kind of scenarios?

I'm sure that many people would be naturally averse to someone standing there taking pictures in such situations and I'm sure "ghoul" would soon be uttered but maybe sometimes it could actually be the best thing that you could do?

As a first responder, I can assure you that there is a time when it is best to pick up the camera.
Obviously, people come first in any considerations, but in many cases, once the properly trained/equipped people are on scene throwing additional people into the mix, even though they mean well, can be detrimental. There is a time to stand back and let the team work without you.

For example, I was first on the scene of a car accident. One car rolled and had two occupants, one with superficial cuts and the other with more serious bleeding. The driver of the other car appeared to be unhurt. I took control of the scene, had one person call 911 and wait for the ambulance, sent another back to the truck for the first aid kit, and got the bleeding under control while we waited for the ambulance. Fortunately, it looked a lot worse than it was and the police arrived in minutes and the ambulance a minute after that. At which point I was not needed anymore, surrendered the kid to the paramedics and started talking to the police.

While all this was going on, one of the onlookers came over and said that the guy from the other car got into another car and drove away and that she took pictures.... It seems he was driving without a licence and was drunk. Because of her picture they were picked up a few minutes later by another police car on the way to the scene... It went to court... her cell phone pictures convicted him.

Thanks, was a bit concerned how people would take my comment but that's exactly the kind of thing I meant. Maybe sometimes the photographer who appears to be a ghoul is actually doing precisely the right thing. I wonder if people's attitudes are framed by the paparazzi who I would have to say often behave appallingly in my view.

I guess each situation has to be judged on its merits. In the above situation my first thought would be to call the emergency services of course but the girl with the camera did everyone a service that day.

 

[Don Haines]

If you saw a crime being committed, is it better to help or take photographs that could help in evidence? If there was an accident of some kind a photo of the scene could be of significant use before things get re-arranged by people helping? How much are you personally able to help realistically anyway in those kind of scenarios?

I'm sure that many people would be naturally averse to someone standing there taking pictures in such situations and I'm sure "ghoul" would soon be uttered but maybe sometimes it could actually be the best thing that you could do?

As a first responder, I can assure you that there is a time when it is best to pick up the camera.
Obviously, people come first in any considerations, but in many cases, once the properly trained/equipped people are on scene throwing additional people into the mix, even though they mean well, can be detrimental. There is a time to stand back and let the team work without you.

For example, I was first on the scene of a car accident. One car rolled and had two occupants, one with superficial cuts and the other with more serious bleeding. The driver of the other car appeared to be unhurt. I took control of the scene, had one person call 911 and wait for the ambulance, sent another back to the truck for the first aid kit, and got the bleeding under control while we waited for the ambulance. Fortunately, it looked a lot worse than it was and the police arrived in minutes and the ambulance a minute after that. At which point I was not needed anymore, surrendered the kid to the paramedics and started talking to the police.

While all this was going on, one of the onlookers came over and said that the guy from the other car got into another car and drove away and that she took pictures.... It seems he was driving without a licence and was drunk. Because of her picture they were picked up a few minutes later by another police car on the way to the scene... It went to court... her cell phone pictures convicted him.

Thanks, was a bit concerned how people would take my comment but that's exactly the kind of thing I meant. Maybe sometimes the photographer who appears to be a ghoul is actually doing precisely the right thing. I wonder if people's attitudes are framed by the paparazzi who I would have to say often behave appallingly in my view.

I guess each situation has to be judged on its merits. In the above situation my first thought would be to call the emergency services of course but the girl with the camera did everyone a service that day.

The lady who took the pictures is the one that I sent to call 911 (emergency services) and wait by the road and to guide the paramedics to where they were needed. She took the pictures after she did her part....

 

[fragilesi]

If you saw a crime being committed, is it better to help or take photographs that could help in evidence? If there was an accident of some kind a photo of the scene could be of significant use before things get re-arranged by people helping? How much are you personally able to help realistically anyway in those kind of scenarios?

I'm sure that many people would be naturally averse to someone standing there taking pictures in such situations and I'm sure "ghoul" would soon be uttered but maybe sometimes it could actually be the best thing that you could do?

As a first responder, I can assure you that there is a time when it is best to pick up the camera.
Obviously, people come first in any considerations, but in many cases, once the properly trained/equipped people are on scene throwing additional people into the mix, even though they mean well, can be detrimental. There is a time to stand back and let the team work without you.

For example, I was first on the scene of a car accident. One car rolled and had two occupants, one with superficial cuts and the other with more serious bleeding. The driver of the other car appeared to be unhurt. I took control of the scene, had one person call 911 and wait for the ambulance, sent another back to the truck for the first aid kit, and got the bleeding under control while we waited for the ambulance. Fortunately, it looked a lot worse than it was and the police arrived in minutes and the ambulance a minute after that. At which point I was not needed anymore, surrendered the kid to the paramedics and started talking to the police.

While all this was going on, one of the onlookers came over and said that the guy from the other car got into another car and drove away and that she took pictures.... It seems he was driving without a licence and was drunk. Because of her picture they were picked up a few minutes later by another police car on the way to the scene... It went to court... her cell phone pictures convicted him.

Thanks, was a bit concerned how people would take my comment but that's exactly the kind of thing I meant. Maybe sometimes the photographer who appears to be a ghoul is actually doing precisely the right thing. I wonder if people's attitudes are framed by the paparazzi who I would have to say often behave appallingly in my view.

I guess each situation has to be judged on its merits. In the above situation my first thought would be to call the emergency services of course but the girl with the camera did everyone a service that day.

The lady who took the pictures is the one that I sent to call 911 (emergency services) and wait by the road and to guide the paramedics to where they were needed. She took the pictures after she did her part....

Perfect then.

 

[ahsanford]

So my guess of a new FF body of ANY kind (a 6D, a 5D4, a mythical 0D Mark 12, etc.) is not happening at Photokina.

And if the dates of the picture are correct, it seems that the cycles are slowing down. 3 years for 5D, 3.5 years for 5D2 ... so maybe 4 years for 5D3? Same with 50/60/70D or until 1DX... So 5D4 and 1DX2 will be maybe presented at Photokina...2016.

7D succeccor is possible - maybe an additional type (megapixel monster), but no direct replacement of "long" (lol!) waited cameras..

You are correct, Canon is slowing down at refreshing existing brands. I presume this is due to the addition of so many new brands, like Cinema EOS, the tiny SL1, EOS-M, etc.

That is the topic of maaaaany threads on this forum. Does Canon really need 4+ APS-C body price points? What about low/middle/high setup for APS-C and the same for FF? What happened to APS-H? What about a completely stripped down FF model with one AF point? What about an integrally gripped APS-C body? What about that new line of cameras with a pop-up softbox? I want a pony!

[...and the montage fades away as the camera refocuses on the narrator...]

The bottom line is that gear obsessives (myself included) want their swim-lane of the portfolio charts to be better supported and get the new products first. Canon and Nikon folks are never truly happy in that regard. But it could be worse: we could be Sony fanboys that actually do get a ton of interesting new stuff on a regular basis... but what we get may let us down.

- A

 

[dgatwood]

That is the topic of maaaaany threads on this forum. Does Canon really need 4+ APS-C body price points? What about low/middle/high setup for APS-C and the same for FF? What happened to APS-H? What about a completely stripped down FF model with one AF point?

IMO, even six is probably too many. They should have one consumer crop body and one pro crop body, plus one pro FF, and optionally one consumer FF. Make the pro model(s) available in your choice of gripped or non-gripped form factors, but with otherwise identical guts. There's just not enough product differentiation to support 6 or more bodies. It drives up R&D costs without providing much customer benefit.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

That is the topic of maaaaany threads on this forum. Does Canon really need 4+ APS-C body price points? What about low/middle/high setup for APS-C and the same for FF? What happened to APS-H? What about a completely stripped down FF model with one AF point?

IMO, even six is probably too many. They should have one consumer crop body and one pro crop body, plus one pro FF, and optionally one consumer FF. Make the pro model(s) available in your choice of gripped or non-gripped form factors, but with otherwise identical guts. There's just not enough product differentiation to support 6 or more bodies. It drives up R&D costs without providing much customer benefit.

I tend to disagree here. I think there's room for the segmentation of the lines, more room even especially at the top. I look at the 1dx and say, wow, amazing camera, but much of what it can do is beyond the needs a great meany shooters who don't need extremely high fps and extra advanced tracking for fast moving subjects. 1 pro body makes for a jack of all trades body. I know many would love a more dedicated landscape body. Other's don't need the fps but do need the low light capability.

 

[slclick]

I can see another studio body (1DXs perhaps as has been speculated time and time again) But Not a landscape body. I guess fps is just too exciting eh?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

About aspect ratio's: I compose for, and mostly stick to 2:3 or 3:2, natively or cropped. On occasion I do crop to square (1:1), especially with portraits of my cat ;D I stay away from 4:3 or 3:4 except for some product shots that I make of stuff I want to sell online (4:3 is the native aspect ratio of my Canon S90 anyway). My panorama's can be pretty much any aspect ratio depending on the amount of image data available.

I just whip out the crop tool and crop as whatever, be it 3.0001:2 or 4.354:3 or 1.2304555:1 ;D.

 

[dgatwood]

That is the topic of maaaaany threads on this forum. Does Canon really need 4+ APS-C body price points? What about low/middle/high setup for APS-C and the same for FF? What happened to APS-H? What about a completely stripped down FF model with one AF point?

IMO, even six is probably too many. They should have one consumer crop body and one pro crop body, plus one pro FF, and optionally one consumer FF. Make the pro model(s) available in your choice of gripped or non-gripped form factors, but with otherwise identical guts. There's just not enough product differentiation to support 6 or more bodies. It drives up R&D costs without providing much customer benefit.

I tend to disagree here. I think there's room for the segmentation of the lines, more room even especially at the top. I look at the 1dx and say, wow, amazing camera, but much of what it can do is beyond the needs a great meany shooters who don't need extremely high fps and extra advanced tracking for fast moving subjects. 1 pro body makes for a jack of all trades body. I know many would love a more dedicated landscape body. Other's don't need the fps but do need the low light capability.

The fundamental problem is that the alternative forces users to choose between one feature and another. In my experience, when a company does that, they're invariably setting themselves up for failure. Consumers want their choices to be as easy to make as possible. The best way to achieve this, bar none, is to make each product clearly better than the previous one. That way, customers choose between two products based on cost-reward balance, rather than reward-reward balance. If customers have to choose between feature A and feature B when buying a body, this pisses a significant percentage of them off, resulting in lost (or at least deferred) sales.

Mind you, there are certain situations where a camera can't be strictly better than the alternative, such as when choosing between a crop body and a full-frame body. That's why you have to have two distinct product families, one for crop and one for full-frame.

The other problem with the current scheme is the more models you have, the longer it takes to break even on R&D for each model, which means the development cycle is slower. And because a company only has a given number of employees, the more products a company makes, the less they are able to focus on each of them, and the less each product improves. This is a recipe for relative stagnation.

There's really no reason for more than two full-frame bodies. Pull the 5D Mark III's AF system down into the 6D Mark II. Price it slightly above the original 6D's price, but considerably below the price of the 5D Mark III. For the high end, start with the 1DX, pull in the GPS and Wi-Fi features from the 6D, and pull in a handful of software features from the 5D Mark III (e.g. the AI Focus mode) so that it's strictly a superset of the features previously offered by the lower models. Set the price point higher than the 5D Mark III, but lower than the current 1DX. Then you can kill the 5D line entirely. This simplified model lineup should significantly increase sales of high-end gear and should increase overall profit margins as well.

For the crop body models, update the 70D, add GPS, and rename it to T6i. Drop the 70D line. Add GPS and Wi-Fi in the 7D Mark II.

 

[plam_1980]

That is the topic of maaaaany threads on this forum. Does Canon really need 4+ APS-C body price points? What about low/middle/high setup for APS-C and the same for FF? What happened to APS-H? What about a completely stripped down FF model with one AF point?

IMO, even six is probably too many. They should have one consumer crop body and one pro crop body, plus one pro FF, and optionally one consumer FF. Make the pro model(s) available in your choice of gripped or non-gripped form factors, but with otherwise identical guts. There's just not enough product differentiation to support 6 or more bodies. It drives up R&D costs without providing much customer benefit.

As ahsanford noted, we've been over this ground before, repeatedly. The numbers just don't support such assertions, nor do the business strategies. This is Canon we're talking about, not one of the <1% market share companies. Product saturation is a successful, widely-used strategy for driving out competition when you have a large market share. Canon is expanding their lines even while the market is contracting precisely to push small players out of the business completely. Canon currently has eight DSLR lines running, plus one ILC, with three of those nine lines started since 2011. Nikon has seven DSLR lines with substantially lower market share.

Instead of implying that every company is completely stupid, I recommend you reference the earlier discussions including the actual camera sales numbers if you need a clearer picture. I've posted graphs in some. You might also take a close look at the toothpaste section in your grocery store the next time you're there if you want a more concrete example of where the market is going and why.

Wow, I guess the new saying will not be "comparing apples and oranges", but "comparing DSLRs and toothpaste"

 

[dgatwood]

As ahsanford noted, we've been over this ground before, repeatedly. The numbers just don't support such assertions, nor do the business strategies. This is Canon we're talking about, not one of the <1% market share companies.

Funny you should mention that. The entire collection of DSLR cameras from all manufacturers put together (including Canon and Nikon) come to less than 1% of the camera market once you include all the smartphones, which make up something like 97% of the total camera market. Canon, in total, also represents somewhere on the order of one percent of the camera market.

So yes, the numbers do support such assertions, at least if you look at the bigger picture. Remember that those smartphone vendors are also expanding their lines to smother the smallest players... like Canon and Nikon.

Instead of implying that every company is completely stupid, I recommend you reference the earlier discussions including the actual camera sales numbers if you need a clearer picture. I've posted graphs in some. You might also take a close look at the toothpaste section in your grocery store the next time you're there if you want a more concrete example of where the market is going and why.

Cameras are not toothpaste. The assumption that technology is even slightly similar to commodity goods is precisely what nearly caused Apple to go bankrupt in the 1990s (Pepsi, in their case). Sculley thought that selling a large number of models would result in his products taking up more space on store shelves and would push smaller companies out of the market. The reality was that the exact opposite happened. Customers got confused, and then they got mad. This actually drove customers away, and nearly killed the company. One of the major changes that turned the death spiral around was Steve Jobs cutting out most of those hardware models.

Mind you, Canon's DSLR line isn't as absurd as Apple's was, but it is still out of hand. Right now, on Amazon, I can buy the following models new:

XT
XS
XTi
XSi
T1i
T2i
T3
T3i
T4i
T5
T5i
40D
50D
60D
70D
SL1
SL1-white
6D
7D
5D mark II
5D mark III
1D mark II N
1D mark III
1DX

In other words, just about every DSLR model they've ever made in the last decade is still available new. About half of these are available through Amazon Prime.

This bizarre proliferation of available models demonstrates pretty clearly that Canon's long string of minor updates gives vendors little incentive to deeply discount discontinued products to clear out the channel, resulting in what looks like a market containing two dozen current models. That can't not cause customer confusion, particularly when the numbering/naming doesn't necessarily indicate which product is better (or is better for a given user).

 

[Loswr]

That can't not cause customer confusion, particularly when the numbering/naming doesn't necessarily indicate which product is better (or is better for a given user).

You're so right. All that confusion about so many 'current' models (actually, you should check eBay and your list would grow) is a great explanation for why Canon can't not have been the dSLR market leader for >10 years. Consumers are clearly idiots, would you believe some of them even think available as Amazon Prime means the same as sold by Amazon?

 

[dgatwood]

That can't not cause customer confusion, particularly when the numbering/naming doesn't necessarily indicate which product is better (or is better for a given user).

You're so right. All that confusion about so many 'current' models (actually, you should check eBay and your list would grow) is a great explanation for why Canon can't not have been the dSLR market leader for >10 years. Consumers are clearly idiots, would you believe some of them even think available as Amazon Prime means the same as sold by Amazon?

It means they are either sold by or fulfilled by Amazon. My point is not that you can buy them through Amazon marketplace. My point is you can still buy them new through Amazon's marketplace (which, by definition, means with a factory warranty). For products discontinued ten years ago, that borders on insane.

 

[Bennymiata]

So where's the new announcements?

 

[crashpc]

So where's the new announcements?

Waiting for Photokina, obviously....

 

[Steve]

DSLRs and toothpaste are in no way comparable and aren't marketed the same way at all. That's absurd. Toothpaste is a commodity, bought by everybody, that is used up and must be replaced periodically; it has also remained completely functionally unchanged for the last several decades. The only way to differentiate brands is with different colored boxes, flavor additives, and nonsense marketing words plastered on the packaging. That's why toothpaste marketing is such a bewildering confusion - the product is all identical so the companies have to create an illusion of choice in order to stand out.

DSLRs on the other hand are technology that is constantly changing and improving, are a non-essential luxury item/toy for most, a specialty tool for some and they are marketed as such. There are discrete pricing levels for different demographics with varying levels of disposable income and needs: entry level Rebels, midpoint xxD's, high end full frame, pro level 1 series. There has been some further segmentation with the 7D line for high end crop and the 6D/5DIII that divides full frame into low/high but the general principle is still valid. All of these products are different with pricing that reflects those differences and a presumed customer base. There is literally an order of magnitude difference in the pricing between the t5i and the 1dx and I don't think anyone here would disagree with me when I say these are absolutely different cameras meant for different users.

Canon and Nikon are in no way trying to flood shelves with a confusing array of bs like laundry detergent or toothpaste. The product types are absolutely, fundamentally different, in every conceivable way short of both of them being sold for money in stores. Now, if you want to talk about Pentax and their rainbow colored assortment of DSLRs that might be a different story...

Also, dgatwood, using a list of what cameras are still available new on Amazon isn't helpful. A lot, if not most, of those bodies are discontinued. There isn't much that can be done about old products still being sold by vendors with old stock at ridiculously inflated prices. Even current production lines aren't really indicative of the overall marketing plan or whats being put in front of consumers. Canon still manufactures 1v film cameras but I have yet to see one at a Best Buy. All consumer technology manufacturers put out new, minor upgrades year after year. Its not unique to the camera industry.

That said, I agree to a point that DSLR selection is confusing but I would put that more on the vague naming conventions than too many products. They're not even clearly iterative in some cases (is a 7D better than a 5D?? The number is bigger but not the price???) At least Canon was smart enough to give a name to their entry level line. I'm surprised Nikon hasn't followed suit. But product confusion is a problem in all sorts of hobbies with specialist equipment and a learning curve. Just try buying a modern bicycle with no research and see what you end up with.

 

[Tugela]

Just try buying a modern bicycle with no research and see what you end up with.

A tricycle? With 3 wheels it must be an improvement over a bicycle!!

 

[dgatwood]

Cameras are not toothpaste. The assumption that technology is even slightly similar to commodity goods is precisely what nearly caused...

The marketing strategy is what was being discussed. Any business text or business person can explain to you why DSLRs and desktop computers and toothpaste are all mature technologies and mature markets today and what those terms mean. These markets all exhibit saturation and incremental technological advances. Reference the graphs I've posted on the DSLR market and the many articles referenced on these forums concerning saturation of the DSLR market. If you don't know what these terms mean, and it is becoming clear that you probably don't, then look them up.

I'm quite familiar with all of those terms. I've been working in the computer industry for fifteen years. What you keep ignoring is the fact that toothpaste is a commodity, which means that any one toothpaste is almost exactly as good as another. They're literally interchangeable. Computers and cameras, by contrast, are not remotely interchangeable, which means that a majority of consumers will go out of their way to buy the specific product that they want, rather than simply settling for whatever is available.

There are two reasons for this:

First, both interchangeable-lens cameras and computers depend on an ecosystem. If I'm running Windows, I can't just grab an iOS tablet and keep doing the same things I was doing before, because none of my software will run. I can't swap out my 6D for a D810, because none of my lenses will work. And so on. There's a much higher barrier to a customer changing to a different manufacturer's products. Making it harder to find your competitor's products might make a difference for first-time purchasers, but makes little difference for long-time users, because they can't feasibly change brands even if they wanted to. So they'll find a way to keep getting the product via Amazon or other channels. The only thing that commodity marketing tricks can do is increase the rate at which product sales move from brick-and-mortar stores to online.

Second, cameras and computers are differentiated by features. There are fairly large differences between, for example, a 5D Mark III and an SL1. People choose one camera over the other based on those features, not based on what happens to be available in the store at the time. They go out of their way to special order cameras online if they can't get them locally, precisely because those features matter. A lot.

Toothpaste, by contrast, isn't differentiated by feature, with the exception of children's toothpastes that are distinguished by the choice of cartoon character on the packaging. And it isn't tied to any sort of ecosystem, so when someone finds their usual variety out of stock, they might try a different store, but if it stays out of stock, they'll try a different brand. In other words, toothpaste sales are nothing at all like technology sales. The marketing strategies that work for commodities like toothpaste or (to a lesser degree) Blu-Ray players simply don't work with computers or cameras.

And even in commodity tech areas like Blu-Ray players, there's a constant drive to differentiate the products from the competition so that people don't pick them like they pick toothpaste. If you can make your product enough better than the competition, people will go out of their way to get your product, ecosystem or no.