Canon Will Announce Their First Full Frame Mirrorless in 2018 [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
yes, me and millions of potential buyers would happily buy a 999 FF EOS X. I am not suggesting Canon ONLY makes that one, but it should be ONE option. And it would be a popular one.
I don't mind plastic. EF-M 22/2.0 and 18-55 kit zoom are more than good enough build quality as far as i am concerned. They have survived years of outdoor use in dusty Urbex, tough mountaineering, freezing cold alpine/backcountry skiing environments with me. Including being dropped into the snow and i had to literally dig out my EOS M with 18-55 on it, wipe off the snow and it kept working.
I don't mind plastic. EF-M 22/2.0 and 18-55 kit zoom are more than good enough build quality as far as i am concerned. They have survived years of outdoor use in dusty Urbex, tough mountaineering, freezing cold alpine/backcountry skiing environments with me. Including being dropped into the snow and i had to literally dig out my EOS M with 18-55 on it, wipe off the snow and it kept working.
Upvote
0
After reading this forum all these years, I am certain Canon does not consult the forums for advice on which feature to include next. If they did there would be far less disappointment.
I have a suspicion though, that Sony monitors this forum because there are so many here that know Canon's market strategy, their finances, their customers and their next move.
I have a suspicion though, that Sony monitors this forum because there are so many here that know Canon's market strategy, their finances, their customers and their next move.
Upvote
0
fullstop said:
You can't answer that unless you know the cost of a FF sensor and as far as I understand it, the sensor is a significant part of the cost, and it is not a simply multiple of the sensor area because increasing sensor size your manufacturing failure rate rises disproportionately (any manufacturer will tell you that).
The Sony A73 is a smidge under 2,000 USD, what makes you think Canon can halve that? You have no idea of Sony profit margins on the A73 - are they making any profit at all? Is it a loss leader to get people into Sony before Canon release their FF MILC?
You assumptoins seem to be continually based on wish list rather than any understanding of the issues involved.
Upvote
0
Kit. said:
I shoot plenty sports in dim gyms, so I need AF that can handle such scenes. So far haven't seen mirrorless which is even remotely close to my 1DX. That's my biggest reason for keeping 1DX in the bag. For the studio stuff, it's different completely, so mirrorless could fit that realm very nicely.
OVF is still way better in my mind, but I'm sure in some near-ish future the EVF is close enough that the other improvements make it better in general.
Upvote
0
fullstop said:yes, me and millions of potential buyers would happily buy a 999 FF EOS X. I am not suggesting Canon ONLY makes that one, but it should be ONE option. And it would be a popular one.
I don't mind plastic. EF-M 22/2.0 and 18-55 kit zoom are more than good enough build quality as far as i am concerned. They have survived years of outdoor use in dusty Urbex, tough mountaineering, freezing cold alpine/backcountry skiing environments with me. Including being dropped into the snow and i had to literally dig out my EOS M with 18-55 on it, wipe off the snow and it kept working.
Again: no one is questioning whether you want the camera you are lobbying for. ;D
We are questioning why Canon would set its financials on fire for you. What you propose is a dramatic reduction in body profit margins, Canon dropping a very disruptive shark into the APS-C market it already dominates, etc. For what? A small uptick in units? A photographic awakening where Rebel-level shooters start pricier full-frame lens collections as thanks to Canon for the sweet FF body they just received?
Your strategy is a fever dream. It's what a failing Canon would do if it was locked in a vicious price war. It's quite simply the wrong move for Canon as it stands today.
- A
Upvote
0
fullstop said:
They could make 2 versions, or even 3.
1: $999 Rebel-M. Basic small-ish, plastic body
2: $2000 5D-M. Like 5D-series, high mpix, great IQ, etc.
3: $3000 1D-M. Rugged pro/sports body. Medium mpix count, crazy-ass fps. Tank-like body.
Upvote
0
fullstop said:
can i see your survey to back that up? some real data outside of made out of thin air crap from the AvTv Universe?
because you could get a brand new sony A7 for 1000 bucks for the last two years and it hasn't taken the world by storm.
as a matter of fact, you can buy it on amazon right now for $800 brand new.
Upvote
0
tpatana said:
Someone please find me an animated gif of Heath Ledger presiding over that burning pyre of cash in Dark Knight. Because that's what this is.
Canon didn't build up their portfolio to a jillion carefully crafted price points, establish long-term market leadership over time, etc. only to flush all of that down the toilet to... do what, exactly? Spike unit sales? Delight customers? Stick it to Sony?
Madness.
- A
Upvote
0
I'd say, there are millions of people that see themselves as such potential customers.fullstop said:
However, when they go to the shop and actually compare the systems, they may as well buy the M50, because it's still cheaper, lighter, smaller, and good enough.
Upvote
0
fullstop said:
The cost of a FF sensor and full frame lenses would add some unknown amount to the cost of an M50. Clearly, there are quite a few people out there who would like a small relatively inexpensive camera. The question is how many in that group would be willing to pay the additional cost for a full frame version, and I suspect Canon is also quite interested in the answer to that question. Could they make money bringing out a "Super M" version of the M50? The answer depends partly how much more the fullframe version will cost, and I have no idea whether your numbers are close to the mark or not, or what the demand would be at that price point. The devil would seem to be in the details on this one.
I doubt that Canon will bet the mirrorless ranch on a scaled up fullframe "Super M" version of the M50. I think they will be trying to hit other price points as well.
Upvote
0
We all have our wants and dreams for the next Canon release. Personally, I would like to shoot 1/1000 in a poorly lit gym without having to shoot wide open and hoping that the NR can do its job. I figure another four or five stops of higher noise free ISO should do it. But I don't come on the forum to cry that Canon isn't dedicating its next camera to me.
I work around the limitations when I have to (a slower shutter speed than I would like), and look forward to the day when technology catches up to what I need. Someday, I'm sure, your dream camera will come (and I bet it won't be a Sony) but until then, I think I have a very good tool for the job at hand.
I work around the limitations when I have to (a slower shutter speed than I would like), and look forward to the day when technology catches up to what I need. Someday, I'm sure, your dream camera will come (and I bet it won't be a Sony) but until then, I think I have a very good tool for the job at hand.
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
No, the proposal is perfectly sound and fine. Try to take a PAYING CUSTOMER's PERSPECTIVE for once, will ya? instead of trying to just defend Canon's mega profitability [13% EBIT on imaging revenues is more than healthy. It is "oligopoly level". I and anybody in their right mind believes in "MY WALLET FIRST", rather than in "make poor Canon great again".
It really is one of the most extreme forms of "Can-apologism" [sorry, but it is the only appropriate word for it] to always think like you were Canon Chief Financial officer or their main shareholder. Heck, no! We are all Canon customers. We have every right to and should be constantly demanding MAXIMUM BANG FOR OUR [HARD EARNED] BUCKS. If that means slimmer profits for Canon, so be it.
Upvote
0
fullstop said:
And all along, that’s been backwards. An SLR can do everything a MILC can do, and then some (i.e. the stuff facilitated by the mirror) including if so designed: an EVF, removable or otherwise.
The only thing it can’t do is: have no mirror assembly, which affects form factor.
Upvote
0
BillB said:
Only Canon knows the plan right now, I think, but if the rumours are true, we'll know more soon. Part of me wonders if they may be creating a full frame equivalent of an M6 rather than an M50. The earlier rumour suggested that one of the two offerings may have a removable viewfinder. In my limited imagination, I'm having a hard time finding a reason to have a removable EVF unless this was for the size conscious crowd. If they did this, I can only assume it wouldn't be cheap though. I really struggle to imagine Canon releasing any full frame camera below the price of a 6D II.
While the previous rumour noted that this could be the cheaper of the two cameras with the other camera having the better video features, I wonder if that could actually be backwards. I see so many youtube vloggers switching back and forth between cameras in order to get something that is light (read: single hand holdable), takes great cinematic video (with slow motion), has a swivel screen, and shoots 4K. There really aren't a lot of full frame cameras on the market that do all of that well, so there either there is no real market for it or the market is under-serviced.
I obviously have no idea what the actual market for such a product would be, but if Canon wants to release a product which doesn't compete with their other offerings, a small/very lightweight full frame, video centric camera could fit that bill. People who are size restricted may not select one of Canon's cinema cameras anyway, and the ergonomics would be terrible, so it may not compete with the cinema line. I guess we may know more soon!
Upvote
0
Mikehit said:
They have a positive operating income of about 11.3% of sales.
https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/library/FY2017_20F_PDF.pdf
, Sony continued to strengthen its high value-added products, such as interchangeable lens
cameras and lenses, and focus on high-end models within its product portfolio of compact digital cameras and
consumer video cameras.
Sounds to me like they are not cutting or slashing prices.
Upvote
0
tpatana said:
Forgive me, I thought that was implied. TL/DR reason: because profits.
Canon has demonstrated that they can ask for $500-$1699 for crop cameras and $1999-$5999 for FF cameras at time of launch. Canon leads the market in units (and has for a very long time), and they have crafted a portfolio that allows them to carve every dollar out of the market. Nowhere is this carefully tuned portfolio more painstakingly set up than in the crop market, which has far higher units than FF.
In short, Canon has figured out how to deliver a ton of products to market that justify their distinct price points. So now, to change that so dramatically with what you and AvTvM are suggesting, would...
[list type=decimal]
[*]Reduce Canon's profitability. Whatever mad rush on units we expect a cut-rate FF platform to drive, there are only so many people with $1500 in their pocket for a camera + lens. An FF camera would cost a great deal more to build than a crop camera, so less of that $1500 would go into Canon's pocket.
[*]Signal that Canon is moving toward consumers/enthusiasts and away from professionals with their FF offerings. This is more symbolic than anything else, but if Canon is limiting how nice they make their higher end offering (not just specs, but build quality, sealing, etc.) to keep costs down, pros may get wanderlust.
[*]Show that Canon wants to radically change how it is doing its business despite leading the market. That makes no sense. There is far more to lose than to gain with this approach.
[/list]
Again, I just don't see this happening.
- A
Upvote
0
Kit. said:
Sorry, I firmly see two markets here (keep it small vs. keep it seamless). The notion that everyone who steps up to FF is a ruthless pragmatist who accepts the realities of the size of things is a hive-mind perspective even we on this forum don't share. I doubt the market is any different.
There is a market for FF shooters who want a smaller rig -- lens size/speed limitations and all.
- A
Upvote
0
fullstop said:
I'm not defending their profitability as just, I'm just pointing out the obvious: profitability is their goal. I never said it was honorable or fair. We'd all love to pay less.
But accept the fact that the market will pay Canon's prices for what they offer. That reality seems constantly lost on you. Until the market bucks on Canon's asking prices, Canon will continue to stick to their MO. It's not apologism, it's capitalism! Your caps lock rants shouldn't aimed at Canon or a forum: they really should be aimed at the market that (apparently) values things differently than you do.
- A
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 2 staff post(s)