Canon's Roadmap for 2013 [CR2]

[dave]

Yes someone probably would show that how things are setup it will show that they make profit...but that's a given. They are milking the products which in turn give us either the same or a very very small step towards new technology. But what I'm proposing is another way of thinking, and in a sense it's how Apple is but I don't want to associate it with Apple because of the negative psychology that it can impose with certain consumers.

Agree again, but Apple wasn't the market leader when their great innovation model kicked in. They said they would chase blue water innovations through 'user needs' rather than 'market expectations'. That distinction is important.

Canon will never do that in an most areas b/c that's not what people expect of a leading camera company. There are expectations of use across a number of segments, so the needs of segment A drive the needs of segment B. Canon's rather vanilla (but capable) entry into mirrorless shows this -- they went for a straightforward smaller camera based on technology they know tons about (APS-C), with menus, interface etc. borrowed from other Canon offerings. None of us should have been surprised by that.

But now look at the Apple-like blue water innovation entry Canon dropped earlier this month, the Powershot N:

http://photorumors.com/2013/01/07/canon-announced-powershot-n-elph-130is-a2600-a1400-compact-cameras/

It's not going to rock the world of an SLR shooter, but I challenge anyone to tell me:

• What photography market segment does it go in?
• Who is the target demographic?
• What do you compare this to?

And there you have Canon, in one smaller camera, being a little brave. It's not going to change our world, but where there are no expectations, interesting products can arise. Sadly, this is Canon's very limited sliver of opportunity on the 'where the hell did that come from?' innovation front.

- A

True, but that is why they need to do something different. You're also right on this being their opportunity, and honestly I think their in the BIGGEST point in their timeline to decide whether they will lead by a large margin or be muddied down with the rest. Canon is huge, and they sell (from what I can remember reading) the most but we're no longer in an age where we can say well "Buying Nikon/Canon will be better" even Sony (I should say definitely) is starting to creep up into that conversation, and given the way things are, they MIGHT pass it. I might not saying Canon is dieing or whatever, that isn't what I'm getting at. I just wish that a leading company will start loving what they make, and actually lead by revolution and not by how big their margins are. Yes they are a company...but not all companies operate on only making the biggest profit. (not pointing to you, just expressing my thoughts)

I don't think you give them enough credit.

Personally I feel Canon is pretty much better sensors away from being easily ahead.

I prefer:

- Their lenses (IQ)
- Their variety and range
- Their ergonomics (and LCD's on the DSLR's)
- The latest autofocus technology
- Their service and support
- Their reliability

Lets look at some absolute benchmarks they have laid out this last year or so:

- 24-70mmL ii
- the 500mm and 600mm version ii's
- the autofocus in the 1D X and 5D 3

I know people often sook about Canon's lack of a killer ultra wide zoom, but I rate the 14L and 17 TS-E as fantastic lenses.

Yes, their sensor tech could be improved but most other things are pretty rosy!

 

[fonts]

I don't think you give them enough credit.

Personally I feel Canon is pretty much better sensors away from being easily ahead.

I prefer:

- Their lenses (IQ)
- Their variety and range
- Their ergonomics (and LCD's on the DSLR's)
- The latest autofocus technology
- Their service and support
- Their reliability

Lets look at some absolute benchmarks they have laid out this last year or so:

- 24-70mmL ii
- the 500mm and 600mm version ii's
- the autofocus in the 1D X and 5D 3

I know people often sook about Canon's lack of a killer ultra wide zoom, but I rate the 14L and 17 TS-E as fantastic lenses.

Yes, their sensor tech could be improved but most other things are pretty rosy!

I do give them credit. Even though I don't own the AF of 1Dx/5D3 I know it's the best on the market. I also do love their lenses. I'm not trying to say they are a bad company or are going to die. I'm just trying to get to a new way of thinking.

Idk I feel like I'm repeating myself too much :/ Ill back down as it seems that I'm failing at portraying my vision.

 

[dave]

I don't think you give them enough credit.

Personally I feel Canon is pretty much better sensors away from being easily ahead.

I prefer:

- Their lenses (IQ)
- Their variety and range
- Their ergonomics (and LCD's on the DSLR's)
- The latest autofocus technology
- Their service and support
- Their reliability

Lets look at some absolute benchmarks they have laid out this last year or so:

- 24-70mmL ii
- the 500mm and 600mm version ii's
- the autofocus in the 1D X and 5D 3

I know people often sook about Canon's lack of a killer ultra wide zoom, but I rate the 14L and 17 TS-E as fantastic lenses.

Yes, their sensor tech could be improved but most other things are pretty rosy!

I do give them credit. Even though I don't own the AF of 1Dx/5D3 I know it's the best on the market. I also do love their lenses. I'm not trying to say they are a bad company or are going to die. I'm just trying to get to a new way of thinking.

Idk I feel like I'm repeating myself too much :/ Ill back down as it seems that I'm failing at portraying my vision.

I'm not being critical of you , it's just I imagine that being a camera company (even a good one) and trying to please everyone is impossible. I think one of the biggest issues for most people (e.g. me) is how much the technology they desire will actually cost them. I'd prefer to pay a bit less...but then I'd just buy more :

 

[Brock]

Making full frame sensors is expensive, that's why they cost so much.

They can make over quadruple the number or APS-C sensors out of the same wafer size as full frame. e.g. 60D APS-C = 14.9x22.3mm = 332.27sq mm. 5D III FF = 24.0x36.0mm = 864 sq mm. A 300mm wafer has about 70,500 sq mm.

With the number of cameras they sell, I think it's very unlikely they would see any cost savings with a single sensor design. More likely they would lose a lot of money.

Which makes it very unlikely they would ever drop their prices as low as you're suggesting. Realistically they'll stay the same or see a slight bump. They'll likely try to keep the Rebel & X0D series close to the D5X00 & D7X00 series (if not slightly lower, which they traditionally are by about $100).

If they eliminated the X0D model, they are also eliminating any (semi)affordable DSLR with a good grip.

A Rebel for $600-950 vs a 7D II for $1700-2200 is a huge price difference. It leaves a big gap for Nikon to fill w/ a $1200-1500 D7000 successor (which has a good grip & feels more solid than a Rebel).

If they don't have a 70D they have no D7000 successor equivalent & they lose all customers who think the Rebel is too small but don't want to spend 140+% more $$$ (than a X0D or D7X00) to get in a 7D successor.

If they really wanted to stand out from the pack, what they could do is increase the size of their APS-C. All APS-C sensor are not the same size despite sharing the same name. Canon could make a APS-C sensor that, while still smaller than full frame, is larger than Nikons 1.52X Crop factor. That's the only way I can see them drawing out 500nm sensors. That would create a problem w/ the current crop sensor lenses causing vignetting however, so that's unlikely to ever happen.

Unless, they could just have the camera shoot a lower megapixel crop of the larger APS-C if it detects a older crop lens is attached, and if a full frame or newer crop lens is attached then it shoots the full sensor at a higher MegaPixel. That would be interesting. Dollars to donuts it won't happen though.

I know where you're getting at, but like I said the price section isn't what I was trying to get at. It's the way of thinking that I am trying to show you. Most of us are use to seeing a Rebel , then a X0D, then XD, all having incremental upgrades. But instead of that, why not have a Rebel line that isn't crippled. See you're scared that Nikon will have an advantage of that middle price ground with something "similar". But think about it, no one will have anything similar to this idea I'm trying to get. This is why it's bad for us consumers when we can't tell the difference between Nikon and Canon products, no one is revolutionizing the market.

The cost of FF is expensive, but that doesn't necessarily make a product expensive. The cost of R&D and these random sidetracked "improvements" to the cameras they're doing is what's really making a camera expensive. Instead of wasting time and money with "middle ground" products they will focus on just 4 line product, which in itself will lower costs. Also think about it, if Canon stopped crippling their lines, how would you think of Canon now? A lot more people would get Canon, which in turns means Canon makes more of the Rebels which will keep cost per item lower.

Rebel would be the best entry camera, not being crippled in sensor and AF designs, but being limited by the 3 main areas I suggested. All the way up 1D which would have the MP needed for product shooters but not sacrifice the speed and noise quality everyone else would need. Think about it, people shouldn't have to choose anymore, the only reason we do is because no one is bringing or creating anything new to the plate.

You get me?

There's a limit to volume savings. Canon is only able to fab X amount of sensors. If they can sell them all for $200-800 but they sell them for $50-200 instead there's no benefit, just loss.

There's also the issue of pixel size. If they put FF sensors into APS-C cameras & just cripple it with firmware, it's not just the cost of the FF sensor they're losing, it's the megapixel race. FF sensors have much larger pixel sizes, bigger microlenses for better high ISO performance. But that also means if you used the same design on an APS-C camera you'd end up w/ a 6ish MP camera which consumers would look at as if Canon is nuts, trying to rip them off, is 1/4 the resolution of Nikon's APS-C.

Hackers would love it I'm sure. They'd likely find a way to activate the whole sensor.

Canon's current R&D method is working for the most part, they're just dragging their feet switching to a smaller fab; because they already own their own 500nm. The rest of their tech is evolving fine though. Autofocus (sensitivity, accuracy, recognition, & prediction), video, touch screen, & color accuracy are all areas they've stayed ahead of Nikon.

I understand you'd like to see generational leaps closer to what you see in the computer industry, but with Cameras they can't use the same model. Their material costs are higher & their volume is lower.

I know where you're getting at, but like I said the price section isn't what I was trying to get at.

You've actually put the cart before the horse. Apple has clearly shown that price strategy comes first when figuring out model differentiation.

Take a look at any of their product lines, and you'll see they almost always have four different models with fairly uniform spacing of the price between each. They then have a similar type of overlap between product lines -- MacBook Air => MacBook Pro => iMac => Mac Pro.

The net result is that it's easy for a customer to mentally slot into a broad category of desired product, easy to figure out which model fits the budget, and then -- and this is key -- the price points are closely spaced enough for the customer to reasonably imagine stretching a bit and buying the next model up.

That is, if you want to have a laptop and your budget is $1,000, the MacBook Air is right there for you. But just $100 more gets you twice the flash ("disk") storage, an easy upsell. Or $1,200 gets you the entry-level MacBook Pro, with much more impressive specs and not all that much more heft.

Viewed from that perspective, Canon's got it pretty close to right. The Rebel line needs some cleanup; they should ditch the T3 and drop the price of the T2i and do a bit of rounding; I'd put it at T2i @ $600 => T3i @ $700 => T4i @ $1000. When the T5i comes out, price it at $1,100 and drop the prices of the others by $100, retire the T2i, and continue that pattern. I'd drop the 60D, call the rumored 70D an 8D instead and price it at $1200. The 7DII keeps the 7D price at $1600 (and the 7D goes away), then the 6D @ $2100, drop the 5DII when stock runs out, and the pro-level stuff they can price however they want. You're then left with three Rebels and three xD models for the masses, with gradual price jumps along the way. Funky branding and pricing is probably a bit of a plus for the top end, which is why the huge leaps and lack of naming consistency isn't a problem for the 5DIII and 1Dx and anything else (like the super megapickle studio camera) that might come along.

In tabular form:

T2i : $600
T3i : $700
T4i : $1000
----------------
8D : $1200
7D : $1600
6D : $2100
----------------
(pro stuff however it falls out)

Cheers,

b&

While I agree with the reasoning behind your argument for the most part, I think raising the price of a rebel to $1,100 is a bit much, considering the D5X00 launches at less than $900.


One of the reasons Canon continue to outsell Nikons is price. They usually launch very close in price, but then Canon drops their price in 3 months & then again in 6; making them the cheaper alternative. The fact they can do this while still making their cameras in Japan (as opposed to China like Nikon) is impressive in itself, imo.

 

[fonts]

There's a limit to volume savings. Canon is only able to fab X amount of sensors. If they can sell them all for $200-800 but they sell them for $50-200 instead there's no benefit, just loss.

There's also the issue of pixel size. If they put FF sensors into APS-C cameras & just cripple it with firmware, it's not just the cost of the FF sensor they're losing, it's the megapixel race. FF sensors have much larger pixel sizes, bigger microlenses for better high ISO performance. But that also means if you used the same design on an APS-C camera you'd end up w/ a 6ish MP camera which consumers would look at as if Canon is nuts, trying to rip them off, is 1/4 the resolution of Nikon's APS-C.

Hackers would love it I'm sure. They'd likely find a way to activate the whole sensor.

Canon's current R&D method is working for the most part, they're just dragging their feet switching to a smaller fab; because they already own their own 500nm. The rest of their tech is evolving fine though. Autofocus (sensitivity, accuracy, recognition, & prediction), video, touch screen, & color accuracy are all areas they've stayed ahead of Nikon.

I understand you'd like to see generational leaps closer to what you see in the computer industry, but with Cameras they can't use the same model. Their material costs are higher & their volume is lower.

Of course the Rebel line should be a crop sensor to save money. But anything after that it should be FF which can then turn into APS-H/C so that users that want to you it for reach they can. Most of the drawbacks associate with that is because we are still seeing the same technology of sensors but with this drive set of making the best than technology will improve to the point where it would minimize or wipe the current negatives to it.

And crippling firmware is the opposite of where I'm getting at. As you would get higher up the line the things that would change are processor power/efficiency, MP, and Shutter (FPS, etc)

 

[dlleno]

...They are milking the products which in turn give us either the same or a very very small step towards new technology.

or, the incremental or small steps forward are a reflection of their real technology and mfg capabilities

 

[dlleno]

someone mentioned that Canon could do something bold and tool up with the largest possible APS-C sensor that would accept an APS-C lens, in order to squeeze every possible bit of IQ. Sort of a "get as close to H" as possible.

While the motivation for this is admirable, and conceivably there may very well be some largish C sensor size that would still provide all the various geometries in the mirror box required to accept the C lens mount. I rather suspect, however, that Canon has boxed themselves out of such a possibility due to the existing (and expanding) APS-C lenses which, by virtue of their 1.6x design point, do not have sufficient image circle IQ to support anything larger. for example, as cool as it would be to have the 10-22 suddenly turn into a 14-32 FF equivalent instead of the present 16-35, I wonder what the edges would look like...

 

[iP337]

Here is what I expect for Canon's near future lineup:
[list type=decimal]
[*]EOS-Rebel T3i $500
[*]EOS-M $800
[*]EOS-Rebel T4i $800
[*]EOS-100D(M2) $1000
[*]EOS-10D(Rebel T5i) $1000
[*]EOS-8D(70D) $1500
[*]EOS-9D $1500 (Pro APS-C or Full Frame EOS-M)
[*]EOS-6D $2000
[*]EOS-7D $2500
[*]EOS-7D C $3000(7D/5D body with C100 sensor)
[*]EOS-5D $3500
[*]EOS-3D $4500(40+ MP in 1Dx body)
[*]EOS-1D X $6500
[*]EOS-1D C $12000
[/list]

What do you guys think? I think it would clean stuff up quite nicely then they could just start adding new marks to new models, I also think it gives multiple choices in the same price ranges and they would like it to keep higher prices bodies from slipping

 

[dave]

When was the last time an integrated grip body was $4500?

With the new tech it would be an about-face from existing pricing trends.

Here is what I expect for Canon's near future lineup:
[list type=decimal]
[*]EOS-Rebel T3i $500
[*]EOS-M $800
[*]EOS-Rebel T4i $800
[*]EOS-100D(M2) $1000
[*]EOS-10D(Rebel T5i) $1000
[*]EOS-8D(70D) $1500
[*]EOS-9D $1500 (Pro APS-C or Full Frame EOS-M)
[*]EOS-6D $2000
[*]EOS-7D $2500
[*]EOS-7D C $3000(7D/5D body with C100 sensor)
[*]EOS-5D $3500
[*]EOS-3D $4500(40+ MP in 1Dx body)
[*]EOS-1D X $6500
[*]EOS-1D C $12000
[/list]

What do you guys think? I think it would clean stuff up quite nicely then they could just start adding new marks to new models, I also think it gives multiple choices in the same price ranges and they would like it to keep higher prices bodies from slipping

 

[iP337]

When was the last time an integrated grip body was $4500?

With the new tech it would be an about-face from existing pricing trends.

Ah, I guess you're right. It doesn't necessarily need an integrated grip but I think I remember the 1D MarkIV hitting that MSRP before being discontinued and I assume it will priced above the 5D yet still have to compete with Nikon's $3000 high megapixel camera so I figured what better way than to give it a higher grade feel but pixels that small and a resolution that high I doubt Image Quality and Shoot Features would be close enough to 1D X's price range.

Hmm the more I talk about this the more I think it'll end up being something like a 5D3 body with just a new 40+MP sensor for $4000 like a "4D" or "5D3s" lol. Hey, h.265 just got ok'd too and they promise 4k with it so maybe that's what Canon is waiting for; a 5D3 with a 44MP sensor and 4K H.265 video with 4fps bursts and a 4" LCD screen called the EOS-4D LOL Japan would hate it ;-P