Canon's Roadmap for 2013 [CR2]

[dave]

I am pretty sure the term 'roadmap' is not strictly speaking semantically spot on and has created a confusing thread, which I have conveniently summarised thus:

In all reality Canon is following what might be termed the 'mapless, whimsical camera and lens development path', which would be great except the lanterns lighting their way are all powered by nasty third party and counterfeit batteries so they keep going out. On the rare occasion when their lanterns do work the dynamic range of the product developers is such that they immediately become blinded and any logical thoughts (i.e. the 'actual' roadmap) are immediately blown out (sorry).

Subsequently this has the net effect of leaving them (Canon) absolutely bereft when it comes to find the right proverbial tails (7D2, 14-24) to pin on their donkeys (us). The problem is by the time they finally have the tails the donkeys might have all run away (to Nikon, Sony or Kodak).

See! Not roadmap...narrative.

Actually since they just keep recycling good ol 18MP croppy they are more akin to stuck on a roundabout going
around and around and around and around.... the map blew out the window a few towns back...

My story was good, but I think you're right... the map's probably being used as coaster in one of the pubs in Port Hedland..

 

[dave]

They need to consolidate 60d and 7d. 70d 20mp 10 fps dual digic dual sd or qd/sd. 38 focus pt 19 cross center dual cross 51k Iso. only 5.6 af to keep selling superteles to those big spenders. Then bring on the 7dii with apsh and near 1 series spec priced above 6d. Everyone happy!

I don't think that would be a good idea. There's a big price gap between them.

Many people buy the X0D model because the grip on the Rebels are too small & don't want/care about long photo bursts or full weather sealing.

If Canon doesn't have the X0D, then people will migrate to the Nikon D7x00, because it will fulfill their needs for less $$$.


I think Canon might increase the 7D II's price (like they did the 5D Mark III) because It is a pro camera.

But I don't think their Rebel & X0D will change much in price, because they compete in a very price sensitive market against Nikon (who could be considered to have the better cameras in that segment currently, especially if the D7000 successor comes out soon).

I think opposite. Think of it like this (there's also a recent thread with this view) - If Canon stopped milking, and started Under Promise - Over Deliver they would DOMINATE the market. It is NOT a good thing when people can't tell the difference between Nikon or Canon...It means no one is revolutionizing. No one is going out of there way to make and BREAK expectations.

If they kept the Rebel line (which is always increasing in price for some reason....) took out the X0D line. That would be all they need to start taking over when it comes to first buyers.

They also need to start standardizing their sensors, AF, etc. Start BRANDING the company's name. Stop making spin offs of "that" sensor/AF/etc. and start making it throughout the lineup. It wastes people's time, and R&D money when they come out with a different versions to sidetrack the product.

Basically what I'm trying to get at is this.

4 camera Line Up:
Rebel
5D/6D Equiv
7D Equiv
1D Equiv


That might be hard to grasp because then you get into pricing confusion. That mainly will come because of how APS-C and FF are at the moment. The rebel will have APS-C to keep price down for sure. Then Everything else should have FF, because by now they should already have been able to figure out how to only use the center to give the reach of crop by now (I mean seriously).

People are probably wondering than how will they be different if they all have the same sensor and AF.

3 main areas:
1 - CPU power & efficiency + buffer
2 - Shutter Speed
3 - MP

So as you go up the line Rebel - 7D equiv - 5/6D equiv - 1D equiv then all three areas will get better. At this point people will ask well I don't want 50000000000+ MP because noise will increase and buffer speed will decrease....well honestly this isn't how you should be looking at it. Instead ask why hasn't there been any push to technology so that as MP increases noise and buffer doesn't get worse. Seriously the price for these equipments as much and even MORE than the best computer you can build out there.

Pricing - This is difficult, but if either Canon or Nikon started this revolutionary way of business than they can ultimately (well somewhat as consumers are the ones that determine the price) price it to whatever they want. But let's just give reasonable prices.

The Rebel needs to be able to have an easy point of entrance. Right now the current T4i sells for about $800 (way overpriced for what you get, that's why people still buy the T3i over it) so I say for something that will actually be VERY good and revolutionary than at most $800 for it would be better for that camera. 7D equiv $1400; 5/6D equiv $2600; 1D equiv $6000

The pricing section isn't what I'm trying to get at, just giving numbers because I know people will ask.

Now when it comes to system updates (ie Mark ii) then things will make A LOT more sense since most of the technology is shared in the lineup. So as they improve on sensors and AF (and not incremental, but actual improvements) then all they have to do is refresh the lineup.


This will make Canon the best ever, period. Customers will know that this company won't chimp off and let them down, Canon will stop wasting money of random incremental and sidetracked R&D and FOCUS on actual "Evolution & Revlotion" products. There will be a clear difference of what you would get with Canon vs another brand.

Thanks,
Jonathan Liz-Fonts

Jonathan, I am sure that you a way smarter than I am, but I am struggling to follow.

I am getting that the Canon should make 4 cameras at any time and they should all be the same, except for price and name.

 

[Marsu42]

because no competition have anything like APS-H, the image quality drop vs full frame is minimal unlike the wonderfull APS-C.

Well, I understand your point and I'd probably even buy an enthusiast aps-h camera - but as discussed all over expanding the dslr market share doesn't seem to be Canon thinking, for them it's most important to grab as much money as they can get away with while while keeping a strong position in the pro/cps-segment - and the latter is mostly ff :-\

 

[xps]

New PowerShots for CP+, no DSLRs.......

New PowerShots for CP+, no DSLRs.



200-400 4.0 L
Who has the money to pay for it....

 

[xps]

Does anybody know, if Canon will allow AF with lenses that hat an beginning aperture of 8.0? Or will this not be happening?

Is Nikon allowing it?

 

[J.R.]

Well, I understand your point and I'd probably even buy an enthusiast aps-h camera - but as discussed all over expanding the dslr market share doesn't seem to be Canon thinking, for them it's most important to grab as much money as they can get away with while while keeping a strong position in the pro/cps-segment - and the latter is mostly ff :-\

I wish Canon had done that by not discontinuing the 1D-IV :'(

 

[Brock]

They need to consolidate 60d and 7d. 70d 20mp 10 fps dual digic dual sd or qd/sd. 38 focus pt 19 cross center dual cross 51k Iso. only 5.6 af to keep selling superteles to those big spenders. Then bring on the 7dii with apsh and near 1 series spec priced above 6d. Everyone happy!

I don't think that would be a good idea. There's a big price gap between them.

Many people buy the X0D model because the grip on the Rebels are too small & don't want/care about long photo bursts or full weather sealing.

If Canon doesn't have the X0D, then people will migrate to the Nikon D7x00, because it will fulfill their needs for less $$$.


I think Canon might increase the 7D II's price (like they did the 5D Mark III) because It is a pro camera.

But I don't think their Rebel & X0D will change much in price, because they compete in a very price sensitive market against Nikon (who could be considered to have the better cameras in that segment currently, especially if the D7000 successor comes out soon).

I think opposite. Think of it like this (there's also a recent thread with this view) - If Canon stopped milking, and started Under Promise - Over Deliver they would DOMINATE the market. It is NOT a good thing when people can't tell the difference between Nikon or Canon...It means no one is revolutionizing. No one is going out of there way to make and BREAK expectations.

If they kept the Rebel line (which is always increasing in price for some reason....) took out the X0D line. That would be all they need to start taking over when it comes to first buyers.

They also need to start standardizing their sensors, AF, etc. Start BRANDING the company's name. Stop making spin offs of "that" sensor/AF/etc. and start making it throughout the lineup. It wastes people's time, and R&D money when they come out with a different versions to sidetrack the product.

Basically what I'm trying to get at is this.

4 camera Line Up:
Rebel
5D/6D Equiv
7D Equiv
1D Equiv


That might be hard to grasp because then you get into pricing confusion. That mainly will come because of how APS-C and FF are at the moment. The rebel will have APS-C to keep price down for sure. Then Everything else should have FF, because by now they should already have been able to figure out how to only use the center to give the reach of crop by now (I mean seriously).

People are probably wondering than how will they be different if they all have the same sensor and AF.

3 main areas:
1 - CPU power & efficiency + buffer
2 - Shutter Speed
3 - MP

So as you go up the line Rebel - 7D equiv - 5/6D equiv - 1D equiv then all three areas will get better. At this point people will ask well I don't want 50000000000+ MP because noise will increase and buffer speed will decrease....well honestly this isn't how you should be looking at it. Instead ask why hasn't there been any push to technology so that as MP increases noise and buffer doesn't get worse. Seriously the price for these equipments as much and even MORE than the best computer you can build out there.

Pricing - This is difficult, but if either Canon or Nikon started this revolutionary way of business than they can ultimately (well somewhat as consumers are the ones that determine the price) price it to whatever they want. But let's just give reasonable prices.

The Rebel needs to be able to have an easy point of entrance. Right now the current T4i sells for about $800 (way overpriced for what you get, that's why people still buy the T3i over it) so I say for something that will actually be VERY good and revolutionary than at most $800 for it would be better for that camera. 7D equiv $1400; 5/6D equiv $2600; 1D equiv $6000

The pricing section isn't what I'm trying to get at, just giving numbers because I know people will ask.

Now when it comes to system updates (ie Mark ii) then things will make A LOT more sense since most of the technology is shared in the lineup. So as they improve on sensors and AF (and not incremental, but actual improvements) then all they have to do is refresh the lineup.


This will make Canon the best ever, period. Customers will know that this company won't chimp off and let them down, Canon will stop wasting money of random incremental and sidetracked R&D and FOCUS on actual "Evolution & Revlotion" products. There will be a clear difference of what you would get with Canon vs another brand.

Thanks,
Jonathan Liz-Fonts

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.

 

[fonts]

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?

 

[TrumpetPower!]

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&

 

[fonts]

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&

I guess I see what you're saying, but still I'm not here for the pricing. If you feel like that's more important than ok...but what I'm trying to get at is the product line. And just because there's only 4 product lines doesn't mean they can't sell the last generations product line to fall in between the price gaps, but again pricing isn't my main subject.

You still need the "cart" even with a "horse"......

 

[dlleno]

because no competition have anything like APS-H, the image quality drop vs full frame is minimal unlike the wonderfull APS-C.

Well, I understand your point and I'd probably even buy an enthusiast aps-h camera - but as discussed all over expanding the dslr market share doesn't seem to be Canon thinking, for them it's most important to grab as much money as they can get away with while while keeping a strong position in the pro/cps-segment - and the latter is mostly ff :-\

+1 on these points. The money grab occured by moving the pro sports/wildlife segment away from H and into FF plus longer gla$$. to the extent that this remains Canon strategy, there is room to address the enthusiast/sports/wildlife segment with a full featured APS-C camera priced between the 6D and 5D3 (lets remind ourselves that the CR2 rumor mentioned a 'mid level' camera). The attractivness of such a high priced APS-C camera is worth debating, to be sure, i.e will Canon produce a worthy sensor.

 

[ahsanford]

+1 on these points. The money grab occured by moving the pro sports/wildlife segment away from H and into FF plus longer gla$$. to the extent that this remains Canon strategy, there is room to address the enthusiast/sports/wildlife segment with a full featured APS-C camera priced between the 6D and 5D3 (lets remind ourselves that the CR2 rumor mentioned a 'mid level' camera). The attractivness of such a high priced APS-C camera is worth debating, to be sure, i.e will Canon produce a worthy sensor.

You are spot on.

Of course, Canon can move us to larger sensors only so much because of that glass reason you mention.

For instance, let's say Canon offered an 'affordable medium format rig' and tried to do to veteran FF shooters what the 6D was meant to do to veteran APS-C shooters. Even if the camera's quality / value proposition was solid, verteran FF shooters might not be so excited to buy something longer -- say a 70-200 -- just to have the length we need to cover a family birthday. And hell, we'd need the Sigma 200-500 monster just to shoot a school play.

I know they wouldn't be physically compatible with the mount if they actually did this, but I think you gather what I mean. Bigger sensors = bigger/pricier glass to do the same focal length job as before.

So bigger sensors are great, but if they force us to buy fundamentally pricier glass to do what we could before with less expensive glass, some folks might not be so enthused.

Hence, APS-C will be here for a very long time.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

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.

[TRUNCATED FOR LENGTH]

In tabular form:

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

Cheers,

b&

+10 if I could. Very insightful.

I think we all, as users, wrestle with the premise that Canon has so many product lines -- see chart graphic from http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/rumours.html (also attached at bottom)

It's fun for us to make sweeping simplifications to portfolios -- and what you propose is indeed the Apple go-to gameplan.

But with camera owners, I'm sure there is a Canon marketing guy who could bury us with market segmentation data to imply that each and every SLR bucket they offer is vital, financially viable, and useful.

Think of each of these segments and what differentiates them:

• XXXXD: Cost cost cost. "I cannot buy a film camera any longer", "my high school student son wants to pick up photography", etc.
  
  
  
• XXXD: A few key consumer level niceties: touch screen, swivel screen, so-so AF for video. "I just want it to take nice pictures, and occasionally a video", "Do I need a longer lens? Maybe...", etc.
  
  
  
• XXD: A thicker grip (I hear this often), top LCD for quick adjustments, less reliance on auto modes. "I've been shooting a while now", "I felt limited by my older camera", etc.
  
  
  
• 7D: Serious shooters and some pros who see APS-C as a strength and not a liability. Better build. Fast burst. "This is the best tool for birding", "I need high burst rate to cover sports for the local paper", "I really like tweaking my lens AF", etc.
  
  
  
• 6D: Serious shooters who do see APS-C as a liability but don't want to pay for all the bells and whistles. "I have always wanted a FF camera", "It's not the highest end, but you should see the pictures I get with this."
  
  
  
• 5D3: Pros, videographers, well-funded enthusiasts, etc. who will pay for IQ and build quality but do not require the apocalypse proof build, cost or size of 1D bodies. "It's solid and doesn't let me down", "Shoosh, we're filming right now", "[Quiet shutter noise at wedding]", etc.
  
  
  
• 1DX: Those people. "Welcome to my studio", "We're invading Asia. Thought I'd tag along", "It was this or the obsidian steering wheel for my yacht" :
  
  

Personally, I see the XXD group as the one that makes the least sense -- not in terms of value but in terms of overlap with other offerings. I personally jumped from a T1i to a 5D3 this past year (file me under enthusiast) and found the jump to be an easy one. I already had a bunch of lenses and only the 10-22 was a casualty of the move.

But I'm sure we all have our thoughts on segmentation.

- A

 

[dlleno]

yea I can only imagine the cost of a medium format equivalent of the 600mm F/4. not just the focal length changes to something close to 800, but the image circle is now proportionally larger as well (so the glass elements themselves are larger and most costly to produce), not to mention the optical requirements to deal with the higher resolution. the beast would be $100k for petes sake.

Not many medium formatters shoot wildlife, lol , but that does illustrate the cost benefits of a C lens --

 

[Athlon]

Nobody's cheering for the upcoming EOS M?
I wasn't really turned off by the slow AF that was pointed out by reviewers, but if that's addressed in the next iteration (and that'll prolly be the biggest improvement), I'll surely buy it.

 

[Quasimodo]

Nobody's cheering for the upcoming EOS M?
I wasn't really turned off by the slow AF that was pointed out by reviewers, but if that's addressed in the next iteration (and that'll prolly be the biggest improvement), I'll surely buy it.

Give me an optical vf and I will buy it!

 

[wickidwombat]

Nobody's cheering for the upcoming EOS M?
I wasn't really turned off by the slow AF that was pointed out by reviewers, but if that's addressed in the next iteration (and that'll prolly be the biggest improvement), I'll surely buy it.

Give me an optical vf and I will buy it!

what I have discovered that is bugging me most about the M right now is no way of attaching an intervalometer!
i dont really care about optical VF on this camera or even the af speed doesnt bug me but I want to use it mainly for timelapse roll on a stable ML release hopefully that will unleash the power

 

[fonts]

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.

[TRUNCATED FOR LENGTH]

In tabular form:

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

Cheers,

b&

+10 if I could. Very insightful.

I think we all, as users, wrestle with the premise that Canon has so many product lines -- see chart graphic from http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/rumours.html (also attached at bottom)

It's fun for us to make sweeping simplifications to portfolios -- and what you propose is indeed the Apple go-to gameplan.

But with camera owners, I'm sure there is a Canon marketing guy who could bury us with market segmentation data to imply that each and every SLR bucket they offer is vital, financially viable, and useful.

Think of each of these segments and what differentiates them:

• XXXXD: Cost cost cost. "I cannot buy a film camera any longer", "my high school student son wants to pick up photography", etc.
  
  
  
• XXXD: A few key consumer level niceties: touch screen, swivel screen, so-so AF for video. "I just want it to take nice pictures, and occasionally a video", "Do I need a longer lens? Maybe...", etc.
  
  
  
• XXD: A thicker grip (I hear this often), top LCD for quick adjustments, less reliance on auto modes. "I've been shooting a while now", "I felt limited by my older camera", etc.
  
  
  
• 7D: Serious shooters and some pros who see APS-C as a strength and not a liability. Better build. Fast burst. "This is the best tool for birding", "I need high burst rate to cover sports for the local paper", "I really like tweaking my lens AF", etc.
  
  
  
• 6D: Serious shooters who do see APS-C as a liability but don't want to pay for all the bells and whistles. "I have always wanted a FF camera", "It's not the highest end, but you should see the pictures I get with this."
  
  
  
• 5D3: Pros, videographers, well-funded enthusiasts, etc. who will pay for IQ and build quality but do not require the apocalypse proof build, cost or size of 1D bodies. "It's solid and doesn't let me down", "Shoosh, we're filming right now", "[Quiet shutter noise at wedding]", etc.
  
  
  
• 1DX: Those people. "Welcome to my studio", "We're invading Asia. Thought I'd tag along", "It was this or the obsidian steering wheel for my yacht" :
  
  

Personally, I see the XXD group as the one that makes the least sense -- not in terms of value but in terms of overlap with other offerings. I personally jumped from a T1i to a 5D3 this past year (file me under enthusiast) and found the jump to be an easy one. I already had a bunch of lenses and only the 10-22 was a casualty of the move.

But I'm sure we all have our thoughts on segmentation.

- A

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.

 

[ahsanford]

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

 

[fonts]

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)