Does Canon really deserve this?

[Mitch.Conner]

Canon OWNS the pro full frame Market. That will not change anytime soon.

I think Nikon fans would say that Nikon owns it. They have 4 FX (full frame) cameras, offer higher MP sensors plus sensors with allegedly better dynamic range, and they seem to think that that any Nikkor lens bests any Canon L lens (I saw this claim a week or so ago on dpreview *I think*.

I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying that I've recently noticed that Nikon fanboys are every bit as annoying as any other fanboys.

 

[jrista]

Canon OWNS the pro full frame Market. That will not change anytime soon.

I think Nikon fans would say that Nikon owns it. They have 4 FX (full frame) cameras, offer higher MP sensors plus sensors with allegedly better dynamic range, and they seem to think that that any Nikkor lens bests any Canon L lens (I saw this claim a week or so ago on dpreview *I think*.

I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying that I've recently noticed that Nikon fanboys are every bit as annoying as any other fanboys.

I believe Canon owns the pro market, simply by observation. How many photos have you ever seen of sporting events, for the past decade (including recently) where any brand other than Canon utterly dominated? Canon owns the pro market.


That said, I think Nikon is definitely stealing chunks of the pro market. They have been taking huge losses in most segments, but they seem to be gaining in the high end DSLR submarket. A report ending a year ago showed 50% growth in that area for Nikon, which is impressive no matter how you slice it.


I am not sure about Nikon glass...one of the reasons I stick with Canon is their glass. It's phenomenal. One of the lenses from Nikon that I would say rivals Canon's optical designs is their 800 f/5.6...which is basically a ripoff of Canon's design anyway. (Imitation is the dearest form of flattery, no? )


If Nikon keeps up with producing lenses like the 800/5.6 (which they may, or may not...Nikon still seems a bit schizophrenic in terms of how they manage that kind of stuff), then the glass game could change in a couple of years. It also looks as though Samsung is going to get into the ILC market hard, heavy, and fast, and are already working on some superteles that look very much like Canon's in terms of size, features, etc. Only time will tell about the quality and design...but I have to say, I am utterly BLOWN AWAY at the IQ coming out of the NX1 at ISO 12800...it's mindblowingly good (as one would expect, with the very advanced sensor technology they are using...arguably more advanced than even Sony's APS-C cameras, barring any issues with read noise). Puts the 7D II to shame. Makes me want an NX1 all the more now...all I need to see is how the adapters perform, and if they don't, what kind of lenses Samsung is going to put onto the market.


Anyway...the market is moving. Companies are competing. Canon certainly owns the pro segment now...and they still have good offerings. But if IQ like what the NX1 has becomes the norm for APS-C parts? Eh...I dunno. The 7D II seems less and less appealing. If Samsung can hit the market with a FF variant of that, still using BSI ISOCELL tech, and an ultra-high frame rate...that would be a game changer.

 

[sanj]

There are photographers who actually prefer the crop sensor.

Yes, and I am one of them.

There are many. MANY. Not me though except for when I need a light family picnic camera.

 

[sanj]

However, for those of us who do not need *GASP* "full-frame", having to purchase "full-frame" lenses for our "crop-frame" cameras 'cause Canon neglected to cater to our needs, is bad economy: we pay for what we cannot even use.

Bad economy for you, you mean. Canon cares about their economy, but about yours only insofar as you give them your money.

Consider the reverse...if you as a crop user did buy a FF body, how would you like to have to buy a complete new set of lenses for it? The economy of EF lenses mounting on crop bodies works both ways.

I think the same.

 

[sanj]

If you can't figure that out, that's more than sad, it's pathetic.

Ditto on not being able to explain it to me.

As I've stated before, you seem to have trouble seeing any viewpoint other than your own. There are nearly as many reasons people would choose the 6D over the 70D as there are people who make that choice. I could produce a list of reasons, but they're not my reasons...

But if you must have a reason, try this for starters...

They've already lost the mirrorless market ... almost everyone who wanted mirrorless has switched by now.

Really? If so, then consider that dSLRs continue to outsell MILCs by a very large margin, and extrapolate from that the implication for the future of MILCs.

Hmmm. Not with you there. I wait and observe. I believe MILCs are not only here to stay but to grow exponentially. May the best technology win!

 

[Lawliet]

I believe Canon owns the pro market, simply by observation. How many photos have you ever seen of sporting events, for the past decade (including recently) where any brand other than Canon utterly dominated? Canon owns the pro market.

Cavet emptor - sporting events aren't exactly the whole pro market. They're more the low investment/low income potential segment, the kind of assignment you'd get at a paper after mastering the press conference coverage.
Go into commercial or at least editorial photography and every member, including the gofers, of your crew outearns the average sports shooter by a good margin. Here Canon was dominant; today you have a good idea about who has long term sponsorship contract.

 

[jrista]

I believe Canon owns the pro market, simply by observation. How many photos have you ever seen of sporting events, for the past decade (including recently) where any brand other than Canon utterly dominated? Canon owns the pro market.

Cavet emptor - sporting events aren't exactly the whole pro market. They're more the low investment/low income potential segment, the kind of assignment you'd get at a paper after mastering the press conference coverage.
Go into commercial or at least editorial photography and every member, including the gofers, of your crew outearns the average sports shooter by a good margin. Here Canon was dominant; today you have a good idea about who has long term sponsorship contract.

No, sports are not the whole pro market, but they are a HUGE segment of the pro market. Weddings, portraiture, food and product photography, photojournalism, etc. are certainly parts of the pro market. Wedding photographers seem enamored by Nikon's latest offerings. They loved the 5D III, but the D750 seems to be the hot thing in that segment right now. I know a number of portrait photographers who seem to prefer Pentax (it seems to be a size thing in particular...smaller bodies, smaller lenses.) It seems as though studio photographers who frequently look to MFD have been looking to Nikon's D800 more often lately (although who knows, now that Exmors are in MFDs, they will probably go back...either way, Canon doesn't exactly have a product for them right now, nothing that competes with current competitor offerings anyway.)


Canon has a massive presence in the pro photography world, no doubt. However the pro world does not seem as locked into Canon as they used to be. At the very least, they have diversified.

 

[sanj]

Let's see Canon's financials compared to it's competitors.

Not interested except that I hope their financial lead helps them with R&D to give us the best possible cameras.

 

[Hillsilly]

Someone keeps thinking that in the future all cameras will be full frame? :-X

I think crop cameras are safe, too. If anything, the comments above about "pro" users makes me think the days of FF cameras might be numbered.

Crop sensors have improved significantly over the last few years. And, if Canon was to implement the latest improvements in manufacturing techniques and sensor design, we'd struggle to see much IQ advantage of a FF sensor over an APS-C sensor (in fact, with other brands, you struggle to see the difference now). DOF differences and shooting at very high ISOs and more MPs will still be attractive incentives for crop camera users to change to a FF camera. But I suspect a growing number of people will decide that crop cameras are good enough.

To differentiate themselves in a competitive market, I see more studio-based and wedding photographers moving to medium format and abandoning 1DX/D3X/D4S style cameras. (And in the next two years, there will be at least another two new, smaller, medium format systems introduced in the 1DX price range to attract these photographers.) Many wildlife and sports shooters will prefer the extra "reach" of a 7D3. Current 5D3 users will continue to transition to Sony and Fuji mirrorless systems. I don't know if there will many people left to buy Canon FF cameras.

How does this all tie into this topic? Canon have only made muted sounds about medium format and that doesn't give people looking for a medium format option the confidence to stay around for a bit longer. They will move to other brands. A very high percentage of mirrorless buyers are DSLR owners, yet they are also leaking away to other brands. We can tell from the rumors posted here and the details of patents that Canon has the ability to make class leading crop sensors, but we haven't seen much evidence of Canon investing any $$$ in manufacturing plant and instead we have Canon polishing up the same sensor they've had for how many generations of cameras? This leads to website stories about how Canon is falling behind, which might lead people doing research on their first camera to choose another brand. Added to this, there hasn't been a noticeable drive to develop EF-S lenses anyway. And with the Eos-M, a quick look at the B&H site suggests you can't even buy an Eos-M and if you already had one and were after another lens, I hope it is the 22/2 that you seek as it is the only one available.

 

[sanj]

Someone keeps thinking that in the future all cameras will be full frame? :-X

I think crop cameras are safe, too. If anything, the comments above about "pro" users makes me think the days of FF cameras might be numbered.

Crop sensors have improved significantly over the last few years. And, if Canon was to implement the latest improvements in manufacturing techniques and sensor design, we'd struggle to see much IQ advantage of a FF sensor over an APS-C sensor (in fact, with other brands, you struggle to see the difference now). DOF differences and shooting at very high ISOs and more MPs will still be attractive incentives for crop camera users to change to a FF camera. But I suspect a growing number of people will decide that crop cameras are good enough.

To differentiate themselves in a competitive market, I see more studio-based and wedding photographers moving to medium format and abandoning 1DX/D3X/D4S style cameras. (And in the next two years, there will be at least another two new, smaller, medium format systems introduced in the 1DX price range to attract these photographers.) Many wildlife and sports shooters will prefer the extra "reach" of a 7D3. Current 5D3 users will continue to transition to Sony and Fuji mirrorless systems. I don't know if there will many people left to buy Canon FF cameras.

How does this all tie into this topic? Canon have only made muted sounds about medium format and that doesn't give people looking for a medium format option the confidence to stay around for a bit longer. They will move to other brands. A very high percentage of mirrorless buyers are DSLR owners, yet they are also leaking away to other brands. We can tell from the rumors posted here and the details of patents that Canon has the ability to make class leading crop sensors, but we haven't seen much evidence of Canon investing any $$$ in manufacturing plant and instead we have Canon polishing up the same sensor they've had for how many generations of cameras? This leads to website stories about how Canon is falling behind, which might lead people doing research on their first camera to choose another brand. Added to this, there hasn't been a noticeable drive to develop EF-S lenses anyway. And with the Eos-M, a quick look at the B&H site suggests you can't even buy an Eos-M and if you already had one and were after another lens, I hope it is the 22/2 that you seek as it is the only one available.

Cant predict the long term future and this is quite possible. But in the near future I think full frame provides the best 'portable/speed' IQ in the market.

 

[Sella174]

May the best technology win!

[friendly]I do not believe the objective is for any "technology" to actually win, as there really isn't the competition as some people perceive, e.g. FF vs crop and DSLR vs mirrorless. For me it is more there having been a fork in the road and each "technology" moving in different directions, each with its own goals, objectives and customer base. The big question for companies like Canon and Nikon are therefore more how they can keep dominating the market by offering a diverse range of products so to have the largest possible customer base. On the other hand, if they cannot spread their resources so wide, then the logical solution would be to rather concentrate on that which is sustainable in the long run and concede the (lower revenue) "niche" markets to smaller companies.[/friendly]

 

[AvTvM]

"Installed Base" of lenses in the market is large enough to keep mFT and leading APS-C mounts [Ca, Ni, Sony, Fuji] in the market for many years to come. Plus - most importantly - crop sensor cameras will always be less expensive than FF-sensored gear.

Equally important: mirrorless cameras are significantly less costly to produce than DSLRs with mechanical components. "Solid state mirrorless" [fully electronic shutter, no mechanical parts whatsoever] cameras - both with crop and FF sensors - will dominate the market soon, since they can be manufactured much more cost effectively and with less quality variances in automated fabs by robots without a lot of human labor.

For conservative users who prefer optical viewfinderrs, there may be a selection of mirrorless cameras with "hybrid" optical/electronic viewfinders along the lines of some Fujifilm X-cameras [e.g. X-Pro 1; X-Pro 2 rumoured to be on its way].

Large, Pro-grade DSLRs [EOS 1D/s/X type] with mirrors and OVF will likely survive for another 10 years or so ... for specialized applications and conservative users. Very similar to analog 1D being the last film SLRs to be phased out about 10 years after DSLRs took over the market.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Rick.
I'm satisfied with my gear, I am bored with the weather, the DR outside could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand today, thick fog! So currently my gear is more than a match, now the photographer, not so much! ;D
As for people using their real names, many I believe are using their business names, and many more sign their posts with their real name! I also know that some are using pseudonyms because of their line of work or other sensitivities.
So no you are not the only one posting under your real name, perhaps the only one whose username is their real name.

Cheers, Graham. Real name! (Valvebounce, nickname I've had for 25+ yrs! Many locals would identify me from it)

Yes, yes and don't forget trolls who do not even own Canon equipment.

I may be the only guy posting here under his real name, but for all I know, this could be two dudes in their underwear and their 55 sock puppets each deployed to do battle against each other and one of them started the war with this post.

 

[Hillsilly]

This is the first online forum I joined. At the time of filling the profile out, it never occurred to me that you're stuck with the same user name forever......

 

[sanj]

May the best technology win!

[friendly]I do not believe the objective is for any "technology" to actually win, as there really isn't the competition as some people perceive, e.g. FF vs crop and DSLR vs mirrorless. For me it is more there having been a fork in the road and each "technology" moving in different directions, each with its own goals, objectives and customer base. The big question for companies like Canon and Nikon are therefore more how they can keep dominating the market by offering a diverse range of products so to have the largest possible customer base. On the other hand, if they cannot spread their resources so wide, then the logical solution would be to rather concentrate on that which is sustainable in the long run and concede the (lower revenue) "niche" markets to smaller companies.[/friendly]

Start always friendly: It is OPV v/s EVF. DSLR v/s ML. Both are super in their own ways, IMHO. End always friendly.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

I keep coming back to a certain point as it seems to be the touchstone for any company that tries to sell into the consumer marketplace.

As markets change, companies that can't keep up will experience falling revenues and may, in extreme cases, be forced to close it's doors.

Consumer desires can be fickle. What sells one moment may not be the thing that sells the next.

When we first landed in Europe I saw a lot of tourists running around with pretty high-end Canon DSLR gear strapped around their necks, but no longer is this the case. That was three years ago. What I see these days are a LOT of mirrorless (Sony APS-C, Oly, Pana, some Fuji) and a few high end Sony RX1 and the occasional Leica (of all things). But more than ANY of this, I see where cell phones and tablets have taken over for most of the tourist's imaging "needs."

For the pro-level shoots (commercial, weddings, fashion - well LOTS of fashion as this _is_ the place afterall) I see almost 100 percent Canon pro-gear. Though I have to add that the most serious fashion stuff I see being shot around town is with Fuji-blads.

For pro-level video I see LOTS of Canon 5D MkII/MkIII. Even in-studio stuff here in France where they pan back to show an overall scene.

Based on these kinds of "on the street" observations I think Canon has the portable pro-level video market sewn up. I can imagine them continuing to invest in that area.

Canon seems to still have a strong part of the tourist DSLR (Rebel) market, but is very quickly loosing to cell phones and mirrorless. I can imagine Canon continuing to sell whatever they can into that space, but for further R&D? I don't see it.

For published fashion work I can see Fuji-blad will remain _the_ "go-to" system.

For sports and wildlife photography I can see where Canon could remain strong, but how much gear can they actually sell into a market that's likely already saturated? If the new 100-400L development cycle is any indication, we may see the existing gear in the stores for a long time to come.

Switching to the other side, I see companies like Sony doing well for any number of reasons. When I think of cell phone photography and I consider the increasing level of integration between their mirrorless systems and cell/digital networks, I can see why Sony's customers can be happy.

There's something for nearly everyone. A cell phone with a "decent" image maker that uploads straight to the 'net is a very fun and useful thing. A decent image quality mirrorless system that integrates seamlessly into those very same networks is a dream come true for working artists. On-camera apps that increasingly provide cell-phone app capabilities but with much better IA (filters, intervolometers, color grading, image processing, etc) give folks the opportunity to create what they want without the need of a computer.

In this kind of market space the idea of "camera" is disappearing. Even as we wrangle over Canon "deserving" this or that, whatever those might be, things are rapidly in flux.

All this is happening right before our eyes, but can we really "see" it when we're so narrowly focused on tradition and cameras and equipment capability minutia?

 

[AvTvM]

...
Consumer desires can be fickle. What sells one moment may not be the thing that sells the next.
...
There's something for nearly everyone. A cell phone with a "decent" image maker that uploads straight to the 'net is a very fun and useful thing. A decent image quality mirrorless system that integrates seamlessly into those very same networks is a dream come true for working artists. On-camera apps that increasingly provide cell-phone app capabilities but with much better IA (filters, intervolometers, color grading, image processing, etc) give folks the opportunity to create what they want without the need of a computer.

In this kind of market space the idea of "camera" is disappearing. Even as we wrangle over Canon "deserving" this or that, whatever those might be, things are rapidly in flux.

All this is happening right before our eyes, but can we really "see" it when we're so narrowly focused on tradition and cameras and equipment capability minutia?

Living in Europe, I totally agree with your observations. In germany mirrorless cameras apparently are now 29% of interchangeable camera sales [according to some recent charts from a Sony presentation]. This matches my personal observations.

Quite a good number of my photo-enthusiast friends [definitely not not "full Pro", some are "semi-pro"] have switched from DSLRs (Canon and Nikon) have bought into mirrorless systems [especially Fujifilm] and are using their fat mirrorslappper gear less and less frequently.

Many more occasional camera users [e.g. "soccer moms"] have switched to newer compact/bridge cams with suffiecient tele zoom range. Everybody else and for everything else, especially vacation/city trips/tourism-related photography has been largely taken over by smartphones and tablets ... and instant upload to social networks.

Highly capable mirrorless cameras are the only way to go for manufacturers, since they can be made at so much lower cost than similarly capable DSLRs. The new price points will be USD/€ 499 for highly capable APS-C/mFT bodies and €/USD 999 for Sony A7 II type FF mirrorless cameras.

Lenses for APS-C mirrorless will probably be exactly where Canon's EF-M lenses already are. Compact, optically very good, at very decent prices. And decent FF mirrorless zooms like 24-70/4, 16-35/4 etc. will have to come down substiantially in price ... say to around USD/€ 500. Otherwise ... not many copies will be sold.

 

[Sella174]

Start always friendly: It is OPV v/s EVF. DSLR v/s ML. Both are super in their own ways, IMHO. End always friendly.

May I then add: Prime vs Zoom?

 

[Sporgon]

A Fujifilm XT-1 if I remember. A really neat little camera that has so much going for it - except it's not a FF 6D, with a crisp OVF.

Do I detect a hint of jealousy there?

;D No. I have always liked Fuji, right from my days as a teenager using an old Fujica ST701, and I think the XT-1 system is quite appealing. But; I don't feel that the slimmer body is worth trading the OVF for, or losing the full frame. And, as has been pointed out here on CR many times, to achieve the equivalent in lens speed on these crop systems is actually very expensive, more so than FF. Add these factors to the reduced versatility and no, the system isn't for me.

Dearest friend, have you personally ever tried EVF?

Yes, of course, the XT-1 which I understand is probably the best out there at the moment. I thought in my previous post I had made it clear that I have considered the Fuji system.

What can I say ? Call be 'old fashioned' but I like to be able to optically see through the lens in real time, at least on a decent system. I don't think I am alone in this. I can see that EVFs like the one on the Fuji have great appeal to many; indeed most people are going to find it better than a dim, small pentamirror with slow 'kit' lens on a Rebel, but even then people keep buying cheap dslrs, probably because as it is a mature, simple system it is also cheap to produce and buy.

I perceived a lag, maybe that is just my imagination. The very large size doesn't do it for me, but the ability to reduce the viewfinder size is neat. Then there is the power useage; I want a battery to last as long as possible. In fact I have recently ditched by iphone and got a simple Nokia with a keypad because I am sick of having to charge the iphone every day. Just been to Poland for four days; never had to charge the phone or the camera !

I think we are going to see a FF dslr from Canon which will have interchangeable finders, like in the old days of top end slrs, except now one will be a normal pentaprism, and will be used in the conventional way, and another will be an EVF. You then lock the mirror up and away you go, using the Dual Pixel AF system direct off the sensor for focus. Use it for stills or video, it's up to you. By having the head as a sliding fit from the rear it could incorporate physical plug connections, which would probably needed to do this.

Then those that say Canon isn't innovative will have to find some other area to whinge about.

Thanks so much for replying. I personally find the advantages of EVF overpowering the disadvantages in such a carry around camera. But want my optical on the 1dx.

I tend to agree with you. If manufacturers can bring EVF of the XT-1 down to the prices of a simple, pentamirror system few are going to buy the latter, whereas a high quality, large pentaprism OVF still offers a great deal on larger, more general purpose cameras. However OVF manufacturers could retaliate by giving the lower end cameras a decent pentaprism system and good magnification like the 7DII. I could see someone like Pentax and Canon doing this.

Personally I do not like two systems; I want one 'do it all' system that is light enough for casual travel and good enough for professional work.

This is possibly to do with the fact that skinflint Sporgon likes to spend his hard earned cash on fast horses and fast women, not necessarily in that order, and not photographic gear

 

[sanj]

Start always friendly: It is OPV v/s EVF. DSLR v/s ML. Both are super in their own ways, IMHO. End always friendly.

May I then add: Prime vs Zoom?

No no. Hahahaha.