Interview With Canon at CP+

[Tugela]

A few years ago people laughed at the idea that phones would compete with dedicated point and shoot. But a few years later the point and shoot market is dead.

That may be so. It doesn't logically follow that anybody quibbling the claim that phones will kill off DSLRs is wrong too. There are physical limitations on phone cameras. Sure, new technologies may get around some of those, but maybe not, and those technologies will be available to dedicated camera manufacturers too.

Sensor size is limited in large part by a desire not to have a bulky camera module in the phone. I've seen people criticise the larger iPhone for having a camera that's not flush with the back surface, even though it only juts out by a millimetre or two. Imagine how much bigger the optics need to be for a much larger sensor.

And as people have said here and elsewhere, just because a phone has a feature (e.g. 4K) doesn't mean that it's better than a dedicated camera that lacks that feature. Image quality still counts for some! And some features are easier to implement on smaller sensors - I believe overheating is less of a problem for them. So maybe get some perspective?

Overheating is an issue mostly with the processor, not the sensor as such. At this point in time there is no reason for any camera not to have 4K unless the manufacturer does not have access to efficient processors. Clearly the leading phone companies do, but not all the leading camera companies do (well, they all do except for one notable exception).

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Many fail to acknowledge the basic fact that to get high resolution pictures on high MP sensors, you need "Big" glass! For the Canon haters, explain the Ziess Otus line. Canon's best new lenses (35mm f/1.4II, 11-24mm) are BIGGER! So what is the point of the size and weight advantages of mirrorless over SLR when looking to the future of camera development? Yes, they will be great for that compact middle ground between smartphone and SLR. Yet they will never resolve like a SLR can without the weight of a huge lens. It is an "unbalanced" presumption!

look at how much of the so called size and weight advantage of the Sony A7RII that has disappeared. The original system launched with a few very slow lenses (by prime standards) and a slow zoom. This was to help perpetuate the illusion this was a small system. However there were no pro work horse lenses like a 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8, they would have been horribly unbalanced and not fit in at all with their message. Now we see the A7RII is 40% heavier than the A7R and factor in the several batteries and possibly grip and you have a system as heavy as a DSLR albeit still smaller (sans lens). Now throw on G series lens and and probably a grip will be needed to balance the system pushing weight easily as heavy as a 5DSR or D810 and similar glass. Unless you are sticking to a slowish 35 f/2.8 prime there is now almost no benefit to the mirrorless system. Thus we come back to sensor technology and once Canon brings new sensor tech and it already looks like the 1DX II and probably 80D do use new smaller lithographic process and on chip ADC, then a lot of the hate towards Canon will disappear. To me mirrorless makes sense for m4/3 and APS-C where the cameras and to some extent lenses can be made much smaller than DSLR equivalents. In the FF world it's not compelling, although if they can make super high res, lag free EVF and get AF via DPAF as good if not better than 1DXII, then bring it on it if can result keep weight and size down, but glass will always be as big and heavy.

 

[Tugela]

The interview is basically an executive rationalizing why they have not made a high end mirrorless, when the truth is that they have not because they don't have the technology to compete with other MILCs. Putting out an enthusiast MILC would make them look bad when there would be much better products from the competition. So instead they come up with all this BS about people not wanting it, technology isn't ready for prime time bla bla bla.

It is just a bunch of spin and excuses to cover up their deficiencies.

They can't, or they don't at this point see the supportive market needed to invest the money it would take? Both result in no camera but one is from a position of strength, the other weakness, you don't have the slightest idea which is true in this case. Personally I would be very cautious stating unequivocally 'Canon can't', they have too much R&D history to make such broad statements.

What we do know is that Canon are sitting on a motherload of patents and have the ability to roll them out when they see the ability to recoup the cost or they fear lose too much market share. The 1DX MkII rolling out DCI 60fps 4k for 30mins compared to the D5's UHD 30fps for 3mins is a prime example.........

One could reasonably infer they don't based on the tech they are including in their cameras.

They do have some parts of the package, such as DPAF, but other parts, notably EVFs and processors, would have to come from somewhere else to be competitive, and that is what is holding them back. Especially processors. DSLRs have considerably lower processor requirements than a high end MILC, so they represent the easy option that Canon can manage. But if they tried to make a high end MILC, they would be at the back of the pack and they know it.....so they don't make one.

 

[Loswr]

The interview is basically an executive rationalizing why they have not made a high end mirrorless, when the truth is that they have not because they don't have the technology to compete with other MILCs. Putting out an enthusiast MILC would make them look bad when there would be much better products from the competition. So instead they come up with all this BS about people not wanting it, technology isn't ready for prime time bla bla bla.

It is just a bunch of spin and excuses to cover up their deficiencies.

The post is basically a forum troll rationalizing his typical behavior, when the truth is that Canon has clearly demonstrated they have all the requisite technology, and in fact have already made and sold a camera that became the #2 best-selling MILC in the largest market geography for that segment. Putting out an enthusiast MILC only makes sense for Canon in a market where MILCs are more popular than Canon's market-leading dSLRs, and that market doesn't exist today. So instead, Tugela bashes Canon with ridiculous nonsensical arguments, saying they don't have the technology, they can't compete, bla bla bla.

It is just a bunch of spin and BS to cover up his bitterness and lack of understanding of business and market forces.

 

[scyrene]

A few years ago people laughed at the idea that phones would compete with dedicated point and shoot. But a few years later the point and shoot market is dead.

That may be so. It doesn't logically follow that anybody quibbling the claim that phones will kill off DSLRs is wrong too. There are physical limitations on phone cameras. Sure, new technologies may get around some of those, but maybe not, and those technologies will be available to dedicated camera manufacturers too.

Sensor size is limited in large part by a desire not to have a bulky camera module in the phone. I've seen people criticise the larger iPhone for having a camera that's not flush with the back surface, even though it only juts out by a millimetre or two. Imagine how much bigger the optics need to be for a much larger sensor.

And as people have said here and elsewhere, just because a phone has a feature (e.g. 4K) doesn't mean that it's better than a dedicated camera that lacks that feature. Image quality still counts for some! And some features are easier to implement on smaller sensors - I believe overheating is less of a problem for them. So maybe get some perspective?

Overheating is an issue mostly with the processor, not the sensor as such. At this point in time there is no reason for any camera not to have 4K unless the manufacturer does not have access to efficient processors. Clearly the leading phone companies do, but not all the leading camera companies do (well, they all do except for one notable exception).

Fair dos, that's not an area I know much about, I've seen differing opinions on the topic.

 

[privatebydesign]

The interview is basically an executive rationalizing why they have not made a high end mirrorless, when the truth is that they have not because they don't have the technology to compete with other MILCs. Putting out an enthusiast MILC would make them look bad when there would be much better products from the competition. So instead they come up with all this BS about people not wanting it, technology isn't ready for prime time bla bla bla.

It is just a bunch of spin and excuses to cover up their deficiencies.

They can't, or they don't at this point see the supportive market needed to invest the money it would take? Both result in no camera but one is from a position of strength, the other weakness, you don't have the slightest idea which is true in this case. Personally I would be very cautious stating unequivocally 'Canon can't', they have too much R&D history to make such broad statements.

What we do know is that Canon are sitting on a motherload of patents and have the ability to roll them out when they see the ability to recoup the cost or they fear lose too much market share. The 1DX MkII rolling out DCI 60fps 4k for 30mins compared to the D5's UHD 30fps for 3mins is a prime example.........

One could reasonably infer they don't based on the tech they are including in their cameras.

They do have some parts of the package, such as DPAF, but other parts, notably EVFs and processors, would have to come from somewhere else to be competitive, and that is what is holding them back. Especially processors. DSLRs have considerably lower processor requirements than a high end MILC, so they represent the easy option that Canon can manage. But if they tried to make a high end MILC, they would be at the back of the pack and they know it.....so they don't make one.

I refer to my earlier comment, "you don't know that." You don't have the slightest idea what technology for EVF's and processors Canon are sitting on, none.

Canon are extremely conservative and cost orientated, they never spend an extra Yen unless they see a very good reason to the simple reason we have the cameras from them that we do is because they can lead the pack with what they put out, where is the motivation and cost equation to do more? That position turns your argument 180º and is just as valid, and has as much evidence behind it, as your point of view.

No, actually my point of view has more evidence behind it as can be evidenced by Canon's consistent market leadership and the fact that as and when features are seen to be a market requirement they appear. Take the EVF-DC1 as an example, it is a highly regarded EVF that Canon have leveraged the cost of against several camera models. Or the EF lens protocol that has demonstrated the long term view Canon take with their tech and has successfully grown to seamlessly include a multitude of features not thought of when it was initially released.

I am very happy to trust in Canon tech and believe they can produce pretty much anything they want whenever they want, but they will only do that if they see a good market and very strong likelihood of financial returns.

 

[Nininini]

So maybe get some perspective?

I only understand part of Canon their decisions. I love canon cameras.

But, I also completely don't understand other parts of Canon.

Especially video.

Since Canon brought up the compact market and smartphones.



This....I don't get. This is a new compact from canon. It is $150, and they are promoting the fact it shoots...720p. It can not record 1080p.

There are phones in india, for $30 that shoot proper 1080p, but this thing, for $150, can't. The chips inside smarphones that allow 1080p shooting, are worth $1.

And then canon says in intervviews they are getting heavy competition from smarphones. Really, when you put 720p in your cameras, it's shocking to you you are getting competition from 4k smartphones. Ya think?

Canon, lately, doesn't like putting good features in a majority of their cameras. Not because canon can't, they just.. don't want to. They want to keep all features out of lower end products.

And it's not just video, it's tons of stuff.

Their lower end DSLR don't have minimum shutter speed, they don't have a kelvin scale, they can't micro adjust, they can't do 60p in HD, they don't have 4k, etc etc etc.

Canon still has a group of loyal customers who have bought many expensive EF lenses and FF bodies, but that group is an older audience, many who are reluctant to change brands because of the investments they made. They need new customers too, they can not survive on wedding photographers and enthousiasts buying up L lenses, that's a very small market.

 

[Woody]

look at how much of the so called size and weight advantage of the Sony A7RII that has disappeared. The original system launched with a few very slow lenses (by prime standards) and a slow zoom. This was to help perpetuate the illusion this was a small system. However there were no pro work horse lenses like a 24-70 f/2.8 or 70-200 f/2.8, they would have been horribly unbalanced and not fit in at all with their message. Now we see the A7RII is 40% heavier than the A7R and factor in the several batteries and possibly grip and you have a system as heavy as a DSLR albeit still smaller (sans lens). Now throw on G series lens and and probably a grip will be needed to balance the system pushing weight easily as heavy as a 5DSR or D810 and similar glass.

I arrived at the same conclusion. It's a MYTH that MILC systems are always lighter. The recently released Sony E-mount f/2.8 zooms prove that. Only specific zooms like the 16-35 f/4 (518g) and 24-70 f/4 (430g) are lighter than the Canon counterparts (16-35 f/4 is 615g and 24-70 f/4 is 600g).

 

[Loswr]

Canon still has a group of loyal customers who have bought many expensive EF lenses and FF bodies, but that group is an older audience, many who are reluctant to change brands because of the investments they made. They need new customers too, they can not survive on wedding photographers and enthousiasts buying up L lenses, that's a very small market.

I'm sure you're right, it's just a few old guys and some wedding photographers buying the ~6 million dSLRs Canon sells annually.

 

[eosuser1234]

There are no fast EF-M lenses 4 years after M launch. The bodies are 2-3 years behind the competition. Canon are not even trying to make good mirrorless...

22mm F/2 not fast enough? While the bodies are behind, the M3 was a decent camera.

 

[Refurb7]

I find the comments from Canon rep about AF and Viewfinder differences between SLR and MILC cameras interesting.

My question to fellow forum members is this: do your personal experiences agree with his criticisms?

I definitely agree. EVFs just don't meet the standards set by OVFs. Too slow to AF in low light. Lousy tracking. Slow start-up time. Annoying stuttering when shooting in continuous. Sluggish blackout times even with high shutter speeds. Too bright on the eyes in low light. Insufficient dynamic range for contrasty light. Insufficient resolution (except maybe on the best Leica). Thirsty for batteries. It's just a long list of problems and annoyances.

 

[Refurb7]

The interview is basically an executive rationalizing why they have not made a high end mirrorless, when the truth is that they have not because they don't have the technology to compete with other MILCs. Putting out an enthusiast MILC would make them look bad when there would be much better products from the competition. So instead they come up with all this BS about people not wanting it, technology isn't ready for prime time bla bla bla.

It is just a bunch of spin and excuses to cover up their deficiencies.

The interview just states the facts. MILCs have some significant performance deficiencies that make them less appealing to many photographers. For some kinds of photography, today's MILCs are simply inadequate.

 

[AvTvM]

Nothing of interest in that interview. ...
... Canikon interviews are so devoid of detail it's painful to read through.

+ 100

Probably it is even worse than that and they have no answers themselves. Clueless mirrorslapper company. Just like Nikon.

 

[Woody]

+ 100
Probably it is even worse than that and they have no answers themselves. Clueless mirrorslapper company. Just like Nikon.

Totally clueless indeed.

In 2008:

In 2014:

 

[Tugela]

The interview is basically an executive rationalizing why they have not made a high end mirrorless, when the truth is that they have not because they don't have the technology to compete with other MILCs. Putting out an enthusiast MILC would make them look bad when there would be much better products from the competition. So instead they come up with all this BS about people not wanting it, technology isn't ready for prime time bla bla bla.

It is just a bunch of spin and excuses to cover up their deficiencies.

The post is basically a forum troll rationalizing his typical behavior, when the truth is that Canon has clearly demonstrated they have all the requisite technology, and in fact have already made and sold a camera that became the #2 best-selling MILC in the largest market geography for that segment. Putting out an enthusiast MILC only makes sense for Canon in a market where MILCs are more popular than Canon's market-leading dSLRs, and that market doesn't exist today. So instead, Tugela bashes Canon with ridiculous nonsensical arguments, saying they don't have the technology, they can't compete, bla bla bla.

It is just a bunch of spin and BS to cover up his bitterness and lack of understanding of business and market forces.

Putting out an enthusiast MILC makes sense when it can take on and outperform the competition. If you don't do that then you cede market share without a fight. Every MILC sold by someone else is money Canon does not get. I am not sure why you believe that their executives think that is a good thing. Canon have not put out an enthusiast MILC because they know that they cannot compete, and coming last does not look good.

Canon does not have the tech to do it. Look at the EOS-M system. It has been widely panned as inferior to just about everyone else's MILCs, and it certainly is far from being an enthusiast camera. Sure, they sold quite a few, but that is mostly in Japan, and a big reason for their sales numbers might just have to do with the fact that they had to cut the price to $300 to get people to buy them don't you think? At full price the EOS-M was a complete flop.

If you look at overall worldwide ILC shipments, MILC shipments have increased slightly over the last few years, while DSLR shipments are way down. The gap between them is steadily getting smaller and that means that Canon's slice of the pie is steadily decreasing. If you don't believe me, look at the figure below:

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Infographics-2015-1920_1080-700x394.jpg

 

[Tugela]

The interview is basically an executive rationalizing why they have not made a high end mirrorless, when the truth is that they have not because they don't have the technology to compete with other MILCs. Putting out an enthusiast MILC would make them look bad when there would be much better products from the competition. So instead they come up with all this BS about people not wanting it, technology isn't ready for prime time bla bla bla.

It is just a bunch of spin and excuses to cover up their deficiencies.

The interview just states the facts. MILCs have some significant performance deficiencies that make them less appealing to many photographers. For some kinds of photography, today's MILCs are simply inadequate.

The same thing could be said about DSLRs though. Different cameras might be better than others depending on the application. Personally I will never go back to a reflex camera. They simply do not satisfy my needs. The disadvantages of an EVF that people go on about are IMO cosmetic. I don't care about them. The advantages however are real, and that I do care about.

The important point about the interview however is that they are making very little effort to compete at all when it comes to MILCs even though it is a large market that is proportionately grabbing an increasing slice of the overall pie each year. At some point there will be tipping point where everything will go over to mirrorless very quickly, and right now Canon are poorly positioned for that eventuality. And that is where the spin comes in. There are no strategic plans, just excuses and rationalizations. DSLRs have nothing to do with that discussion.

 

[Tugela]

The interview is basically an executive rationalizing why they have not made a high end mirrorless, when the truth is that they have not because they don't have the technology to compete with other MILCs. Putting out an enthusiast MILC would make them look bad when there would be much better products from the competition. So instead they come up with all this BS about people not wanting it, technology isn't ready for prime time bla bla bla.

It is just a bunch of spin and excuses to cover up their deficiencies.

They can't, or they don't at this point see the supportive market needed to invest the money it would take? Both result in no camera but one is from a position of strength, the other weakness, you don't have the slightest idea which is true in this case. Personally I would be very cautious stating unequivocally 'Canon can't', they have too much R&D history to make such broad statements.

What we do know is that Canon are sitting on a motherload of patents and have the ability to roll them out when they see the ability to recoup the cost or they fear lose too much market share. The 1DX MkII rolling out DCI 60fps 4k for 30mins compared to the D5's UHD 30fps for 3mins is a prime example.........

One could reasonably infer they don't based on the tech they are including in their cameras.

They do have some parts of the package, such as DPAF, but other parts, notably EVFs and processors, would have to come from somewhere else to be competitive, and that is what is holding them back. Especially processors. DSLRs have considerably lower processor requirements than a high end MILC, so they represent the easy option that Canon can manage. But if they tried to make a high end MILC, they would be at the back of the pack and they know it.....so they don't make one.

I refer to my earlier comment, "you don't know that." You don't have the slightest idea what technology for EVF's and processors Canon are sitting on, none.

Canon are extremely conservative and cost orientated, they never spend an extra Yen unless they see a very good reason to the simple reason we have the cameras from them that we do is because they can lead the pack with what they put out, where is the motivation and cost equation to do more? That position turns your argument 180º and is just as valid, and has as much evidence behind it, as your point of view.

No, actually my point of view has more evidence behind it as can be evidenced by Canon's consistent market leadership and the fact that as and when features are seen to be a market requirement they appear. Take the EVF-DC1 as an example, it is a highly regarded EVF that Canon have leveraged the cost of against several camera models. Or the EF lens protocol that has demonstrated the long term view Canon take with their tech and has successfully grown to seamlessly include a multitude of features not thought of when it was initially released.

I am very happy to trust in Canon tech and believe they can produce pretty much anything they want whenever they want, but they will only do that if they see a good market and very strong likelihood of financial returns.

When it comes to MILCs they DON'T lead the pack however. Their presence in the hybrid part of the overall camera is virtually non-existent. That segment is owned by Sony and Panasonic.

 

[AvTvM]

...
It is just a bunch of spin and excuses to cover up their deficiencies.
...
Every MILC sold by someone else is money Canon does not get. I am not sure why you believe that their executives think that is a good thing. Canon have not put out an enthusiast MILC because they know that they cannot compete, and coming last does not look good.
...
Canon does not have the tech to do it.
...
look at the figure below:
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Infographics-2015-1920_1080-700x394.jpg

+1 *** exactly! ***

Does not matter, what the ever-same "Canon Defense League" around here believes.

 

[Refurb7]

The interview is basically an executive rationalizing why they have not made a high end mirrorless, when the truth is that they have not because they don't have the technology to compete with other MILCs. Putting out an enthusiast MILC would make them look bad when there would be much better products from the competition. So instead they come up with all this BS about people not wanting it, technology isn't ready for prime time bla bla bla.

It is just a bunch of spin and excuses to cover up their deficiencies.

The interview just states the facts. MILCs have some significant performance deficiencies that make them less appealing to many photographers. For some kinds of photography, today's MILCs are simply inadequate.

The same thing could be said about DSLRs though. Different cameras might be better than others depending on the application. Personally I will never go back to a reflex camera. They simply do not satisfy my needs. The disadvantages of an EVF that people go on about are IMO cosmetic. I don't care about them. The advantages however are real, and that I do care about.

The important point about the interview however is that they are making very little effort to compete at all when it comes to MILCs even though it is a large market that is proportionately grabbing an increasing slice of the overall pie each year. At some point there will be tipping point where everything will go over to mirrorless very quickly, and right now Canon are poorly positioned for that eventuality. And that is where the spin comes in. There are no strategic plans, just excuses and rationalizations. DSLRs have nothing to do with that discussion.

There's no reason for this "tipping point" that you imagine. Why would "everything" go over to mirrorless quickly? What's the magnetic attraction of mirrorless? Sorry I don't see it.

Photographers who try mirrorless quickly grasp the deficiencies. Some are willing to excuse the deficiencies because of small advantages in weight. Canon is creating cameras that perform better than any current mirrorless. Even the cheapest DSLRs feel better and work faster than current mirrorless. Sure, Canon could step down to a worse level of AF, slower less-responsive cameras, stuttering EVFs, terrible battery life, etc., but that's not going to please a lot of Canon buyers who are used to much, much better performance.

 

[Loswr]

...
It is just a bunch of spin and excuses to cover up their deficiencies.
...
Every MILC sold by someone else is money Canon does not get. I am not sure why you believe that their executives think that is a good thing. Canon have not put out an enthusiast MILC because they know that they cannot compete, and coming last does not look good.
...
Canon does not have the tech to do it.
...
look at the figure below:
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Infographics-2015-1920_1080-700x394.jpg

+1 *** exactly! ***

Does not matter, what the ever-same "Canon Defense League" around here believes.

Spoken in true troll form by both of you, with all the business acumen of the mud under your bridge. Maybe one too many mirrorslaps to the head...

Your suggestion that they lack the technology is baseless and ridiculous. Consider a single example - they have had an APS-C sensor with DPAF since the 70D. Clearly, that technology would significantly benefit a camera that has no dedicated AF sensor. They have released three models of the M after that sensor was available - and used it in none of them.

Canon isn't trying in the MILC market for good business reasons. Even contracting as the market is, dSLRs outsell MILCs by 3:1. Like Nikon (but a bit moreso), Canon is the dominant player in the much larger market segment, and has chosen to let the little dogs fight over the scraps of the smaller market. Resources are never unlimited, developing a camera is not cheap, and developing one for a minor market segment - when at least a fraction of that market segment comes from your existing major market - is not necessarily prudent. Sure, the MILC vendors push hard in that space - they tried to compete with Canon and Nikon in the much larger dSLR segment, failed, gave up and are relegated to fighting over scraps. Even without major effort, Canon is now 3rd/4th in the MILC market, Fuji isn't even a sales chart blip.

Canon sells more dSLRs per year than all MILCs sold world wide, by all makers. Every time someone registers a new camera, Canon collects data on their demographics and what other gear they own. So they see the global ILC market through the eyes of millions of camera buyers...and you see that market through your own personal mypoic, half-blind pair of eyes. Canon likely spends more on market research in a few months than you'll earn in your entire lives, but you know better than they do how they should spend their yen. Sure, guys...right. Keep on proving yourselves the fools. :