Interview With Canon at CP+

[scyrene]

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?

I think you have a point. But I think it's worth separating out what we think are good features, and what the target market for these devices thinks.

I genuinely don't think more than a vanishing minority of people chooses a mobile phone because of the resolution of the video it shoots. Virtually nobody is sharing 4K video on the platforms where it counts - Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Vine, etc. I get that 4K offers options - framing, stabilisation, frame grab, downsizing to nicer HD. But only enthusiasts are doing that, or have even thought to do that. The reason mobile phone cameras have eaten a large part of the point and shoot market (as most seem to agree) is more about the ease of taking a snap, or a short bit of footage and sharing it with others. Camera quality has improved very quickly, but that is not the primary driver, imho. It's that one device, usually very slim and portable, and that you'd be carrying anyway, can produce results that for most people are adequate most of the time. Canon could put 4K in its Powershots and the market would still be dwindling.

 

[ExodistPhotography]

A lot of talk about mirrorless cameras and size weight and so on. Has anyone took at look at Sigma's new sd Quattro mirrorless bodies? I am not sure how they will actually perform. But they use their existing dslr lenses and they look "maybe" a touch larger then the Sony A7. I can see Canon going this route. A pro mirrorless body, with all the features a DSLR shooter would want, but mirrorless for those who just want mirrorless. I just hope they focus on the hand grip design better then Sony and Sigma did.. I just prefer the DSLR handgrip feel and comfort..

 

[AvTvM]

A lot of talk about mirrorless cameras and size weight and so on. Has anyone took at look at Sigma's new sd Quattro mirrorless bodies? I am not sure how they will actually perform. But they use their existing dslr lenses and they look "maybe" a touch larger then the Sony A7. I can see Canon going this route. A pro mirrorless body, with all the features a DSLR shooter would want, but mirrorless for those who just want mirrorless. I just hope they focus on the hand grip design better then Sony and Sigma did.. I just prefer the DSLR handgrip feel and comfort..

Hopefully, Canon will not use the Sigma fixed ***pig snout*** approach. I prefer a *removable* lens adapter like the Canon EF/EF-M one. That way I get best of both worlds: smaller native short flange distance lenses (wide angle to normal) and use of any existing EF lens via adapter if and when required. But only then!

Really fail to understand, why some people are so against use of an adapter, which is exactly the same size as the Sigma trunket. Of course, the adapter i want comes from Canon, not from some party like Metabones, is fully functional (AF, IS, full lens-mount protocol), mechanically precise enough to not cause image quality issues and not too expensive. Again, Canon EF-/M adapter fully complies with all my requirements. Cost me 79 Euro or so. Even better, if Canon were to include the thing with every MILC body "for free". Does not cost them more than 5 bucks a piece.

 

[Nininini]

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.

The camera market is a FRACTION of what it was prior to the launch of the iPhone, a TINY FRACTION.

Wedding photographers and enthousiasts are NOT enough to counter the mass losses they are incurring.

Either they keep up with smarphones, or Canikon are the next Kodak and Nokia.

Something like the 80D should have had 4k, they need to stop with their incremental tiny upgrades when the smarphone market is trailblazing ahead with 4k.

 

[Sharlin]

The camera market is a FRACTION of what it was prior to the launch of the iPhone, a TINY FRACTION.

Now you're not even trying. I'd take another look at your (unsourced) charts. Sure, there was a bump in DSLR sales in 2012, for whatever reason, but the market seems to be pretty stable otherwise. Point-and-shoots have obviously been obliterated by smartphones, but if you want to argue that DSLRs/MILCs are similarly threatened you need better justification than that.

"3% drop in shipped lenses in 2015"? That's not even outside the error margin, never mind something I'd put into an infographic if I had an agenda like the author seems to have.

 

[Nininini]

The camera market is a FRACTION of what it was prior to the launch of the iPhone, a TINY FRACTION.

Now you're not even trying. I'd take another look at your (unsourced) charts. Sure, there was a bump in DSLR sales in 2012, for whatever reason, but the market seems to be pretty stable otherwise. Point-and-shoots have obviously been obliterated by smartphones, but if you want to argue that DSLRs/MILCs are similarly threatened you need better evidence than that.

"3% drop in shipped lenses in 2015"? That's not even outside the error margin, never mind something I'd put into an infographic if I had an agenda like the author seems to have.

I have never said DSLR, I was talking about compacts. Which was a massive market.

BUT, I did say, that the high-end DSLR market, is NOT enough to keep companies like Canikon afloat.

And I argue, that Canon, just like Micro 4/3, is in danger of not only losing the compact camera market, but also a large part the APS-C market, which is the largest offset market, BY FAR, of DSLR.

When Canikon start losing parts of the APS-C market to Smartphones, because they refuse to keep up, that's when trouble will start for these companies.

They managed to offset the complete loss of the low margin compact market, they will not be able to do this with their largest market, APS-C. The Full frame market can not offset losses in APS-C.

And you are already starting to see large losses in DSLR market, as the graphs show.

 

[Nininini]

if you want to argue that DSLRs/MILCs are similarly threatened you need better justification than that

from 21 million to 13 milllion DSLR sold in a few years time, is a MASSIVE drop in sales

Canon is not competing against Nikon or Sony, Canon is competing against smartphones.

It might sound strange to DSLR users, the idea that a DSLR is in competition with smarphones, but that's what is happening.

More disposable income from Asia and Lating America, should have meant a BOOM in DSLR sales, instead the reverse happened, DSLR sales are rapidly decreasing. This can only be the result of smarphones.

It's also not the "mirrorless" market causing losses in DSLR sales. Sure, the mirrorless market gained a tiny bit on the DSLR market, but it's clearly not enough to explain the losses. Smartphones explain the losses.

 

[AvTvM]

So the next M offering may not be all the bells and whistles of 4K and dedicated EVF and high speed FPS or A6300 or Nikon 1 series AF, yet.

That's exactly what many of us here think is going to happebn. After M, M2, M3, M10 yet another very lacklustre new EOS M (M4). Canon *is still not able to* put an M together, that is fully competitive with Sony A6300.

Not in sensor tech.
Not in AF. DPAF never delivered the goods in 70D; 80D remains to be seen, but it appears mainly to be for video, not so much for stills capture.
Not in fps/performance/responsiveness.
And if it gets freaking Powershot firmware again like M3, then not even in UI, except for touchscreen.

That's the situation. Canon is not willing AND not able ... to perform.

 

[George D.]

With extreme ISO, extreme fps, slomo, 4K/8K and the likes I wonder how Canon isn't in the drone business yet. Obviously, it's not about the usual specs anymore, it's how to capture images from a different perspective.

Canon missed the boat with smartphones and to an extent tablets.

Sony's image sensor business makes up the top half the mobile device market.

I am thankful Sony's not investing more R&D money into Minolta mount and instead on the E mount.

The recent Leica-HUAWEI smartphone partnership announcement shows Canon indeed have a "broad base of EF lenses" but "the differences between Canon and competition" is they keep it (optics that is) to themselves.

Keep in mind George that Canon is the world leader (by far) in market share of DSLR cameras and even further ahead in terms of market share, with their lenses. Premium brands (with premium prices) are finding themselves struggling to make revenue in the current tough economic environment coupled with a changing consumer base due to technological advancements in cheaper photo options (i.e. smartphones, etc.). Both Leica and Zeiss glass/optics are beginning to be seen in more consumer products - to broaden their revenue base and get their brand name out there: think Zeiss Touit lenses they have developed for M4/3 platforms and for some of the Sony FF models. Canon, being the 800lb gorilla, has not traditionally partnered with anyone on their camera stuff. (At least their DSLRs and EF-S & EF lenses.) Why would they?

We tend to forget that Canon, because of their various businesses, create products that enable a user to go from the field/studio all the way to the wall/gallery/museum/customer. And pride themselves on this fact. They market this beginning to end product lineup as Imaging Solutions. In fact, from a big-picture standpoint, I bet that is exactly how they see themselves, and when looking at new product development (with consumer input) want to make sure that they introduce products that can make use of most of their entire business offerings.
My two cents.

Canon is a remarkable company and they should be proud of themselves but regretfully they're not the best lens makers, Zeiss are. One day Canon would buy Zeiss as VW bought Bugatti but unfortunately Sony already chose them as partners to boost Sony prestige (and compete Canon). Same thing with Leica and HUAWEI in the smartphone area. Buy Huawei, it's got Leica (as in buy Sony it's got Zeiss) - not Canon. It's funny how one becomes a market leader.

 

[scyrene]

if you want to argue that DSLRs/MILCs are similarly threatened you need better justification than that

from 21 million to 13 milllion DSLR sold in a few years time, is a MASSIVE drop in sales

Canon is not competing against Nikon or Sony, Canon is competing against smartphones.

It might sound strange to DSLR users, the idea that a DSLR is in competition with smarphones, but that's what is happening.

More disposable income from Asia and Lating America, should have meant a BOOM in DSLR sales, instead the reverse happened, DSLR sales are rapidly decreasing. This can only be the result of smarphones.

It's also not the "mirrorless" market causing losses in DSLR sales. Sure, the mirrorless market gained a tiny bit on the DSLR market, but it's clearly not enough to explain the losses. Smartphones explain the losses.

A few things. Without taking sides on your argument, picking a high point and using it to judge a trend is potentially very misleading, especially when the number of data points (in this case, years) is so small.

Second, again you need to give more justification that smartphones and DSLRs are in direct competition. You have a hypothesis. The data you present doesn't prove it one way or the other. Correlation is not causation, yadda yadda.

Finally, as I said a little earlier, adding more features to cameras does not mean they will sell better. Specifically, adding 4K and other features you personally want will not halt or reverse the declines. Or at least, you've given no evidence to support that hypothesis either. Sorry.

 

[Loswr]

Something like the 80D should have had 4k, they need to stop with their incremental tiny upgrades when the smarphone market is trailblazing ahead with 4k.

You've evidently latched onto 4K video (of whatever quality, good or crappy) as a key feature. Clearly Canon doesn't share your viewpoint. Canon spends millions on market research. You have a personal opinion, and you know better. Right.

Canon is not competing against Nikon or Sony, Canon is competing against smartphones.

It might sound strange to DSLR users, the idea that a DSLR is in competition with smarphones, but that's what is happening.

More disposable income from Asia and Lating America, should have meant a BOOM in DSLR sales, instead the reverse happened, DSLR sales are rapidly decreasing. This can only be the result of smarphones.

Well, clearly you know more than Canon. You should share this information with them, and become the savior of their corporation. Obviously, the global economy doesn't matter. It's smartphones and the lack of 4K. Couldn't possibly be some effect of market saturation, either. That sort of thing never happens (well, except that it's happening in the smartphone market now, too). Yes, it seems you've got this all figured out. Well done!

 

[Loswr]

Canon is a remarkable company and they should be proud of themselves but regretfully they're not the best lens makers, Zeiss are.

I agree - for microscope objective lenses, Zeiss is definitely the best. Regretfully, while their ILC lens lineup has some noteworthy entries, overall that lineup is narrow in scope and limited in performance features on ZE-mount lenses.

Also worth noting that while the microscope objectives I buy from Zeiss are made in Germany, Zeiss-branded camera lenses are produced in Japan.

 

[Nininini]

Zeiss makes good glass because they have to. Not many people are aware of this, but all the chips Canon has in their lenses and cameras, are possible thanks to Zeiss.

Zeiss makes lenses for ASMl, ASML owns 90% of the lithography machine market for chips. 90% of the computer chips were made using Zeiss glass.

Making high precision camera lenses is baby stuff for Zeiss, their lithography lenses have a precision that make camera lenses look like cheap junk.

That massive glass element you see there in the center of this picture, is from Zeiss, it's going to ASML, it costs as much as a sportscar. It has a precision that no camera lens has.

 

[privatebydesign]

Zeiss makes good glass because they have to. Not many people are aware of this, but all the chips Canon has in their lenses and cameras, are possible thanks to Zeiss.

Zeiss makes lenses for ASMl, ASML owns 90% of the lithography machine market for chips. 90% of the computer chips were made using Zeiss glass.

Making high precision camera lenses is baby stuff for Zeiss, their lithography lenses have a precision that make camera lenses look like cheap junk.

That massive glass element you see there in the center of this picture, is from Zeiss, it's going to ASML, it costs as much as a sportscar. It has a precision that no camera lens has.

And Canon make steppers too, that almost certainly use their own made glass, but good luck trying to get images from inside a Canon stepper!

 

[Refurb7]

With extreme ISO, extreme fps, slomo, 4K/8K and the likes I wonder how Canon isn't in the drone business yet. Obviously, it's not about the usual specs anymore, it's how to capture images from a different perspective.

Canon missed the boat with smartphones and to an extent tablets.

Sony's image sensor business makes up the top half the mobile device market.

I am thankful Sony's not investing more R&D money into Minolta mount and instead on the E mount.

The recent Leica-HUAWEI smartphone partnership announcement shows Canon indeed have a "broad base of EF lenses" but "the differences between Canon and competition" is they keep it (optics that is) to themselves.

Keep in mind George that Canon is the world leader (by far) in market share of DSLR cameras and even further ahead in terms of market share, with their lenses. Premium brands (with premium prices) are finding themselves struggling to make revenue in the current tough economic environment coupled with a changing consumer base due to technological advancements in cheaper photo options (i.e. smartphones, etc.). Both Leica and Zeiss glass/optics are beginning to be seen in more consumer products - to broaden their revenue base and get their brand name out there: think Zeiss Touit lenses they have developed for M4/3 platforms and for some of the Sony FF models. Canon, being the 800lb gorilla, has not traditionally partnered with anyone on their camera stuff. (At least their DSLRs and EF-S & EF lenses.) Why would they?

We tend to forget that Canon, because of their various businesses, create products that enable a user to go from the field/studio all the way to the wall/gallery/museum/customer. And pride themselves on this fact. They market this beginning to end product lineup as Imaging Solutions. In fact, from a big-picture standpoint, I bet that is exactly how they see themselves, and when looking at new product development (with consumer input) want to make sure that they introduce products that can make use of most of their entire business offerings.
My two cents.

Canon is a remarkable company and they should be proud of themselves but regretfully they're not the best lens makers, Zeiss are. One day Canon would buy Zeiss as VW bought Bugatti but unfortunately Sony already chose them as partners to boost Sony prestige (and compete Canon). Same thing with Leica and HUAWEI in the smartphone area. Buy Huawei, it's got Leica (as in buy Sony it's got Zeiss) - not Canon. It's funny how one becomes a market leader.

How does Zeiss get to be the "best lens makers" without actually making lenses? Zeiss-branded stills camera lenses are not even made by Zeiss, for the most part (a few exceptions ... Otus?). They are made by Cosina or Sony or who knows who. Sometimes they are not even designed by Zeiss. For example, it apears the recent Zeiss Batis 85/1.8 optical design is patented by Tamron.

As Zeiss does not even make many Zeiss-branded lenses, it's not surprising that there are quality control issues unworthy of the name, like the decentering affecting the pricey Sony Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4. Then there are the modest performers, like the Sony Zeiss FE 24-70 f/4, which just diminish the Zeiss name.

 

[Tugela]

Given some mental bubble gum thought over the past two days, it sounds like Canon sent out there senior rep of development rather than explain what's up on behalf of their R&D department, IE make him go in the hot seat for once. Given this context, his thoughts make some sense in a few regards, and is the common Canon defense in another...

Canon development engineers are going to want CMOS-AF and EVF to equal performance of dedicated AF and OVF; they're engineers, that's how they think and that's clearly the bar their management has given to shoot for; and it's a good goal to have.

But, that said if you look at it in the context of other Canon executive comments, and this guy is saying it's his personal opinion, they're clearly going to release a new EOS M offering Q3 of this year, or sooner, and clearly it'll have the 80D sensor on it with it's updated DPAF, which is pretty darn good from the demos but to mr Tokura's point, the performance of the 80D's DPAF is not as good as say the 1DX II of course. But, it's superior to the hybrid CMOS AF III in the M3 now.

Now will that EOS M be geared towards pros, IE have dedicated EVF and do 8FPS or better? Maybe not as certain for this round on those, the iEVF is an option, we'll see. It sounds like we'll get at least 5FPS of continuous/non-continuous which the 80D can do continuous tracking with at the least, and possibly 8FPS at most of the 80D in non-continuous, maybe a hair more or less since the EOS M may not run at as high of a clock speed due to power and thermal issues of being in a smaller form factor. So the next M offering may not be all the bells and whistles of 4K and dedicated EVF and high speed FPS or A6300 or Nikon 1 series AF, yet. But, they're gunning for it on a future release is what this guy means. That's a good thing btw.

4K? Sounds like once again Canon is defending their Cinema sales territory, rightfully so as it's highly profitable, until it's been upgraded to 8K making 4K the new 1080, so I'd say the next EOS M will be 1080P @ 60FPS like the 80D, maybe with some better codec options, IE higher frame rates and varying GOP options so it isn't crappy 1080P like the M3 is now. 4K probably won't happen until the 7D3 is released if only to rival the D500 but they clearly don't want to move 4K capability downhill to the $1K price range at this time.

Canon see's the slow moving train speeding up, and is saying, hey, we're working on speeding up our development, we need CMOS-AF and EVF to equal DSLR performance. Also sounds like they're saying, hey, our next EOS M, it ain't the new A6300. I could've told you that from the 80D's specs, no surprise. That said the EOS M4 or whatever they call it, should be a nice bump upwards from the M3. Also I expect more EF-M glass this year also to other Canon executive comments. Japan is still a huge mirrorless seller and these guys are a Japanese company, they'll do it. Will they release it to the USA this time around? That remains to be seen. May be another round of eBay and third party forwarding for the EOS M4 like the EOS M3 was...

If I were a betting man, I'd say we'll see a EOS M4 in Q3 of this year, and it'll be a EOS M3 with an 80D sensor, maybe DIGIC7, and possibly and iEVF. 5FPS for sure, 8FPS, maybe. 1080P @ 60FPS though. That's not that much to ask for honestly. Will it win DPreview's gold medal? Nope. Will it be a superior option to the A6300, *smiles* yup.

Edit: EOS M4 (or whatever it's called) could get 4K, if, if, they update both the C300 II and C500 with 8k first. So this is highly dependent on release dates of both in proximity to the new M. Honestly, I don't see that happening. And, if they do 4K on the EOS M4, it'll be heavily watered down so as to not compete... I'd rather have decent 1080P first frankly than crappy 4K.

Regarding 4K, you talk as though they could do it, but don't in order to "protect" their high end C gear (which is not really an argument because pros buy that gear for other reasons as well). However, if you look at the way it is implemented on those systems that do have 4K, it is pretty clear that there are technical reasons preventing them from delivering 4K on the consumer side. Basically they don't have the processors to handle it at the moment. The silicon they do have is behind Nikon, who in turn is quite a bit behind Sony and Panasonic.

This is Canon smoke and mirror stuff. They say they have not included it for various reasons, but the real reason it isn't there is because they can't include it and remain competitive. So they just ignore it instead and pretend that it is unimportant.

 

[Refurb7]

Apparently even the mighty Otus lenses are not actually made by Zeiss, but rather by their "network of trusted partners".
https://www.flickr.com/photos/carlzeisslenses/9782175241/in/photostream/

 

[Loswr]

How are those superteles going for Zeiss? You know, like the 300 f/2.8L II IS that can resolve about 45 MP's off the 5Ds-R sensor wide open?

Well, as you may know Zeiss made a 12" refractor telescope that is quite popular, it cost $230K in current dollars. It's a decent little telescope, but barely adequate by modern standards. OTOH, by ganging together a set of 10 Canon 400/2.8 II lenses, you can get a $100K telescope that rivals today's much larger and far more expensive research telescopes, and in some ways surpasses them: Dragonfly. How's that for a super tele lens?

 

[Nininini]

Regarding 4K, you talk as though they could do it, but don't in order to "protect" their high end C gear it is pretty clear that there are technical reasons preventing them from delivering 4K on the consumer side. Basically they don't have the processors to handle it at the moment.

I'm starting to increasingly doubt the

"we can't put 4k in this and that, because technical bla bla bla"

argument

Ever since I went to Mobile World Congress, and I saw companies speak about 4k in smartphones, I really started to doubt what Canon is saying and giving as explanations. It just makes absolutely no sense that a high-end camera would not be able to get 4k, but tiny smarphones can.

And, canon has a tendency to nerf their lower end stuff.

 

[Loswr]

Regarding 4K, you talk as though they could do it, but don't in order to "protect" their high end C gear (which is not really an argument because pros buy that gear for other reasons as well). However, if you look at the way it is implemented on those systems that do have 4K, it is pretty clear that there are technical reasons preventing them from delivering 4K on the consumer side. Basically they don't have the processors to handle it at the moment. The silicon they do have is behind Nikon, who in turn is quite a bit behind Sony and Panasonic.

Well, yes...clearly you know exactly what you're talking about concerning Canon and 4K video. For example, I previously tried to explain how you were dead wrong when you stated:

All cameras with a Digic 7 processor will have the capability of shooting 4K video. So, if all of these cameras are projected to include a Digic 7, then all of them will shoot 4K.

So please, in your infinite wisdom, explain the PowerShot G7 X Mark II. What processor does it have? Does it shoot 4K video? Dazzle us with your knowledge!!