Lots of Talk, Very Little Solid Information About Canon's Next Cameras

[neuroanatomist]

In other words, mirrorless will never be a disruption in the camera market. Both mirrorless ILCs and DSLR ILCs are the same market. They can't disrupt each other.

sure. Horse-carts and auto-mobiles are the same market. Horse cart market will never be disrupted by cars.

quite funny to read all those arguments down that line.

Did Henry Ford breed/make horses and carts before inventing and selling automobiles? Quite funny but also sad when people so completely miss the point of an argument.

When Sony sold only DSLRs, they had ~13% ILC market share. Now they've switched entirely to mirrorless...and they have ~13% ILC market share. Disruption?? LOL.

 

[fullstop]

Sony had 13% market share and with their SLTs they'd have fallen through the bottom. So, they launched APS-C and FF mirrorless systems in good time.

Why Sony has not been able to grab much more market share quickly, is due to
1. lens lineup - especially FE at beginning, but also lack of decent and affordable E/crop lenses and
2. lens pricing - problem persists, especially for FE lenses
3. inertia/perceived "lock-in" due to (lens) investment with many Canon / Nikon owners

Given factors 1-3 it is rather remarkable that Sony did manage to grab 13% of ILC market - or whatever it may be today [probably very close to #2]. Thanks to Canon not competing in FF mirrorless yet and Nikon not at all [respectively with D.O.A. dwarf-sensored 1" CX system].

 

[BillB]

Sony had 13% market share and with their SLTs they'd have fallen through the bottom. So, they launched APS-C and FF mirrorless systems in good time.

Why Sony has not been able to grab much more market share quickly, is due to
1. lens lineup - especially FE at beginning, but also lack of decent and affordable E/crop lenses and
2. lens pricing - problem persists, especially for FE lenses
3. inertia/perceived "lock-in" due to (lens) investment with many Canon / Nikon owners

Given factors 1-3 it is rather remarkable that Sony did manage to grab 13% of ILC market - or whatever it may be today [probably very close to #2]. Thanks to Canon not competing in FF mirrorless yet and Nikon not at all [respectively with D.O.A. dwarf-sensored 1" CX system].

Sony's woes with market share could also have something to do with their limited success with their aps-c models, which opened the door for the Canon M cameras with their EF-M lenses. People may not be in love with big cameras but they aren't in love with expensive cameras either. Compared to an M camera, even $2000 is a lot of money to spend on a FF camera, especially factoring in Sony FF lens prices.

 

[fullstop]

yes, Sony has let its crop mirrorless lineup slip. Nothing new since A6500 (and yes, it is too expensive compared to Canon EOS M range) and especially nothing new in since A5100. Stills shooters willing to spend that kind money on crop-sensored mirrorless [Sony A6500 + good E-mount glass] seem to have turned mostly to Fuji.

People wanting a samll, decent and cheap main or secondary set ... buy EOS M. After initial fumble (EOS M 1st gen + firesale) Canon got EOS M pricing and EF-M lens lineup right. Perfectly targeted at consumers and "second smaller set" buyers.

 

[Mikehit]

yes, Sony has let its crop mirrorless lineup slip. Nothing new since A6500 (and yes, it is too expensive compared to Canon EOS M range) and especially nothing new in since A5100. Stills shooters willing to spend that kind money on crop-sensored mirrorless [Sony A6500 + good E-mount glass] seem to have turned mostly to Fuji.

People wanting a samll, decent and cheap main or secondary set ... buy EOS M. After initial fumble (EOS M 1st gen + firesale) Canon got EOS M pricing and EF-M lens lineup right. Perfectly targeted at consumers and "second smaller set" buyers.

So why do you keep on repeating ad nauseam that Canon are late to the market and will be overtaken by Sony when Sony cannot even get a system together (by your own admission)? People are not interested in bodies - they are interested in bodies with a lens attached.

 

[BillB]

yes, Sony has let its crop mirrorless lineup slip. Nothing new since A6500 (and yes, it is too expensive compared to Canon EOS M range) and especially nothing new in since A5100. Stills shooters willing to spend that kind money on crop-sensored mirrorless [Sony A6500 + good E-mount glass] seem to have turned mostly to Fuji.

People wanting a samll, decent and cheap main or secondary set ... buy EOS M. After initial fumble (EOS M 1st gen + firesale) Canon got EOS M pricing and EF-M lens lineup right. Perfectly targeted at consumers and "second smaller set" buyers.

I would be very reluctant to recommend a fullframe camera to anyone who isn't interested in printing on A3 paper or maybe even larger, and even then I might well suggest starting with something smaller. The minimum buyin cost for printing A3 using a fullframe camera is something north of $5000, with any kind of lens selection at all. And then there is the investment in time needed to learn how to use that equipment well. This is not pictures of grandchildren in the park territory.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So why do you keep on repeating ad nauseam that Canon are late to the market

Because Canon is late...with the camera AvTvM wants.

 

[Mikehit]

So why do you keep on repeating ad nauseam that Canon are late to the market

Because Canon is late...with the camera AvTvM wants.

Late compared to.....it can't be Sony because they don't make it either.
If it is late compared to his fantasies, then ....well....those won't be fulfilled for decades by anyone.

 

[Durf]

I still think fullstop should change his handle to "FullThrottle"......

 

[3kramd5]

hehe, very funny.

in reality almost all potential buyers do and will care, if they can get "full (frame sensor) image quality and all of the photographic goodness" in a smaller, lighter and potentially less expensive package

Yes, that is probably true as well. They would probably also care if the camera came with a pouch of magic beans. But like most camera buyers who can’t explain the difference between CMOS and CCD, most won’t be moved by the presence of a mirror, or lack thereof.

 

[BillB]

hehe, very funny.

in reality almost all potential buyers do and will care, if they can get "full (frame sensor) image quality and all of the photographic goodness" in a smaller, lighter and potentially less expensive package

Yes, that is probably true as well.

But how many people do care about full frame if they can get even smaller, even lighter and definitely less expensive in an aps-c package? Well, there is the DPR crowd, but....

 

[BillB]

Let's review the bidding. Sony has a weak presence in aps-c, no presence in FF OVF, and owns the FF mirrorless market, but Canon has a couple of FF mirrorless models in the pipeline, which will be based on proven dual pixel Liveview capabilities. Who should be worried? Canon, of course. They are late to market, so they have missed the bus. And their cameras will likely be too big. Betamax anyone?

 

[fullstop]

@Mike please read what I wrote, rather than trying to imply things I have not written.

so one more time my opinion as clearly as i can state it.

1. Sony has "highly credible" mirrorless camera systems, both with APS-C and FF sensor. The innovativeness and merits of their product lineup are one reason Sony has remained in the [stills imaging] ILC business, after their SLTs clearly failed to attract enough interest.

2. Canon coming late to the party and only "half-dressed" [no mirrorless FF system] and Nikon coming "with a knife to a gunfight" [Nikon 1/CX] are the other main reason why Sony did manage to capture a decent share of the ILC market, to the point were they are challenging Nikon for #2 spot.

3. In my opinion (!) Sony's market share could be even better more, if they would offer more/newer APS-C cameras, different APS-C lenses (E-mount) and more FE lenses - targeted at more affordable price points. For APS-C similar to what Canon is doing with their EOS-M and EF-M lens lineup. For FF Sony - in my opinion - made the mistake of using E-mount and the compromises that go with it: lenses bigger than need be, more complex and more expensive than they really should be. The market for lenses priced beyond 1k or even 2k USD/€ is severly limited. Sony has only recently started to add more affordable and decent lens options. More aggressiveness on that front would greatly help Sony's market share. Potential FF MILC buyers are generally smart enough to not only consider price of camera, but also availability and price of lenses they want to go with it.


TL;DR: Sony is doing well with its stills MILC systems, but they could do even better would they offer more decent and affordable cameras and lenses. CaNikon have made things possible for Sony or at least a lot easier by coming late to the party.

 

[Mikehit]

TL;DR: Sony is doing well with its stills MILC systems, but they could do even better would they offer more decent and affordable cameras and lenses. CaNikon have made things possible for Sony or at least a lot easier by coming late to the party.

And Canon's doing even better. So I am not really sure what your point is.

Saying '[Sony] could do even better would they offer more decent and affordable cameras and lenses' is no different to saying '[Canon] could do even better would they offer more decent MILC cameras'.

Fact is Sony have not got more decent and affordable cameras, and no amount of hypothesising is going to change that. So in the real world, Sony have not got a full MILC system.
Neither have Canon.
So why is Canon 'late' but not Sony?

At least be consistent in your argument.
This isn't Canon fanboyism, it is pointing out that your criticisms of Canon are based on flawed concepts. As are your analogies.

 

[fullstop]

Did Henry Ford breed/make horses and carts before inventing and selling automobiles? Quite funny but also sad when people so completely miss the point of an argument.

Maybe not Henry Ford, but the automobile company where a certain Ferdinand Porsche worked for a while was a coachbuilding enterprise. ;D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohner-Werke
And other "motor works" also emerged from coach workshops.

Interestingly Mr. Porsche designed electric cars [with wheel hub motors] at Lohner-Werke around 1900 ... but it did them no good, they were apparently "a bit too far ahead of the times". So being "too innovative" can be a problem for a company, though likely not one that would ever affect Canon. ;D

 

[Mikehit]

Did Henry Ford breed/make horses and carts before inventing and selling automobiles? Quite funny but also sad when people so completely miss the point of an argument.

Maybe not Henry Ford, but the automobile company where a certain Ferdinand Porsche worked for a while was a coachbuilding enterprise. ;D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohner-Werke
And other "motor works" also emerged from coach workshops.

Interestingly Mr. Porsche designed electric cars [with wheel hub motors] at Lohner-Werke around 1900 ... but it did them no good, they were apparently "a bit too far ahead of the times". So being "too innovative" can be a problem for a company, though likely not one that would ever affect Canon. ;D

You mean despite the fact that it weighed in at (IIRC) nearly 2 tonnes, cost an absolute fortune.
Maybe petrol had certain advantages which is why petrol became the standard.
Can you point to a reference to their failure being because they were too far ahead of their time? Petrol and electric were developing at about the same time so both were 'ahead of their time'. And the first electric car was developed in the 1830s so it was hardly new.

https://cleantechnica.com/2015/04/26/electric-car-history/

1913: Mass production of the Ford Model T on the first modern assembly line deals a strong blow to early-era electric cars, as it brings down the cost of gasoline cars considerably (making electric cars two or even three times more expensive in the coming years). Electric car sales would slowly taper off over the coming years. (Other main factors leading to the demise of electric cars were: cheap Texas oil; a more developed road network and the ability/desire to travel long distances — electric cars typically had driving ranges of 30 to 40 miles (50 to 65 kilometers) and limited charging infrastructure; the electric starter — see above; slower speeds — about 20 mph or 32 km/h; tough economic times during World War I; and the stigma that electric cars are for women.)

Do you ever think these analogies through before posting them?

 

[stevelee]

I would be very reluctant to recommend a fullframe camera to anyone who isn't interested in printing on A3 paper or maybe even larger, and even then I might well suggest starting with something smaller. The minimum buyin cost for printing A3 using a fullframe camera is something north of $5000, with any kind of lens selection at all. And then there is the investment in time needed to learn how to use that equipment well. This is not pictures of grandchildren in the park territory.

I travel with my G7X II, which has a 1" sensor. The sensor area is less than 1/7 that of a FF. I make prints from its photos on 13" x 19" paper, and they look great. I have many of them framed and hanging on the walls of my house right now. So your suggesting "starting with something smaller" can be very good advice. I shoot RAW, process in ACR, and print with eight inks, even so.

And, yes, I do have APS-C and FF cameras and appreciate their benefits.

 

[fullstop]

and the stigma that electric cars are for women.)

THIS is the only bit of information I find interesting in all of your post. What is it about?

 

[3kramd5]

and the stigma that electric cars are for women.)

THIS is the only bit of information I find interesting in all of your post. What is it about?

They didn’t have to be hand-cranked to start.

 

[Mikehit]

and the stigma that electric cars are for women.)

THIS is the only bit of information I find interesting in all of your post. What is it about?

It is clearly about your inability to hold a logical conversation