New Kit Lens Coming With New Rebels [CR3]

[Loswr]

How can that be without a clue, when I´m Canon user, and I´ve been there on the dark side and came back? Wonder who doesn´t have a clue.

There is no paradigm shift in a single feature. Canon gets huge part of the cake eaten just because it lacks some standard or doable/awesome features, or even core specs.
Be it 4K,IS,pixel shift, quiet shutter, pure sensor performance, burst rate and buffer dept of (up to now pathetic) mirrorless Canon, connectivity and ease of use, true support of lower end and affordable mid range, firmware updates actually solving things and adding features. I just pulled few out of my butt. I could think of more. On each feature, there are people leaving or not buying some Canon stuff.

It doesn´t take a rocket science to see, and these are for fact. Sometimes spiced(not backed, as you suggest) with a vulgar word, which is not a problem compared to trolling and putting down other people you made guilty of having their own opinions. Wow, what a bravery and useful discussion from ya. I have yet to see that straightening of things and bringing facts you didn´t bring with your strong words.

Whoow, that was a drag (rather for making this post with my first grade english). But at least I enjoyed supporting some other guys opinion on the internet.

Canon is gaining market share, that is the fact. Canon is not having their cake eaten, quite the opposite. It's not rocket science, just basic reading ability and first grade math skills. Of course, seeing facts doesn't mean you can understand them.

All those reasons you're pulling from your butt should have been left inside there in the stinky darkness where they belong. Sure, some people aren't buying Canon ILC products for those reasons, but the reality is more people are choosing Canon than other brands, and that fraction has grown further in 2016. In other words, all of those reasons you list and all the other ones you can think of in your head (or your butt, as the case may be) are irrelevant compared to the cold, hard reality of actual sales data.

It's quite clear who doesn't have a clue. Glad that you enjoy supporting the incorrect opinion of other guys on the Internet, but aside from the fun you're having, your support makes neither you nor them any less clueless.

 

[AvTvM]

isnt it great to have a slightly larger piece of a significantly smaller pie! ;D

 

[Maximilian]

isnt it great to have a slightly larger piece of a significantly smaller pie! ;D

If the cake tastes better (more profit), sure it is.
But that'll be difficult in a shrinking market, where everybody is trying to gain share.

But a FF MILC neither won't bake you a totally new cake.
Otherwise Sony would have surpassed Canon already.
Did they? Nope.

 

[Loswr]

isnt it great to have a slightly larger piece of a significantly smaller pie! ;D

Great? No. But better than it could be. No individual ILC manufacturer has strong influence over global demand for ILCs – that's mainly affected by global economies and other relevant product classes (smartphones, forthcoming Google Glasses, etc.). What the individual ILC makers do have strong and direct influence on is how competitive their own products are relative to their overall market. The fact that Canon is gaining market share means they're doing better than their competitors at designing and selling ILC systems that best meet the market's needs/wants.

If you'd pull your head out of the AvTvM Universe for a minute and try to grasp reality, you might realize that having an increasing share of the pie is Smart, Canon. Probably too much to expect of you, though.

 

[AvTvM]

they have FULL command over ILC market. All they need to do is launch *COMPELLING* APS-C and FF mirrrorless systems. And i immediatly start to buy. And millions of others too. So simple.

 

[hbr]

All this discussion has peaked my curiosity as to why Canon would replace the EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 STM IS when this is a fairly new lens and apparently a pretty good one at that. The only thing I can figure is that they will be adding it to the line of nano USM lenses for video purposes, (right now there are only two lenses with nano USM: the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM Lens and the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens. I'm not sure this makes any sense, but I can't think of any other reason.

 

[scyrene]

they have FULL command over ILC market. All they need to do is launch *COMPELLING* APS-C and FF mirrrorless systems. And i immediatly start to buy. And millions of others too. So simple.

Maybe I shouldn't interact with you, but I will ask one question...

Do you think that the lack of a "compelling" APS-C and full frame mirrorless system is what is making the overall camera market shrink? Because that's what you're implying.

 

[Don Haines]

All this discussion has peaked my curiosity as to why Canon would replace the EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 STM IS when this is a fairly new lens and apparently a pretty good one at that. The only thing I can figure is that they will be adding it to the line of nano USM lenses for video purposes, (right now there are only two lenses with nano USM: the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM Lens and the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens. I'm not sure this makes any sense, but I can't think of any other reason.

One of the things you have to keep in mind is the sheer volume of sales of this lens. Canon will make more copies of this lens in a year than the total of all the L lenses made in the same time..... That makes the update cycle able to be very fast.....

 

[crashpc]

Well neuro, market shrinks for some reasons. Many of these are caused by camera manufacturers themselves, failing to make tempting products for mass market.

 

[AvTvM]

they have FULL command over ILC market. All they need to do is launch *COMPELLING* APS-C and FF mirrrorless systems. And i immediatly start to buy. And millions of others too. So simple.

Maybe I shouldn't interact with you, but I will ask one question...

Do you think that the lack of a "compelling" APS-C and full frame mirrorless system is what is making the overall camera market shrink? Because that's what you're implying.

yes. to some extent.

nothing could have saved dwarf-sensored P&S. but had attractive mirrorless APS-C and FF camera systems been introduced not only by Sony and Fuji, but also by market share heavyweights Canon and Nikon they would be selling more cameras and way more lenses (new, native short flange distance mounts) than they are today. it might still be less than in the 2006-2013 heyday, but more than today.

instead Nikon introduced the stupid daarf-sensored fail from the start Nikon 1 system and Canon introduced the crippled to death EOS M and partially failed with it. imagine, if canon had launched an M5 already back in 2012.

non-communicating cameras - not even simple WIFI in the biggest and most expensive mirrorslappers until 2015 - and poor implementation even in late 2016 comes on top of it.

ever the same mirrorslappers - 19/20th century tech, big, clugdy, not sell-connected - are dinosuras on their way to extinction. Canon - and even more so Nikon - are "dinosaur farmers". every single mirrorless camera sold by sony and fuji (and to sone extent also mFT) could easily have been a Canon (or Nikon).

but no! "we are innovative mirrorslappers. that is all the world ever needs. take it or leave it." me and millions of other customers gave bern leaving it. thats what you see in those CIPA stats. i have not bought a single piece of imaging hardware - camera ir lens - from Canon in 2016. first year ever since i bought my first canon mirrorslapper back in 2006. i am not delusional. i am fairly typical for millions of former mirrorslapper buyers.

 

[Loswr]

Well neuro, market shrinks for some reasons. Many of these are caused by camera manufacturers themselves, failing to make tempting products for mass market.

But how can that possibly be happening? After all, you just listed a bunch of "awesome features" of current cameras (well, not most Canon cameras, of course):

Canon gets huge part of the cake eaten just because it lacks some standard or doable/awesome features, or even core specs. Be it 4K,IS,pixel shift, quiet shutter, pure sensor performance, burst rate and buffer dept of (up to now pathetic) mirrorless Canon, connectivity and ease of use, true support of lower end and affordable mid range, firmware updates actually solving things and adding features. I just pulled few out of my butt. I could think of more. On each feature, there are people leaving or not buying some Canon stuff.

You even claim to have even more "awesome features" in your butt. All that temptation, and still the market shrinks. How? HOW??

Smartphone sales in the US are flattening, whereas smartphone sales in India are increasing at double-digit rates. Are the Samsung and Apple models being sold in India more "tempting products for mass market" than the Samsung and Apple models being sold in the US? (Hint: they're the same models.) Or could it be things like saturation in mature markets? (Hint: the ILC market is mature in most major economies.) As I already mentioned, global economies and competing product classes also play major roles.

Or maybe, just maybe, people aren't all that tempted by what's coming out of your butt.

Carry on, CHWAC...that second 'C' just keeps getting more applicable.

 

[crashpc]

You even claim to have even more "awesome features" in your butt. All that temptation, and still the market shrinks. How? HOW??

Because it takes more than just the feature on the paper. It must work well, and it must work on a system, which is compatible, user friendly, and also iterative. Not like Samsung, who does awesome camera and then sends all users to hell without a blink. I know Sony does that too.
These who want to buy into awesome camera systems don´t want to buy a piece of a gear, and find tomorrow, that it is a dead end.

Every single manufacturer has some MAJOR flaw. Not a single one can do relatively simple things complete and working. Why, oh why....

 

[Loswr]

You even claim to have even more "awesome features" in your butt. All that temptation, and still the market shrinks. How? HOW??

Because it takes more than just the feature on the paper. It must work well, and it must work on a system, which is compatible, user friendly, and also iterative. Not like Samsung, who does awesome camera and then sends all users to hell without a blink. I know Sony does that too.
These who want to buy into awesome camera systems don´t want to buy a piece of a gear, and find tomorrow, that it is a dead end.

Every single manufacturer has some MAJOR flaw. Not a single one can do relatively simple things complete and working. Why, oh why....

Oh, ok. So if Sony had better lenses, or Samsung kept making ILCs, or if Canon had pixel shift and 'pure sensor performance' (whatever the heck that is), or if Nikon had a really good MILC offering...then dSLR sales would not have declined over the past four years. Yeah, that makes sense.

Here's a dollar, go buy a clue (but maybe you don't want to do that, becuase it might mean giving up your coveted membership in CHWAC!). :

 

[AvTvM]

DSLR sales would have declined more, had there been an worthwhile offering of APS-C and FF MILC systems from Canon and Nikon in the last 3 years. But overall sales would have been considerably higher than what they are today, especially for new native glass.

 

[Loswr]

But overall sales would have been considerably higher than what they are today, especially for new native glass.

Only if you were the CEO of Canon, Nikon, and Sony. :

 

[ahsanford]

But overall sales would have been considerably higher than what they are today, especially for new native glass.

That's delusional, even for you, AvTvM.

The dedicated camera market is contracting due to cell phones. No new camera product or system of any sort will change that unless it's smaller/cheaper than a cell phone or the world gets madly hooked on a viral form of photography that cell phones are terrible at. As much as "Pupiling" (ultra-high res BiF eyeball photography), "Darknessing" (shooting pitch black caves) or "Superzooming in on Sweet Butts" (self-explanatory) could conceivably take off someday and resurrect the dedicated camera industry, I am not holding my breath.

You are simply fighting the arc of history here.

- A

 

[crashpc]

As I wrote neuro, it doesn´t take only single feature to change things.
Taking into absurd extent, we could go the other way, with smaller sensors, poorer performance, plasticky body, and absolutely poor UI, and look how camera sales DO NOT decline even more.
What a nonsense.

 

[hendrik-sg]

Maybe 10 years ago, development was so fast, that replacing a camera after 2 years was a reasonable decission. What happened to the replaced cameras? they were probable sold to people with less budget.

so maybe cameras are living 10 years until they are no longer usable, so if xxx million people want one, xxx/10 cameras can be sold per year.

the more camera performance is convergating, the longer they are usable and the less can be sold. In fact, i would not throw away a no longer loved 5dii or 50d, i would sell them or give them sombody who would like them, because one i liked this piece of equipment, it was expensive so i will care it stays running, even if i could afford a better one.

maybe this is why market is shrinking. smartphones come on top of t.

there is one more problem. 5 years ago, it was thought that expensive lenses would be a good "investment". i bought a 10-22 for 1000$ 6 years ago, sold it for 600 3 years ago and now they are traded for 200$ maybe. if the marked continues to shrink, 10 years old lenses will be as forthful as 10 years old smartphones. If the new 70-300 Non-L will be great optically, it will kill the investment in a 70-200 f4 (IS). This makes me more cautious buying expensive lenses, as consumable toys they are just too expensive. loosing 80% value in a lens sverely disturbs happyness with this nice hobby.

this would mean, mentally write of what i own now, and continue use it, but never again buy something new....

 

[AvTvM]

But overall sales would have been considerably higher than what they are today, especially for new native glass.

That's delusional, even for you, AvTvM.

The dedicated camera market is contracting due to cell phones. No new camera product or system of any sort will change that unless it's smaller/cheaper than a cell phone or the world gets madly hooked on a viral form of photography that cell phones are terrible at.
...
You are simply fighting the arc of history here.

sorry, I was not clear enough. P&S was and is doomed, of course. What I meant was "units of of ILC cameras and lenses sold". I had assumed it would be clear in the context.

 

[ahsanford]

But overall sales would have been considerably higher than what they are today, especially for new native glass.

That's delusional, even for you, AvTvM.

The dedicated camera market is contracting due to cell phones. No new camera product or system of any sort will change that unless it's smaller/cheaper than a cell phone or the world gets madly hooked on a viral form of photography that cell phones are terrible at.
...
You are simply fighting the arc of history here.

sorry, I was not clear enough. P&S was and is doomed, of course. What I meant was "units of of ILC cameras and lenses sold". I had assumed it would be clear in the context.

You were perfectly clear, actually. You implied that a sexy enough ILC setup (SLR or mirrorless) would reverse the world's disdain for dedicated cameras. Again: that's delusional.

Two things bring about a major comeback to cameras. A global boom in the world economy where folks are vacationing much more often in more far-off places, or... I actually can't think of a second reason.

- A