Prosumer Level Canon Mirrorless Camera to Have 4K [CR2]

[jeffa4444]

The 6D used a fair bit of technology from the 5D MKII and added wi-fi, gps & a smaller body (it did have its own sensor). The investment for Canon was far short of what it spent on the 5D MKIII, 1D X etc.
There is simply no evidence to suggest this camera is a disappointment to Canon and defining disappointment as a camera in continued manufacture for four years given Sony 3 year cycle for the a7, a7r etc. is frankly nuts.

Canon have used the 6D to up-sell users from crop bodies and into a more profitable FF segment thats called business sense and I would be gob smacked if they do not continue with an entry level FF camera after all the 7D MKII is considered a semi-pro body and the prices are not too dissimilar yet specification sensor aside is much lower on the 6D.

Canon know what their doing, yes like all business in business for decades they make mistakes but overall the successes far outweight the failures and the 6D is not one of them.

 

[Woody]

See "Canon destroys Nikon..." and compare the figures with the figures in the diagrams posted by Woody. The diagram for 2014 shows 43.3% for Canon. 2010 it was 44.5%.

Wow, isn't it fun to distort the picture? You deliberately presented skewed data to distort the picture for your own purpose.

See how Canon and Nikon's market shares fluctuate in the interchangeable lens market:

2006: Canon 47%, Nikon 33%, Sony 6%
2007: Canon 42%, Nikon 40%, Sony ??
2008: Canon 38%, Nikon 37%, Sony 13%
2009: ??
2010: Canon 44.5%, Nikon 29.8%, Sony 11.9%
2011: Canon 47.5%, Nikon 31% (Thom Hogan's estimates and CIPA figures)
2012: Canon 40.6%, Nikon 34.7% (Thom Hogan's estimates and CIPA figures)
2013: ??
2014: Canon 43.3%, Nikon 32.1%, Sony 13.0%

 

[rrcphoto]

Well, in your response to #1 you confirmed that the mirrorless market ist growing...., and you were right with that, because: Absolute sales figures seem to have been stagnant for a while, but DSLR sales have dropped at the same time. Now, it's simple arithmetic: Abolute figures for mirrorless are stagnat, absolute figures for DSLRs decrease. I guess, it's obvious to anyone that this *must* mean, that the market share of mirrorless cameras is increasing. I cannot say, how Canon is affected by that development. Let's wait for CIPA to publish the numbers for 2015, as this will be highly interesting

they already have.

Mirrorless shipments for the most part have remained constant. but that stands to reason. this is SHIPMENTS.

none of the mirrorless are really to the point of diminishing returns yet (Olympus is close) so they are shipping as much consistently because they are releasing 4 times the amount of new products per year as Canon and Nikon.

the markeshare from 2012 to 2015 has changed 5% in favor of Mirrorless, however, that does not take into account Sony's market shift.

Sony had a 11-13% overall ILC marketshare when they were focused on SLT's pre NEX.

they have slowly stopped shipping A-Mount in vast quantities - as they basically are no longer shelf stuffing A mount.

the shift of sony should have accounted for a 6-13% gain in mirrorless as they shifted their shipments to mirrorless, however we are only seeing a 5% shift.

it's really difficult to say that Mirrorless itself is really growing, because of the sony shipment shift.

Then there is other aspects to consider. with the global currencies and economy being in a great deal of flux, canon and nikon shortened their inventory supply.

Again, influencing "shipments".

 

[hendrik-sg]

Don't try too hard with 4K, Canon. It's still early if you increase the video resolution in a sub 10k camera for the first time at the 10th anniversary of the 5D2, in 2018. When you are the last of the manufacturers who offers 4K on a broad basis. While you have proven with the 1DC you could have been the first.

Well, that's great advice. After all, the sales data show how badly Canon's market share has suffered. Clearly, 4K is critically important to a vast majority of buyers.

Neoro, i really appreciate what you write to this forum, normally. But this is to conservative in my opinion. Nobody would have thought nokia would completely disapear from the phone market, just because they went on the smartphones to late (or never??, don't know)

Canon has given us some really nice lenses the last years, but i think the high end lenses are not the big market share, and sellable only to customers who are in the system. Sure, my impression is that my 5d3 has better AF than a D810, but this is pro (or enthusiast level maybe) gear and not what first time buyers care about.

On entry level (and with entry i mean "system entry" and not "cheap") there is no coolness to buy EOS, all others have better specs on paper. At the moment, canon has a good reputation for beginners, as had Nokia, 2 years after the first I-Phone, but this might get lost if there is no visible innovation (beside completely new developped 18MP sensors of course)

So beeing the only brand having no affordable 4k offering is not really cool, and to be honest, today i would not buy a camcorder without 4k, because i do not want to buy new every 3 years. So innovation and marketing seem to be quite close, no D5x00 user would ever care that there is no 11-24 and no TS-E 17 lens in the lineup. But he will see there is no 4k, less frame rate, and maybe it's getting common knowledge that canon has the weakest sensors on the market

So neglecting (or oversleeping) 4k, mirrorless and sensor developpement in general is dangerous, and even a market leader can get obsolete..... see the exhibitions list of CBit 30 years ago

 

[Refurb7]

• therefore many people buy Sony, Fuji and mFT products
• once customers have switched brand to another system, it is very hard to win them back

Some people get frustrated before completing the switch, and go back to their Canon gear for pro work. I've read enough reports of people going back to Canon to sense that it's not that "hard to win them back".

For a look at all the fun you can have switching to Fuji, read the very mixed (3 star) first review of the Fuji X-Pro2 on the B&H web site, titled "Per usual the hype is greater than reality". It would be a decent average camera if not for the unexpected shutdown, unexpected reset and other quirks.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Nobody would have thought nokia would completely disapear from the phone market, just because they went on the smartphones to late (or never??, don't know)

How can you say that on a photography forum, when Nokia offers camera phones with the more megapixels than most dSLRs?

On entry level (and with entry i mean "system entry" and not "cheap") there is no coolness to buy EOS, all others have better specs on paper. At the moment, canon has a good reputation for beginners, as had Nokia, 2 years after the first I-Phone, but this might get lost if there is no visible innovation (beside completely new developped 18MP sensors of course)

For all that there is 'no coolness' and 'all others have better specs' Canon still manages to outsell the others. Simply astounding!

Time will tell, I suspect you'll find that Canon changes with the times (they have, so far, in ways that have maintained their solid position as market leader).

 

[hendrik-sg]

Nobody would have thought nokia would completely disapear from the phone market, just because they went on the smartphones to late (or never??, don't know)

How can you say that on a photography forum, when Nokia offers camera phones with the more megapixels than most dSLRs?

On entry level (and with entry i mean "system entry" and not "cheap") there is no coolness to buy EOS, all others have better specs on paper. At the moment, canon has a good reputation for beginners, as had Nokia, 2 years after the first I-Phone, but this might get lost if there is no visible innovation (beside completely new developped 18MP sensors of course)

For all that there is 'no coolness' and 'all others have better specs' Canon still manages to outsell the others. Simply astounding!

Time will tell, I suspect you'll find that Canon changes with the times (they have, so far, in ways that have maintained their solid position as market leader).

of course i hope they will change as needed, and stay there and competitive, i am locked in their system. i hope you are right with this, and you mention of tghe 41MP phone i take as a joke, for 2 reasons: i never saw one inthe wild, and i like the low light performance of FF combined with fast primes...

BUT i would really appreciate the ISO invariant Sony sensors for party shooting. Yes it's more in high iso range, but underexposing with lower iso and pusing in past, would give me less highlight clipping and HDR is no option when people are moving

 

[JohanCruyff]

Sorry, I have no time to read the whole thread. Just a question: "Canon is doomed" has already been written?

 

[unfocused]

I have to wonder how many of the "4K is everything" people actually shoot video.

From my limited experience, it seems like 4K would be very important for editing but not all that critical for a final product.

Most videos live on You Tube and are viewed on tablets and phones. Aside from Hollywood productions, hardly any videos will be seen on 4K televisions and even most Hollywood productions are being watched on tablets, phones, laptops or non-4K televisions. So the main reason to actually output to 4K is to satisfy your own ego, and allow you to watch your homemade videos on your new tv.

On the other hand, if you are actually producing video for client or distribution, there can be advantages to shooting in 4K and outputting in 1080p.

You can crop a scene without losing quality,
Post production stabilization is a lot easier,
You can zoom in to a scene or pan across a scene without losing quality.

But all of these require a certain level of editing expertise that most casual users don't have and don't have the desire to acquire.

So, yes, 4K can be very useful. But, it is not going to be a make or break feature for most users, unless they are very seriously into video. Given that, I can see why Canon isn't feeling the need to drop everything in order to shoehorn 4K video into every new release.

 

[msm]

I have to wonder how many of the "4K is everything" people actually shoot video.

From my limited experience, it seems like 4K would be very important for editing but not all that critical for a final product.
...

I have to wonder how many who say that have actually seen good 4k video on a good 4k display. The difference from good HD is enormous. The difference from the traditional blurry Canon SLR HD is absolutely gigantic.

The 5DSR doubled the number of pixels over 5DIII. 4k quadruples the number of pixels over HD. It's like having reduced vision and putting on glasses for the first time.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I have to wonder how many of the "4K is everything" people actually shoot video.

From my limited experience, it seems like 4K would be very important for editing but not all that critical for a final product.
...

I have to wonder how many who say that have actually seen good 4k video on a good 4k display. The difference from good HD is enormous. The difference from the traditional blurry Canon SLR HD is absolutely gigantic.

What's important to wonder is how many camera buyers have seen good 4K video on a good 4K display. I suspect the answer to that is damn few, relatively speaking. Next, one could wonder how many have the hardware and software to conveniently edit 4K video, to which I suspect the answer is damn fewer.

 

[Don Haines]

I have to wonder how many of the "4K is everything" people actually shoot video.

From my limited experience, it seems like 4K would be very important for editing but not all that critical for a final product.

Most videos live on You Tube and are viewed on tablets and phones. Aside from Hollywood productions, hardly any videos will be seen on 4K televisions and even most Hollywood productions are being watched on tablets, phones, laptops or non-4K televisions. So the main reason to actually output to 4K is to satisfy your own ego, and allow you to watch your homemade videos on your new tv.

On the other hand, if you are actually producing video for client or distribution, there can be advantages to shooting in 4K and outputting in 1080p.

You can crop a scene without losing quality,
Post production stabilization is a lot easier,
You can zoom in to a scene or pan across a scene without losing quality.

But all of these require a certain level of editing expertise that most casual users don't have and don't have the desire to acquire.

So, yes, 4K can be very useful. But, it is not going to be a make or break feature for most users, unless they are very seriously into video. Given that, I can see why Canon isn't feeling the need to drop everything in order to shoehorn 4K video into every new release.

Anything I upload is first converted to a lower resolution and a slower bitrate before uploading it..... and that's with 2K video.....

 

[unfocused]

I have to wonder how many of the "4K is everything" people actually shoot video.

From my limited experience, it seems like 4K would be very important for editing but not all that critical for a final product.
...

I have to wonder how many who say that have actually seen good 4k video on a good 4k display. The difference from good HD is enormous.

I have to wonder if you read my post.

Unless you are walking around with a portable 4K display and accosting strangers on the street by saying, "hey, look at my 4K video" or subjecting friends and family to the modern day equivalent of an evening with your Kodachromes from vacation, no one is seeing your good 4K video on a good 4K display.

 

[jeffa4444]

I have to wonder how many of the "4K is everything" people actually shoot video.

From my limited experience, it seems like 4K would be very important for editing but not all that critical for a final product.
...

I have to wonder how many who say that have actually seen good 4k video on a good 4k display. The difference from good HD is enormous. The difference from the traditional blurry Canon SLR HD is absolutely gigantic.

What's important to wonder is how many camera buyers have seen good 4K video on a good 4K display. I suspect the answer to that is damn few, relatively speaking. Next, one could wonder how many have the hardware and software to conveniently edit 4K video, to which I suspect the answer is damn fewer.

The Sony F65 is an 8K camera outputting 4K and being broadcast 95% of the time at 2K or less. 4K broadcast is virtually non existant and 4K TVs are only just being complimented with 4K Bluray. Add to this most people sit further away than the recommended viewing distance which means their not actually seeing 4K in the true sense of the word. The world is being "conned" into believing you can have it all, you cannot and its about balance and practicality the only true really world advantage of 4K, 6K or higher is oversampling.

 

[ecka]

I have to wonder how many of the "4K is everything" people actually shoot video.

From my limited experience, it seems like 4K would be very important for editing but not all that critical for a final product.
...

I have to wonder how many who say that have actually seen good 4k video on a good 4k display. The difference from good HD is enormous. The difference from the traditional blurry Canon SLR HD is absolutely gigantic.

What's important to wonder is how many camera buyers have seen good 4K video on a good 4K display. I suspect the answer to that is damn few, relatively speaking. Next, one could wonder how many have the hardware and software to conveniently edit 4K video, to which I suspect the answer is damn fewer.

There are much much more 4K camera and display owners, than people dreaming about it in forums .
Of course, 80% of population are poor people and even the "not-so-poor" people have different priorities without any 4K stuff on the list at all. You and I may not care about things other people do. That doesn't make us a benchmark for them to adapt and follow.

 

[msm]

I have to wonder how many of the "4K is everything" people actually shoot video.

From my limited experience, it seems like 4K would be very important for editing but not all that critical for a final product.
...

I have to wonder how many who say that have actually seen good 4k video on a good 4k display. The difference from good HD is enormous.

I have to wonder if you read my post.

Unless you are walking around with a portable 4K display and accosting strangers on the street by saying, "hey, look at my 4K video" or subjecting friends and family to the modern day equivalent of an evening with your Kodachromes from vacation, no one is seeing your good 4K video on a good 4K display.

I read your post. I just get the impression you do not realize what you miss. As for your other arguments, youtube has supported 4K for quite some time now so it is not exactly hard to share it with others. And then there is the question if you want to see your videos in the future when 4K is going to be standard everywhere.

Nor is software for editing 4k rare in fact you even got basic functionality in adobe camera raw and photoshop cc. It does not require a monster machine neither.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The world is being "conned" into believing you can have it all, you cannot and its about balance and practicality the only true really world advantage of 4K, 6K or higher is oversampling.

Well, it's apparent that some people on these forums have certainly been 'conned'.

 

[Schwingi]

Finally Canon will enter the mirrorless market. I hope they do it with a bang!!! Nice specs and good battery capacity/performance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_M

I meant serious competition against the other brands... :

 

[neuroanatomist]

Finally Canon will enter the mirrorless market. I hope they do it with a bang!!! Nice specs and good battery capacity/performance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_M

I meant serious competition against the other brands... :

Yeah, I guess you missed the fact that with just one line of MILC and a few lenses, Canon is #3 in the market segment and has a bigger share of the (smaller) MILC market than Panasonic, Ricoh, and Fuji.

Or maybe you meant competitive in your own mind and not in the real world.

 

[rrcphoto]

The Sony F65 is an 8K camera outputting 4K

not it isn't.