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

[steyr]

I have a 4K camera and the video quality is amazing. But actually, I don't need 4K and would be totally happy with 1080p IF someone can give me CLEAN 1080p. The problem with Canon's full HD on DSLRs is they often look smudged due to pixel binning.

 

[bdunbar79]

I think you are grossly missing the point.

Canon's business decisions are well-founded. Their decisions now and in the past have historically yielded market domination. They put a ton of research, more than you can imagine, into marketing and strategy. And as a result, they have always been the market leader and obviously have a proven track record. Therefore, if they ignore certain things YOU want, nobody cares.

That's really all you need to know. Nokia is a very, very poor example to use because they did not have the proven track record Canon does, over many many years (and many more to come). Any decision Canon makes you can bet your a$$ is a very, very good business one.

Anything else?

Nokia had no proven track record? I heartily disagree with you. They had. Apple did not, and still blew them out of the water. But wait: Was it Apple or was it their own ignorance?

Nokia transformed itself several times, including changes of business models and industries. And they excelled. But at one point in time they started to think like Neuroanatomists. They used sales figures, asked people they knew, and thought they just would need to continue what was so successful over many years. Their market share reached over 70%, and they sold more phones than Intel sold CPUs. Talking to some business man from the IT industry at that time, they were not even aware that the ARM platform was already much more popular than Wintel, at least in the count of devices shipped.

They did research the market and found that phones should be fancier and more appealing. So they launched Vertu, and added some bling to some of their phones. They did not get the clue what the feedback they received actually would mean. Regarding the iPhone their response was arrogant: They just ignored it, and the "smartphones" they came up with were not competitive.

All big companies with a long track record of success are in jeopardy of becoming arrogant and ignorant. However, I agree with you that Canon is in a better position, now, than Nokia. While their first "M" products were as half-assed and uninspired like Nokia's smartphones in the end, the Canon management seems to have gotten the message, that they must invest in MILC products and sensors. Let's see what they come with.

gargamel

Let's try again. Compared to Canon, no they did not. And as for market research, well guess not good enough, because they were wrong.

To insinuate that out of all of these years, out of all of these consecutive years of market leading, that Canon will suddenly and abruptly make a bad business decision that takes them under, let alone to the level of Nokia, is indicative of way too many mirror slaps to the back of the head. It's nothing short of pure ignorance to the way the world works and is asinine at best.

 

[AvTvM]

One thing is for sure. If Canon releases a new FF mirrorless this year it will pass the sales of past year FF mirrorless Canon bodies by a huge margin. Canon's market share of the FF mirrorless market will increase dramatically.

+1 .. hehe! ;D

 

[gargamel]

[...]

All big companies with a long track record of success are in jeopardy of becoming arrogant and ignorant. However, I agree with you that Canon is in a better position, now, than Nokia. While their first "M" products were as half-assed and uninspired like Nokia's smartphones in the end, the Canon management seems to have gotten the message, that they must invest in MILC products and sensors. Let's see what they come with.

gargamel

Let's try again. Compared to Canon, no they did not. And as for market research, well guess not good enough, because they were wrong.

To insinuate that out of all of these years, out of all of these consecutive years of market leading, that Canon will suddenly and abruptly make a bad business decision that takes them under, let alone to the level of Nokia, is indicative of way too many mirror slaps to the back of the head. It's nothing short of pure ignorance to the way the world works and is asinine at best.

First of all, I hope for Canon that you and Neuranatomist are not working for them. Otherwise they Canon will be a company of the past in a few years. Luckily they make better decisions than both of you would, up to now.

You may want to read my post again, but I guess you are one of the guys here, who like to produce themselves. My point was: Noone can save a company, whatever the size is or "proven track record of solid business decisios" may be, if the mangement just continues with what was successful in the past. Doing the same thing will yield the same results. And it happens quite often that the management of a company thinks that there is too much risk involved with a radical change (of business model, organizational setup, M&A, new technology). If that happens the fast has the big for lunch.

The danger for Canon lied in being too conservative and ignoring the appeal of MILC. But as I mentioned in a previous point: I guess they got the message. Otherwise, why would they invest in MILC, if the DSLR market was growing so well? It obviously isn't, at least noone really expects it to be in the long term. It's good for Canon that they obviously acknowledged this.

gargamel

 

[scyrene]

[...]

All big companies with a long track record of success are in jeopardy of becoming arrogant and ignorant. However, I agree with you that Canon is in a better position, now, than Nokia. While their first "M" products were as half-assed and uninspired like Nokia's smartphones in the end, the Canon management seems to have gotten the message, that they must invest in MILC products and sensors. Let's see what they come with.

gargamel

Let's try again. Compared to Canon, no they did not. And as for market research, well guess not good enough, because they were wrong.

To insinuate that out of all of these years, out of all of these consecutive years of market leading, that Canon will suddenly and abruptly make a bad business decision that takes them under, let alone to the level of Nokia, is indicative of way too many mirror slaps to the back of the head. It's nothing short of pure ignorance to the way the world works and is asinine at best.

First of all, I hope for Canon that you and Neuranatomist are not working for them. Otherwise they Canon will be a company of the past in a few years. Luckily they make better decisions than both of you would, up to now.

You may want to read my post again, but I guess you are one of the guys here, who like to produce themselves. My point was: Noone can save a company, whatever the size is or "proven track record of solid business decisios" may be, if the mangement just continues with what was successful in the past. Doing the same thing will yield the same results. And it happens quite often that the management of a company thinks that there is too much risk involved with a radical change (of business model, organizational setup, M&A, new technology). If that happens the fast has the big for lunch.

The danger for Canon lied in being too conservative and ignoring the appeal of MILC. But as I mentioned in a previous point: I guess they got the message. Otherwise, why would they invest in MILC, if the DSLR market was growing so well? It obviously isn't, at least noone really expects it to be in the long term. It's good for Canon that they obviously acknowledged this.

gargamel

You guys all seem to be talking at cross purposes.

Both "this company is big and has been successful in the past, so it will continue to be in the future" and "this other big company failed, so Canon will too" are logically flawed.

On the one hand, all we have to go on in predicting the future of these things is past performance, but the old investing mantra "past performance does not guarantee future results" applies too. However, *if* people continue to buy and use cameras - and in some form or other they certainly will - *then* some company will be making them. At present, there's no sign of a new startup coming along and gobbling up market share, so it's a matter of deciding between the few big names, Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. Since they are all big companies, the same risks apply to all - either too little or too much innovation (and it IS possible to innovate too much to make a decent profit or gain market share). Singling out Canon as the Nokia (or Kodak) of our times is selective, and I can't see any reason to do it except subjective preference (especially given no evidence that their position as market leader is changing).

On the subject of mirrorless, I think this is where you're a bit mistaken, Gargamel. If I may, you've offered no evidence as to why it is the disruptive technology that will shake photography up in the near future. Your statement "[t]he danger for Canon lied (sic) in being too conservative and ignoring the appeal of MILC" implies that MILC is the growth area, but those figures that have been bandied about don't bear that out - MILC is not growing to any significant degree. Most people round here seem to agree that mirrorless is the future, but nobody has successfully predicted *when* it will oust DSLRs as the main type of camera (excluding smartphones, which are irrelevant in this discussion). And given Canon and Nikon have been cautious about the sector, it might be fair to say it won't dominate *until* the two biggest players commit fully. In that case, there's nothing to worry about. Canon will bring out more mirrorless bodies, and that's when people will switch in larger numbers. And then it's not a matter of losing customers to other brands.

Too many people here claim to worry that Canon will fail, but what they really mean is they're impatient for a given product to be released, and feel they have to justify it with specious business reasoning.

 

[gargamel]

The only evidence you provide is the evidence that you have no clue of how large corporations work.

Thanks, but I have ample experience with the inner workings of large corporations, in particular research-based organizations. Do you?

Ample experience, but learned in the sense of really understood... ?

As for the rest, I do owe an apology. You're rather a noob here, I've given plenty of fact- and data-based arguments – probably hundreds of such posts. With a certain subset of people here – particularly those who don't read or understand the data (and especially those who seem to have trouble understanding the data they, themselves, cite) – those posts go right over their head. Perhaps I should have given the benefit of the doubt.

Really, do expect anyone do read all your posts in all threads of this forum? If it is too much effort for you to even provide a link to the right answers, than why are answering, at all? Reading your posts is a waste of time for, so far. There's NOTHING in them that really contributes to this disccussion. So your posts are a waste of time for everyong here, including you. But I guess you are writing them out of pure tedium, because otherwise you would be alone with yourself.

OTOH, I notice you ignored the refutation of your previous statement about the growth of the mirrorless market. Did the graph confuse you? I know, you'll just claim that you meant relative or fractional growth within the ILC market as a whole, even though you didn't bother to state that previously. That's ok, you go on about your life firmly believing in your correctness, even when you're wrong. Don't give a thought to metacognition deficits, you seem quite happy – ignorance is bliss, after all.

I just saw that graph, as I am not waiting in front of my screen for a post from you. As you don't provide a link to the original source, I have no real reason to trust the graph, but even if this is not the case, the MILC market has grown, it seems, if only for a small margin. Would you now, have the decency, to add a reference (link or someting) so that we all can verify the authenticity of the data?
[EDIT] Removed paragraph requesting new figures for DSLR market, as they are available now from CIPA.
Canon's market share could have grown in 2015, although personally I personally would not expect it, and at the same time the number of cameras shipped by them could still have decreased. IMHO, it is much more likely that they feel the pressure of customers whose gear is due to replacement, but want something lighter to carry around, and now find that Canon's lineup doesn't include an appealing option for them, yet. If all was good for Canon and the DSLR market, why would they invest in MILC products, at all? Would this be a smart business decision, then? Which, according to you, they never fail to make.
You feel overcharged, now?

Regarding the last paragraph in your post: You close your post with another soliloquy staring at your mirror image, again. Obviously One You Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

gargamel

 

[gargamel]

[...]

You guys all seem to be talking at cross purposes.

Both "this company is big and has been successful in the past, so it will continue to be in the future" and "this other big company failed, so Canon will too" are logically flawed.

I agree, but want to make clear that I haven't said or meant the second.

On the one hand, all we have to go on in predicting the future of these things is past performance, but the old investing mantra "past performance does not guarantee future results" applies too.

This is all I was going to say, actually. I used Nokia as an arbitrary example for that, in order to demonstrate that the biggest threat is always arrogance and ignorance, even it is based on continued success in the past.

However, *if* people continue to buy and use cameras - and in some form or other they certainly will - *then* some company will be making them. At present, there's no sign of a new startup coming along and gobbling up market share, so it's a matter of deciding between the few big names, Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. Since they are all big companies, the same risks apply to all - either too little or too much innovation (and it IS possible to innovate too much to make a decent profit or gain market share).

Singling out Canon as the Nokia (or Kodak) of our times is selective, and I can't see any reason to do it except subjective preference (especially given no evidence that their position as market leader is changing).

All true. But this is a Canon related forum, and as a Canon user I don't care as much about the others. But you are definitely right.

On the subject of mirrorless, I think this is where you're a bit mistaken, Gargamel. If I may, you've offered no evidence as to why it is the disruptive technology that will shake photography up in the near future. Your statement "[t]he danger for Canon lied (sic) in being too conservative and ignoring the appeal of MILC" implies that MILC is the growth area, but those figures that have been bandied about don't bear that out - MILC is not growing to any significant degree. Most people round here seem to agree that mirrorless is the future, but nobody has successfully predicted *when* it will oust DSLRs as the main type of camera (excluding smartphones, which are irrelevant in this discussion). And given Canon and Nikon have been cautious about the sector, it might be fair to say it won't dominate *until* the two biggest players commit fully. In that case, there's nothing to worry about. Canon will bring out more mirrorless bodies, and that's when people will switch in larger numbers. And then it's not a matter of losing customers to other brands.

Well, if Canon and Nikon jump into the boat, MILC will take over much faster than when they wouldn't. My personal guess (and impression based on my personal environment) is, however, that MILC is appealing more and more, and will gain popularity more or less quickly, anyway, with or without the BIG RED and the BIG YELLOW. It just will take longer, but although it hasn't happen as fast as anyone expected, people begin to see the advantages. This has, of course, to do with improved technology and better products. Before 2015 there were no EVFs available that people would like as much as an OVF. This has changed, for example. When in the past the shortcomings of available MILC products prevented average enthusiast photographers from buying them, the products are getting more and more competitive. Canon's and Nikon's reply, up to now, is to sell their products cheaper. Which cannot be a sustainable approach, and they both know that, as it will, in the long term, erode their profitabiltiy. My personal guess also is, that Canon is taking the right approach. Not taking their current M product line into consideration their timing seems to be just about right for binging serious MILC products. Unitl a few months ago, however, they gave reasons to worry.

Too many people here claim to worry that Canon will fail, but what they really mean is they're impatient for a given product to be released, and feel they have to justify it with specious business reasoning.

This is what it probably comes down to, at least for me. I am eagerly awaiting announcements for the new MILC models as well as for the 6D II, because I guess my next camera will be one of them. However, I am always looking into the Fujifilm lineup, especially the X-T1 and the X-Pro2. And I know for sure that I am not the only one.

If many people want mirrorless now, and Canon doesn't respond with appealing products these customers will look elsewhere. The number of such people may not be critical, at the moment, but my impression is that the crowd is growing, and it wouldn't be a smart move for Canon (and Nikon and...) to ignore that (if it is true, but I, like most of us, don't have official, up-to-date numbers backing it). But you said essentially the same, too, above.


gargamel


EDIT: Added a missing quotation clause.

 

[Loswr]

First of all, I hope for Canon that you and Neuranatomist are not working for them. Otherwise they Canon will be a company of the past in a few years. Luckily they make better decisions than both of you would, up to now.

Seriously? The point is that we are stating Canon is the best at making the decisions for themselves, and you are the one arguing that they are making poor/risky decisions. Still no improvement in metacognition. Get a grip on reality, please.

You may want to read my post again, but I guess you are one of the guys here, who like to produce themselves. My point was: Noone can save a company, whatever the size is or "proven track record of solid business decisios" may be, if the mangement just continues with what was successful in the past. Doing the same thing will yield the same results. And it happens quite often that the management of a company thinks that there is too much risk involved with a radical change (of business model, organizational setup, M&A, new technology). If that happens the fast has the big for lunch.

Who is suggesting they are standing still and 'just continuing with what was successful in the past'? This is a company that is research driven, constnatly developing and investing in new technologies. You may want to try and comprehend reality before you write more posts.

The danger for Canon lied in being too conservative and ignoring the appeal of MILC. But as I mentioned in a previous point: I guess they got the message. Otherwise, why would they invest in MILC, if the DSLR market was growing so well? It obviously isn't, at least noone really expects it to be in the long term. It's good for Canon that they obviously acknowledged this.

Oh, as you mentioned in a previous post. Ok, then. That makes it real, now that you have become aware of what others have stated all along.

The only evidence you provide is the evidence that you have no clue of how large corporations work.

Thanks, but I have ample experience with the inner workings of large corporations, in particular research-based organizations. Do you?

Ample experience, but learned in the sense of really understood... ?

Yes, and clearly demonstrated such understanding, which sadly appears to be beyond your comprehension.

Really, do expect anyone do read all your posts in all threads of this forum?

Of course not, thus my apology.

I just saw that graph, as I am not waiting in front of my screen for a post from you. As you don't provide a link to the original source, I have no real reason to trust the graph, but even if this is not the case, the MILC market has grown, it seems, if only for a small margin. Would you now, have the decency, to add a reference (link or someting) so that we all can verify the authenticity of the data?

By the way, here's a quick plot of the CIPA data on mirrorless units shipped since they started tracking subsegments of the ILC market in 2012.

Perhaps you should read more carefully, then. I'm truly sorry you are so mentally challenged that you cannot find the data yourself. This may help: http://bfy.tw/3uIk. If not, feel free to ask again, perhaps someone with a higher tolerance for fools and idiots will help you out.

As you try to deride the insignificant growth of the MILC market and their fall from 2012 through 2014, would also present the corresponding figures for DSLRs? I haven't seen any for 2015, so far, so I have no comparison.

Please feel free to use the above-referenced data source to plot the data yourself, if those data interest you.

If all was good for Canon and the DSLR market, why would they invest in MILC products, at all? Would this be a smart business decision, then? Which, according to you, they never fail to make.

Of course it is a good business decision. Must we remind you, again, that you are the one questioning their business decisions and suggesting they are making poor ones?

Regarding the last paragraph in your post: You close your post with another soliloquy staring at your mirror image, again. Obviously One You Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

The only mistake I've made so far is continuing this discussion. It's a mistake I will not repeat. Good luck in life, if your posting history here is any indication, you certainly need it.

 

[LoneRider]

Interesting discussion, for the most part. Some S/N issues here and there though

Very good points made about disruptive technologies, MILC is a disruptive technology, but hardly a black swan event. As much as Canon might want to be able to just drop out a flurry of products, marketing and other considerations must be made. As well, they only have a limited amount of resources, and likely want to control their product development budget.

From having worked in a smaller product development team, and currently now a semiconductor manufacture, there are a lot of steps. Mechanical tooling alone for a camera likely costs many $100,000's, possibly more. You have design spins on PCB, testing, and so on. Then add in the design spins on the sensor alone. And in many areas you may only have a single team, so you have through put issues.

Looking at the progression of the sensors from the 70D, 7D-ii, 80D, 1DX-ii, the 5D-iv would be the next sensor in line.

Also, for tracking, I am sure they would want some sort of IR in the FF M camera with DPAF. The IR is of course great aid for tracking people. So that becomes another interesting bit of technology we have not seen on there sensors (to my knowledge)

So, a "M5" maybe in the works, but certainly is has less priority than the bread and butter 1D and 5D models.

For that matter, does a M5 take precedence over the 7D-iii??? Add in the possible tooling for new lens mount and at least a couple kit options.

Now I will admit, I do find it interesting that a 70D/80D sensor has not found its way into a M camera?? It could just be, the delta in sales does not justify taking resources away from other projects to implement the DPAF into the M line product.

 

[mkabi]

So, a "M5" maybe in the works, but certainly is has less priority than the bread and butter 1D and 5D models.

I want to ask what happened to the M4, but an "M5" could actually be something.... interesting????

Here is some speculation, well... may be I'm just creating a rumor out of a bunch of other rumors (from this site, and others including canonwatch.com). So take it as CR0.

1) So from another site, can't remember which one, but they said something along the lines of Canon discontinuing the 5D line... I know... I know... ridiculous... but wait for it.

2) Canonwatch said that the 5D3 will be replaced with a 6DII, they didn't put that much credit in it.

3) Canonrumors said that Canon is preparing to upscale or upmarket the 6DII, which coincides with number 2.

4) From mirrorlessrumors, someone (they believe it was Nikon) bought out Samsung's NX line, hence Samsung closing down its camera operations. And, they are still standing behind their claim, not backing down one bit, even after both companies denying it.

So, I think that if there is a FF mirrorless, it may well be called M5, replacing the 5D and modeling NX1 with FF sensor, better AF and EF mount???

 

[rrcphoto]

We’re told that “at least one of the three mirrorless cameras coming in 2016 will feature 4K video recording”, though the size of the image sensor was unknown.</p>
<p>We’ve heard from a few places that we’ll see a fixed lens mirroress camera along the lines of the Leica Q and Sony RX1 R, but we don’t know what the sensor size would be, one would hope it would be full frame. The other two mirrorless cameras would be a new APS-C model, as well as the introduction of a full frame model, which we assume would be the camera most likely to shoot 4K.</p>
<p>The current estimate on when such products would be announced is the end of August, in time for Photokina 2016 in Cologne, Germany.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

back to this rumor.

part of me doesn't think this passes the idiot check.

for starters, canon had a terrible time getting 4K into the 1DX Mark II - it has huge heat sink and heat pipes to carry away the heat.

the XC10 uses fans.

so how canon at their current technology going to get 4K in an even smaller camera?

 

[rrcphoto]

Now I will admit, I do find it interesting that a 70D/80D sensor has not found its way into a M camera?? It could just be, the delta in sales does not justify taking resources away from other projects to implement the DPAF into the M line product.

70D was a 1200 MSRP camera, same with the 80D. the rebels never had DPAF sensors, neither did the M's - I suspect it's from a pure economics point of view.

hopefully with the new sensor tech, they are able to increase the yields, and lower the cost so that we see this in an M or a mirrorless soon.

it could also be compute power.

I recall with the M, not sure about the m3 - but the DiGiC's weren't clocked as fast, simply because of battery / heat performance.

you'd have to think that calculating the distance from 20+ million AF points would be computationally heavy.

 

[gargamel]

Interesting discussion, for the most part. Some S/N issues here and there though

Very good points made about disruptive technologies, MILC is a disruptive technology, but hardly a black swan event. As much as Canon might want to be able to just drop out a flurry of products, marketing and other considerations must be made. As well, they only have a limited amount of resources, and likely want to control their product development budget.

From having worked in a smaller product development team, and currently now a semiconductor manufacture, there are a lot of steps. Mechanical tooling alone for a camera likely costs many $100,000's, possibly more. You have design spins on PCB, testing, and so on. Then add in the design spins on the sensor alone. And in many areas you may only have a single team, so you have through put issues.

Right. And let's not forget: While software (more accurately: firmware) is and was important for DSLRs, it's probably the key to success for mirrorless. Canon did the best job in industry regarding end-user interfaces. The menu structures of Canon cameras are just well thoughtout. The rather omit a bonus feature than to add it and spoil usability.
But there are certainly additional, new requirements for MILC cameras, where pretty much everything is electronics controlled by software. The EVF, the processing, the shutter, etc. Plus, the software aspect imposes changes on the customer service. One reason, why Fujifilm is profitable with mirrorless cameras is, because they have justified the trust of their original customers by maintaining their initial products for a long time. They are still updating the firmware of some rather old models, continually. This made the customers stick with the brand, and mouth to mouth propaganda did the rest.

Well, you can also assume that they need to update their firmware, because it is flawed, and from a usability standpoint it definitely is....

But you are right: A whole ecosystem needs to be built, before Canon can support mirrorless at the same level as DSLRs. Let's be patient...

Looking at the progression of the sensors from the 70D, 7D-ii, 80D, 1DX-ii, the 5D-iv would be the next sensor in line.

Also, for tracking, I am sure they would want some sort of IR in the FF M camera with DPAF. The IR is of course great aid for tracking people. So that becomes another interesting bit of technology we have not seen on there sensors (to my knowledge)

So, a "M5" maybe in the works, but certainly is has less priority than the bread and butter 1D and 5D models.

For that matter, does a M5 take precedence over the 7D-iii??? Add in the possible tooling for new lens mount and at least a couple kit options.

Time will tell, and I guess the decision will be made by Canon only shortly before go-to-market.

Now I will admit, I do find it interesting that a 70D/80D sensor has not found its way into a M camera?? It could just be, the delta in sales does not justify taking resources away from other projects to implement the DPAF into the M line product.

Good question, I was asking that myself. Mirrorless cameras just cry for something like DPAF, IMHO. But I'd not be surprised if Canon would come up with a totally new approach to contrast AF, just because they can, and just because they refuse to pay for licensing technology from others. On the other hand: They use Sony sensors in some of their products...

gargamel

 

[msm]

If all was good for Canon and the DSLR market, why would they invest in MILC products, at all? Would this be a smart business decision, then? Which, according to you, they never fail to make.

Of course it is a good business decision. Must we remind you, again, that you are the one questioning their business decisions and suggesting they are making poor ones?

Regarding the last paragraph in your post: You close your post with another soliloquy staring at your mirror image, again. Obviously One You Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

The only mistake I've made so far is continuing this discussion. It's a mistake I will not repeat. Good luck in life, if your posting history here is any indication, you certainly need it.

And on what basis can you claim that Canon's decisions are the right ones? On unit sales? Do you really think that is the metric on which these companies ultimately measure their success? The fact that Sony don't even pursue it should give you a hint on how high priority that is. It is mostly a fact used by marketing, 1 billion flies can't be wrong....

Unit sales are dominated by the low end. All they mean is that Canon sells alot of low end rebels and eos m which is what? A rebel without a viewfinder? Arguably crappiest mirrorless on the market.

You got one thing right though. The customers which dominate the unit sales does not rely on DR or 4k video. Most rebel buyers probably don't even know what that is and neither is the competition hard in that segment when it comes to 4k.

Could Canon have been more proactive and used their technology taken the market segment Sony was allowed to take in mirrorless? What would it cost them and what could they have earned and how much could they earn in the future if they had done it? How can you know that they did the right thing or not? None of us can know. It is just baseless and worthless speculation on your part as usual.

 

[gargamel]

[...]

So, I think that if there is a FF mirrorless, it may well be called M5, replacing the 5D and modeling NX1 with FF sensor, better AF and EF mount???

Probably not. At least, if they stick to their current naming scheme, with lower numbers at the top and bigger number lower end models. If there will be an M5, it's going to be positioned below the M3, but above the M10, meaning that it won't be FF. It may turn out that the original M had no number, at all, on it, in order to leave the top spot open for an M1....

gargamel

 

[bdunbar79]

If all was good for Canon and the DSLR market, why would they invest in MILC products, at all? Would this be a smart business decision, then? Which, according to you, they never fail to make.

Of course it is a good business decision. Must we remind you, again, that you are the one questioning their business decisions and suggesting they are making poor ones?

Regarding the last paragraph in your post: You close your post with another soliloquy staring at your mirror image, again. Obviously One You Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

The only mistake I've made so far is continuing this discussion. It's a mistake I will not repeat. Good luck in life, if your posting history here is any indication, you certainly need it.

And on what basis can you claim that Canon's decisions are the right ones? On unit sales? Do you really think that is the metric on which these companies ultimately measure their success? The fact that Sony don't even pursue it should give you a hint on how high priority that is. It is mostly a fact used by marketing, 1 billion flies can't be wrong....

Unit sales are dominated by the low end. All they mean is that Canon sells alot of low end rebels and eos m which is what? A rebel without a viewfinder? Arguably crappiest mirrorless on the market.

You got one thing right though. The customers which dominate the unit sales does not rely on DR or 4k video. Most rebel buyers probably don't even know what that is and neither is the competition hard in that segment when it comes to 4k.

Could Canon have been more proactive and used their technology taken the market segment Sony was allowed to take in mirrorless? What would it cost them and what could they have earned and how much could they earn in the future if they had done it? How can you know that they did the right thing or not? None of us can know. It is just baseless and worthless speculation on your part as usual.

The whole point of a business is to what? Make money. Right?

What is Canon doing? Making more money than Nikon or Sony. I'd say that's doing the right thing, don't you?

 

[mkabi]

[...]

So, I think that if there is a FF mirrorless, it may well be called M5, replacing the 5D and modeling NX1 with FF sensor, better AF and EF mount???

Probably not. At least, if they stick to their current naming scheme, with lower numbers at the top and bigger number lower end models. If there will be an M5, it's going to be positioned below the M3, but above the M10, meaning that it won't be FF. It may turn out that the original M had no number, at all, on it, in order to leave the top spot open for an M1....

gargamel

Ok then 5M or M5X...

 

[gargamel]

First of all, I hope for Canon that you and Neuranatomist are not working for them. Otherwise they Canon will be a company of the past in a few years. Luckily they make better decisions than both of you would, up to now.

Seriously? The point is that we are stating Canon is the best at making the decisions for themselves, and you are the one arguing that they are making poor/risky decisions. Still no improvement in metacognition. Get a grip on reality, please.

You may want to read my post again, but I guess you are one of the guys here, who like to produce themselves. My point was: Noone can save a company, whatever the size is or "proven track record of solid business decisios" may be, if the mangement just continues with what was successful in the past. Doing the same thing will yield the same results. And it happens quite often that the management of a company thinks that there is too much risk involved with a radical change (of business model, organizational setup, M&A, new technology). If that happens the fast has the big for lunch.

Who is suggesting they are standing still and 'just continuing with what was successful in the past'? This is a company that is research driven, constnatly developing and investing in new technologies. You may want to try and comprehend reality before you write more posts.

Yes, Canon is a research driven company. Their track record of patents In the U.S.A. and elsewhere clearly shows this. But again, you refuse to read, as what I said won't fit into your image of the world. If you would read more carefully, you would have acknowledged that I mentioned DPAF as a great innovation from Canon. Still, looking at it from the outside, their focus appears ot be on old product architectures. Up to now it's only a rumour that Canon ist about to get serious about mirrorless technology. And yes, I think, it would be a good business decision for them, and appreciated by quite a few of their customers if they would change that and finally come up with some appealing MILC products.

The danger for Canon lied in being too conservative and ignoring the appeal of MILC. But as I mentioned in a previous point: I guess they got the message. Otherwise, why would they invest in MILC, if the DSLR market was growing so well? It obviously isn't, at least noone really expects it to be in the long term. It's good for Canon that they obviously acknowledged this.

Oh, as you mentioned in a previous post. Ok, then. That makes it real, now that you have become aware of what others have stated all along.

Now you sound completely disoriented. Of course, I was aware of this before I joined this discussion. In fact, it was part of my motivation to join it that I was aware of that. Because, look: This thread is about this very topic, and I am here as I enjoy discussing it and speculating about future Canon products and markets just for the fun of it. That's why I am here. Why are you? Did you lose your way?

The only evidence you provide is the evidence that you have no clue of how large corporations work.

Thanks, but I have ample experience with the inner workings of large corporations, in particular research-based organizations. Do you?

Ample experience, but learned in the sense of really understood... ?

Yes, and clearly demonstrated such understanding, which sadly appears to be beyond your comprehension.

You certainly demonstrated a lot of things with your posts in this thread, but knowledge and understanding of anything were not among them, for sure.

Really, do expect anyone do read all your posts in all threads of this forum?

Of course not, thus my apology.

Which I had been open to accept, as I am a tolerant, patient sheep at times, until I read the closing of your post.

I just saw that graph, as I am not waiting in front of my screen for a post from you. As you don't provide a link to the original source, I have no real reason to trust the graph, but even if this is not the case, the MILC market has grown, it seems, if only for a small margin. Would you now, have the decency, to add a reference (link or someting) so that we all can verify the authenticity of the data?

By the way, here's a quick plot of the CIPA data on mirrorless units shipped since they started tracking subsegments of the ILC market in 2012.

Perhaps you should read more carefully, then. I'm truly sorry you are so mentally challenged that you cannot find the data yourself. This may help: http://bfy.tw/3uIk. If not, feel free to ask again, perhaps someone with a higher tolerance for fools and idiots will help you out.

Perhaps you should do your homework. MILC sales increased by 1.7% in 2015, whereas Canon's total camera sales went down byby much more than that. Read Canon bleeding market share?http://www.photocounter.com.au/2015/canon-bleeding-market-share/. In October, 2015, Canon predicted their sales of interchangeable lens cameras to be 14% less for 2015 on y/y basis. Mirror slap in your face? Don't stand so close in front of it.... Non-authoritative source? Provide a better reference!

BTW, somewhere else I read that sales recovered a bit, as the last quarter of 2015 was overall stronger than expected. Still, they would have had been happy, if they only had seen a growth of 1.7% in sales., I guess.

Was it on purpose or did you just feel overcharged by the task to present comparable figures to support your claim that Canon is always making the right steps? Reality is, what I said in my first post: Canon's sales, and therefore their market share is shrinking, more so than I would have thought, and the MILC market is growing, although less so than I would have thought. Now, I hope you don't kill yourself....

As you try to deride the insignificant growth of the MILC market and their fall from 2012 through 2014, would also present the corresponding figures for DSLRs? I haven't seen any for 2015, so far, so I have no comparison.

Please feel free to use the above-referenced data source to plot the data yourself, if those data interest you.

No, thanks. For the points I made only the most recent past is relevant, I don't care about figures of 2014 and before. Because only in 2015 competitive mirrorless products appeared on the market. E.g., EVFs are now much better and a valid alternative to OVFs, which was not the case in 2014 and before. And the figures above support my point. Even more so, when compared to the ones about the MILC market you provided in order to deride statements that it would be good for Canon to invest in MILC technology. Do you still look for something to deride? See above.

If all was good for Canon and the DSLR market, why would they invest in MILC products, at all? Would this be a smart business decision, then? Which, according to you, they never fail to make.

Of course it is a good business decision. Must we remind you, again, that you are the one questioning their business decisions and suggesting they are making poor ones?

What??? What was it you responded when I suggested that investing in MILC products would be a good business decision for Canon? Wasn't it you who used words like "delusioned" and "dope"?
Again: I don't think Canon made a lot of bad business decisions. I just think they took a bit longer than necessary to acknowledge that they need to invest in MILC technology. And as it is still a rumour that they do so: If they don't that *will* prove to be bad decision. But noone knows, and maybe their considerations and developments have made much more progress than we all know. For my own part, I certainly hope so, but I have to say that as long as no competitive MILC products materialize, I consider Canon a company under pressure, and the figures above are backing this clearly, if they are authentic. At least its imaging division.

[...]

The only mistake I've made so far is continuing this discussion. It's a mistake I will not repeat. Good luck in life, if your posting history here is any indication, you certainly need it.

In the end a mimosa? Adolescence! But don't worry. Once you grow up and overcome adolescence, you'll be much more stable, emotionally, and chances are that by then you will have learned, how to behave as a social being. Unfortunately this will require you to stop looking at the world through a (DSLR?) mirror and mumbling to it....

gargamel

 

[takesome1]

Sometimes these threads turn in to a Seinfeld show.

"Much ado about nothing"

 

[Don Haines]

Sometimes these threads turn in to a Seinfeld show.

"Much ado about nothing"

definitely time for the squirrels!