Still waiting for high MP canon while Nikon is coming out with new 800

[Sella174]

Canon sold nearly twice as many dSLRs last year as ALL mirrorless cameras from all makers combined. Worldwide, MILC sales are falling faster than dSLR sales for the second straight year. Explain how mirrorless is moving ahead? Perhaps you mean mirrorless is a better technology format...just like Sony's Betamax?

Quantity has a quality of its own.

 

[Sella174]

I used to get annoyed at Neuro's sarcasm.

What sarcasm?

Now I think he's a hero for having the patience to explain basic economic concepts to the same people over and over again.

And, for instance, I'm an idiot for not understanding "basic economic concepts" ... or it could be the other way around.

Nonetheless, I can't help myself.

I know, it's an addiction ... but healthier than alcoholism and cheaper than gambling.

So, let's see if I've got this right: Canons are available in a wide variety of stores in southern Africa, but Nikon and Sony are not. Umm...That would mean that the proprietors of those stores have figured out that if they want to sell products, they need to stock Canon.

Not quite ... Canon makes their stuff generally available to anyone interested in selling it, whereas Nikon and Sony appear to want to confine their products to more, erm, exclusive outlets. Well, that's my impression anyway.

What is very interesting, however, is that FUJIFILM appears to be doing the same as Canon. This is really going to be interesting to watch.

 

[Sella174]

After 16 or 17 years using Canon, your personal needs have changed. Canon doesn't serve you personally and is not at fault for not following changes to your personal camera needs.

Correct. That is why I have gone to another brand/manufacturer/system for part of my photographical equipment requirements. It is not Canon's fault ... it is simply a missed opportunity for them. However, since they control the majority share of the market, I'm as important as a single voter in a national election.

 

[Sella174]

Wow, you manage to get air pollution, tilt & shift lenses, a 600mm lens and global recession in one reply on an answer to the question why Canon didn’t bring a 36mp camera to the market (yet).
It seems to me you have trouble focusing on the subject…

Disregarding the cliche of a pun, yes, I broke my own golden rule ... one post, one statement. Otherwise it just confuses the kids.

Not something one would expect of a photographer though.

Ah, yes, when you have nothing else to say, question the poster's abilities as a photographer.

Anyway. I didn’t say Canon makes the best cameras (best is depending on what you want, so no objective measure) I just say Canon is market leader and they are because they sell the most camera’s, nothing more, nothing less. A commercial company is about selling things for profit.

Quantity over all ... and never mind sustainability in the long term!

When they designed the 24mm TS-E II and the 17mm TS-E their cameras had the most megapixels so what’s your point this time? They should stop selling those lenses because Sony put more megapixels on a sensor in 2012?

About niches, do you think that if Canon makes a product for one niche, they should make products for all niches all the time?

Ooooh, you got my post all twisted up. What YOU wrote was that a "high-MP" camera only has application in "landscape, advertising, architecture" and that these are all "niche markets". What I then wrote was that Canon actually does cater for these specific "niche" markets by making T&S lenses and that Canon also caters for two other non-masses (i.e. niche) markets by producing a 600mm lens; thereby illustrating that Canon actually does cater for "niche" markets and thus that any argument that Canon doesn't produce a certain product because it is a "niche" product is proven false, especially when Canon in fact supports that particular "niche" market already.

So you believe you can do better than Canon?

One should always strive to be the best, and the mere thinking that somebody else is better is the first step towards failure. Canon may have the market cornered for now, but they are also losing certain "niche" markets ... and niche markets have a nasty tendency to become mass markets.

How much did you turn over last year and what kind of profit did you make? It must be more than $ 3,212,162,000 because that Canons 2013 operating profit in USD with their “laughable marketing department”.

Well, enough to classify myself as comfortably well-off, affluent and highly eccentric.

 

[sanj]

I wonder what many would say if Canon did launch a 32+ MP camera. I am sure the 32+ MP camera would be ok then because Canon would do it. In my mind it is a matter of time….

 

[AvTvM]

I wonder what many would say if Canon did launch a 32+ MP camera. I am sure the 32+ MP camera would be ok then because Canon would do it. In my mind it is a matter of time….

they better ... and rather soon ...

and if they want me to buy it - and gazillions of others too ;D - then in a very decent mirrorless body at a very decent price with very decent lenses at very decent prices.

 

[Loswr]

I wonder what many would say if Canon did launch a 32+ MP camera. I am sure the 32+ MP camera would be ok then because Canon would do it. In my mind it is a matter of time….

they better ... and rather soon ...

and if they want me to buy it - and gazillions of others too ;D - then in a very decent mirrorless body at a very decent price with very decent lenses at very decent prices.

LOL.

 

[100]

Ooooh, you got my post all twisted up. What YOU wrote was that a "high-MP" camera only has application in "landscape, advertising, architecture" and that these are all "niche markets". What I then wrote was that Canon actually does cater for these specific "niche" markets by making T&S lenses and that Canon also caters for two other non-masses (i.e. niche) markets by producing a 600mm lens; thereby illustrating that Canon actually does cater for "niche" markets and thus that any argument that Canon doesn't produce a certain product because it is a "niche" product is proven false, especially when Canon in fact supports that particular "niche" market already.

You keep reacting to an argument I didn’t make.

This is what I wrote:
My guess is they thought they wouldn’t make enough profit with a 30+ mp FF camera on top of the 1DX, 1DC, 5DIII and 6D. High mp 135 format cameras are a niche market (landscape, advertising, architecture) with competition from Nikon, Sony and from the medium format manufacturers.

Either my English isn’t good enough to get my point across or you like using the straw man (as in logical fallacy).
My argument is not that Canon shouldn’t cater for niche markets, nor that they never have and never will be in the future.
My argument was and is that Canon came to the conclusion that there was not enough profit in a high mp body for them on top of their current product range.

You might disagree, but please disagree with the argument I make and don’t make up arguments for me.

 

[Orangutan]

I have a friend who is a die-hard Nikon fanboi. He has a D800 and some nice glass. He mostly shoots portraits, and loves his D800, and made jokes about Canon products not keeping up. Then he shot a wedding using someone else's 5D3, and nearly switched to Canon.

But he didn't actually switch ...

<sarcasm>You must be independently wealthy, or you are one of those people who has no concern about spending the rent money on toys. Many people would understand the implications the of the expression "nearly switched:" You see, camera systems are rather expensive, and only very wealthy people, such as yourself, can afford multiple systems. Therefore, a compulsion to switch has to be so strong as to be worth the loss of a large amount of money on the sale of the old system vs. purchase of the new system. That's where that word "implication" comes in: even to contemplate that switch seriously means you have a substantial preference for the "other" system, but just can't afford to make the switch. You may now go back to your chardonnay and caviar.</sarcasm>

** Note: ordinarily I avoid sarcasm because it's not very effective on the interwebs. In this case I'll make an exception.

 

[unfocused]

Now I think he's a hero for having the patience to explain basic economic concepts to the same people over and over again.

And, for instance, I'm an idiot for not understanding "basic economic concepts" ... or it could be the other way around.

Perhaps I'm being unfair. But, when people assert that a company is headed toward financial disaster because the specific product that they as an individual would like to see produced isn't available and when in reality that company's products consistently outsell their competitors' comparable models across the entire product line, the charitable assumption is that the person making the assertion doesn't quite grasp some fairly basic economic principles. There are certainly less charitable assessments that could be made – perhaps some people just enjoy being trolls and don't really believe what they write.

So, let's see if I've got this right: Canons are available in a wide variety of stores in southern Africa, but Nikon and Sony are not. Umm...That would mean that the proprietors of those stores have figured out that if they want to sell products, they need to stock Canon.

Not quite ... Canon makes their stuff generally available to anyone interested in selling it, whereas Nikon and Sony appear to want to confine their products to more, erm, exclusive outlets. Well, that's my impression anyway.

Yes...here in the U.S. Nikon and Sony offers their products to exclusive outlets like Walmart, Target and Best Buy.

 

[Sella174]

My guess is they thought they wouldn’t make enough profit with a 30+ mp FF camera on top of the 1DX, 1DC, 5DIII and 6D. High mp 135 format cameras are a niche market (landscape, advertising, architecture) with competition from Nikon, Sony and from the medium format manufacturers.

I can read a lot into that paragraph ... like Canon has too many FF models on the market; or that the competition in the "high-MP" segment is too tough for Canon; or that ... but I rather focused on the whole "niche market" excuse.

You might disagree, but please disagree with the argument I make and don’t make up arguments for me.

:-X

 

[Sella174]

<sarcasm>You must be independently wealthy, or you are one of those people who has no concern about spending the rent money on toys. Many people would understand the implications the of the expression "nearly switched:" You see, camera systems are rather expensive, and only very wealthy people, such as yourself, can afford multiple systems. Therefore, a compulsion to switch has to be so strong as to be worth the loss of a large amount of money on the sale of the old system vs. purchase of the new system. That's where that word "implication" comes in: even to contemplate that switch seriously means you have a substantial preference for the "other" system, but just can't afford to make the switch. You may now go back to your chardonnay and caviar.</sarcasm>

Wrong, because your friend is a portrait/wedding photographer. Thus his photographic equipment are not only tools, but revenue-generating tools. This also implies, if he follows sound business management, that every piece of equipment is (a) justified and (b) calculated to pay for itself within a specific timeframe. I know this sounds cold, but it is the reality of running a business. So, if a particular piece of equipment cannot satisfy BOTH these criteria, then there is absolutely no reason to purchase it; and he should then rather rent it, which implies absolutely zero investment on his part. (Compare this situation with the enthusiasts who have a day-job to support their GAS.)

Coupled with criterion (a) is the fact that as a professional (portrait/wedding) photographer your friend MUST always provide his clients with the very best product possible. This then will invariably necessitate a constant upgrade/replacement of photographic equipment (aka tools) and this must be factored into criterion (b). Again, I know this sounds cold, but it is the reality of running a business.

Now, if your friend is NOT a professional (portrait/wedding) photographer, but just an enthusiast with a "professional-grade" camera, then why did you mention him?

 

[Sella174]

Perhaps I'm being unfair. But, when people assert that a company is headed toward financial disaster because the specific product that they as an individual would like to see produced isn't available and when in reality that company's products consistently outsell their competitors' comparable models across the entire product line, the charitable assumption is that the person making the assertion doesn't quite grasp some fairly basic economic principles.

Let me try this again from MY understanding of basic economic principles. In order to succeed, most companies need at least two types of products, i.e. foundation products and mass products. The former (foundation products) are what you build your company reputation on and are also the products that support your company through any lean years, recessions and failures to predict the swing of the market. The latter (mass products) are the hugely popular products you sell to the masses at huge profits, i.e. the cash cows, and which support the growth and development of your company.

For Canon, IMO, the 1D-series and the 5D-series are foundation products, whereas the 6D and the "xxxD"-series with their kit lenses are the mass products.

Mass products come and go, but foundation products stay for the count. It is therefore vital for any company to always maintain this distinction within the company itself. Placing reliance on the revenue from the mass products for the financing of essential corporate functions is always a one-way ticket to insolvency.

But, due to the fickleness of the mass market consumers, a company must always be ready with the next big mass market "thing". IMO, in cameras, this is mirrorless.

Problem for Canon, IMO, is that not only do they not have any decent mirrorless cameras or a "high-MP" (portrait/architecture/landscape) camera waiting in the wings, they are also allowing their competitors to actually steal the early adopters of this "new trend" away from them. You snooze, you lose.

(I could go on, but I've probably lost everyone's attention by now.)

There are certainly less charitable assessments that could be made – perhaps some people just enjoy being trolls and don't really believe what they write.

Or it could be research into the thought-patterns of the influential persons within the market. For example, what I've determined through my incessant ramblings/trolling/flaming is that (a) sales figures sell products, (b) a product sells simply because it is the best of what is offered and not because it is actually any good, and (c) extremes sell best.

Yes...here in the U.S. Nikon and Sony offers their products to exclusive outlets like Walmart, Target and Best Buy.

Two things then ... obviously the "regional managers" of those brands have a better understanding of the importance of placing products on shelves; and perhaps we here in Africa could be a significant untapped market for those brands ... if they only tried.

 

[Orangutan]

<sarcasm>You must be independently wealthy, or you are one of those people who has no concern about spending the rent money on toys. Many people would understand the implications the of the expression "nearly switched:" You see, camera systems are rather expensive, and only very wealthy people, such as yourself, can afford multiple systems. Therefore, a compulsion to switch has to be so strong as to be worth the loss of a large amount of money on the sale of the old system vs. purchase of the new system. That's where that word "implication" comes in: even to contemplate that switch seriously means you have a substantial preference for the "other" system, but just can't afford to make the switch. You may now go back to your chardonnay and caviar.</sarcasm>

Wrong, because your friend is a portrait/wedding photographer. Thus his photographic equipment are not only tools, but revenue-generating tools. This also implies, if he follows sound business management, that every piece of equipment is (a) justified and (b) calculated to pay for itself within a specific timeframe. I know this sounds cold, but it is the reality of running a business. So, if a particular piece of equipment cannot satisfy BOTH these criteria, then there is absolutely no reason to purchase it; and he should then rather rent it, which implies absolutely zero investment on his part. (Compare this situation with the enthusiasts who have a day-job to support their GAS.)

Coupled with criterion (a) is the fact that as a professional (portrait/wedding) photographer your friend MUST always provide his clients with the very best product possible. This then will invariably necessitate a constant upgrade/replacement of photographic equipment (aka tools) and this must be factored into criterion (b). Again, I know this sounds cold, but it is the reality of running a business.

Now, if your friend is NOT a professional (portrait/wedding) photographer, but just an enthusiast with a "professional-grade" camera, then why did you mention him?

Wow, I'm impressed: a reply that's actually somewhat thoughtful. Again, however, you argue from your own parochial perspective.

Let's start here:

Now, if your friend is NOT a professional (portrait/wedding) photographer, but just an enthusiast with a "professional-grade" camera, then why did you mention him?

This is a false dichotomy logical fallacy. The question is not whether he is, by your definition, a professional. The question is whether he is skilled enough to recognize the relative merits of two different systems. For the record, he's a part-time pro in the process of building his business. Obviously, you would need to take my word that the guy is smart, thoughtful and has fairly solid skills, but you won't.

if he follows sound business management, that every piece of equipment is (a) justified and (b) calculated to pay for itself within a specific timeframe. I know this sounds cold, but it is the reality of running a business.

I agree with you here nearly 100%. Again, though, you overlook the other side of that...

your friend MUST always provide his clients with the very best product possible

Here's a part you may not understand: different equipment is suited to different needs. I think few would argue that the D800 is the superior studio/portrait camera (assuming you have the glass to go with it). And of course, all those MF enthusiasts will argue that the D800 does not rise to that level. There are very few pros who can kit up with $200k of gear and have several assistants running around as pack-stock. Most pros must spend money wisely to cover the range of their business. Pros who buy too much may price themselves out of the market. And that's another iron-clad business truth: your services are worth what the customers are willing to pay. If the customers are not willing to pay enough that you can maintain a broad range of equipment, then you'd better not try to maintain a broad range of equipment. In some markets, there just aren't enough high-end customers to justify more than a handful of boutique photographers.

I've seen "pros" who can't shoot their way out of a burlap sack. I've seen amateurs who take wonderful photos, even with cheap P&S cameras. The arbitrary definition of a full-time pro, who makes nearly 100% of income on photography is no longer valid.

Please try to broaden your perspective.

 

[Sella174]

Now, if your friend is NOT a professional (portrait/wedding) photographer, but just an enthusiast with a "professional-grade" camera, then why did you mention him?

This is a false dichotomy logical fallacy.

Nice try, but no cigar. Your argument was that your friend is a "fanboi" locked into the Nikon system due to the financial constraints of switching to the Canon (or another) system. I assumed that he is a professional photographer specialising in portraits and weddings - which you have confirmed. So I wrote what I wrote from that perspective. But if you had instead said that your friend is an enthusiast who scrimped and saved for almost a year in order to buy a D800 camera, then my post would have been quite different and I would have in all probability agreed with you.

Oh, did I mention my friend who is a wildlife photographer and recently switched from Canon to Pentax? Well, I am now. Yip, Pentax.

The question is not whether he is, by your definition, a professional.

Actually, I follow the definition of the Oxford dictionary, i.e. "engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation".

The question is whether he is skilled enough to recognize the relative merits of two different systems. For the record, he's a part-time pro in the process of building his business. Obviously, you would need to take my word that the guy is smart, thoughtful and has fairly solid skills, but you won't.

I wouldn't know as I haven't seen his work, but do take your word for it. However, even as a "part-time pro" what I wrote stills holds. If that D800 isn't generating the money to pay for itself within a given timeframe, then it's bad business management.

your friend MUST always provide his clients with the very best product possible

Here's a part you may not understand: different equipment is suited to different needs. I think few would argue that the D800 is the superior studio/portrait camera (assuming you have the glass to go with it). And of course, all those MF enthusiasts will argue that the D800 does not rise to that level. There are very few pros who can kit up with $200k of gear and have several assistants running around as pack-stock. Most pros must spend money wisely to cover the range of their business. Pros who buy too much may price themselves out of the market.

I think you have misunderstood my use of "best product possible". By "product" I did not mean that a photographer must use the (perceived) best cameras and lenses; I meant that a photographer must provide his/her clients with the best possible photographs ("product") that it is possible for said photographer to produce given his/her tools (i.e. cameras, lenses, etc.) and skills.

And that's another iron-clad business truth: your services are worth what the customers are willing to pay. If the customers are not willing to pay enough that you can maintain a broad range of equipment, then you'd better not try to maintain a broad range of equipment. In some markets, there just aren't enough high-end customers to justify more than a handful of boutique photographers.

True and I agree. But would also like to add that if your clients aren't willing to pay for the "quality of a D800", but are satisfied with what a "Rebel plus kit lens" produces, then that's what you use in your business. The objective is to make money, not flaunt your expensive gear.

I've seen "pros" who can't shoot their way out of a burlap sack. I've seen amateurs who take wonderful photos, even with cheap P&S cameras.

Same here.

The arbitrary definition of a full-time pro, who makes nearly 100% of income on photography is no longer valid.

Here I must differ. There is nothing arbitrary about the definition of a professional photographer. If someone, as you said, can't shoot their way out of a burlap sack, but still generates 100% of his/her income from photography, then he/she is per definition of the word a professional photographer.

Please try to broaden your perspective.

Ditto.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Children please stop squabbling!
If Canon don't make the high MP camera that you think you want/need the go buy from someone who does. It is pointless going on ad infinitum about what they don't make, if you really want 30+mp go buy it and stop whingeing. If there are enough of you then Canon will change their products - though when you discover (as I have) the advantages of more modest MP sensors we will welcome you back.

 

[mustafaakarsu]

Children please stop squabbling!
If Canon don't make the high MP camera that you think you want/need the go buy from someone who does. It is pointless going on ad infinitum about what they don't make, if you really want 30+mp go buy it and stop whingeing. If there are enough of you then Canon will change their products - though when you discover (as I have) the advantages of more modest MP sensors we will welcome you back.

Well said.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

Children please stop squabbling!
If Canon don't make the high MP camera that you think you want/need the go buy from someone who does. It is pointless going on ad infinitum about what they don't make, if you really want 30+mp go buy it and stop whingeing. If there are enough of you then Canon will change their products - though when you discover (as I have) the advantages of more modest MP sensors we will welcome you back.

Well said.

Thank you.
I posted on this thread when it started as I thought I could contribute. However it has degenerated into rattle throwing and teddies going skydiving!

 

[Aglet]

Thank you.
I posted on this thread when it started as I thought I could contribute. However it has degenerated into rattle throwing and teddies going skydiving!

Doh! That's my cue!

 

[Aglet]

So much distaste for Canon. Why are you on a Canon forum?

no distaste for Canon except their sub-par read-noise performance.
I still have at least 6 (older) Canon bodies in inventory that get used for various shoots. I like plenty about their products otherwise.