The Empire Strikes Back - How 5Ds fits Canon's plan for a DSLR turnaround
- Thread starter Maiaibing
- Start date
Sarpedon said:
I think it is quite complex in terms of figuring out how much the market will take, depends on the target market ie the 5Ds they're aiming for. Balancing the need of Pro's and Amateurs must be difficult - especially given the comments about that how each generation leap is getting smaller. If they sold it cheaper, sure they would get some good sales, but would it impact upgrade cycles, devalue other product lines. I still chuckle at the price that the iphone sells at, yet look how many buy them.
It'll be priced higher than the Nikon 810, so I think it will be closer to €4k....
Upvote
0
Stu_bert said:
It's too bad it'll be priced higher than the D810, since the D800 undercut the 5D III with a lower price and better image quality. Canon should take a page from Nikon's book here.
Regarding upgrade cycles and devaluing other product lines: both of Canon's full frame models are ready for replacement. The new 7D Mark II, which has great specs, goes for $1800. The D810 goes for $3000. So why not a new 5D for $2500-$3000? Sell the 6D II for $1800-$2000. I can't see how the market will have trouble bearing that.
Upvote
0
A big reason for DSLR video is the cost and weight savings, so if they force to spend more and to lug a second set of stuff around for top video too that defeats the purpose and those extra sales mostly won't go to them anyway. If they don't want to let 4k and basic usability features go for quite so little yet then they should have (maybe they did?) also a 5Dsc for say $2000 more than the 5Ds adds 4k video internally recorded and the basic zebras/various while filming focusing aids, etc.
Assuming there is no technical reason it can't be done with this sensor (and perhaps there is, in which case then it's all besides the point and you just cheer on that it's a top stills only camera and they have delivered that).
Odd that your conference investor call thing made not a peep about improved video quality (despite GH4 and A7S blowing away sales expectations) and that in some notes they mention IQ and MP but in most they just mention competition in MP alone (a trace worrying).
Assuming there is no technical reason it can't be done with this sensor (and perhaps there is, in which case then it's all besides the point and you just cheer on that it's a top stills only camera and they have delivered that).
Odd that your conference investor call thing made not a peep about improved video quality (despite GH4 and A7S blowing away sales expectations) and that in some notes they mention IQ and MP but in most they just mention competition in MP alone (a trace worrying).
Upvote
0
Sarpedon said:
I guess the problem for both of us is that we don't know who is making more business from their camera sales. What we do know is that Canon and Nikon appear to be fairly consistent in terms of market share. They must be doing something right in that respect.
It'll certainly be interesting to see how they do price it.
The problem with the 1D-Xs or whatever it is called, is what will it offer as a compelling feature set over and above the 7D II? 14fps vs 10fps - most people think 6 is enough. So unless it has new sensor tech, then for the market they are aimed at, does the 7D offer enough for the Pro's, especially when they can buy 2 ? The problem is the "market" appears to be shrinking ie how many people want dSLRs, and therefore it's a balancing act to figure out how many sales to the non-Pro's vs how many to the Pro's, and how much each of them will pay.
Certainly I'd like Canon to be cheaper, but I still want them to have enough money to be here in a decade, and produce more great lenses in between. I think Canon always aim it high, if it does not sell then they have some headroom to reduce. Sell it too cheap, and they've set the bar too low for a long time. Those companies with a smaller market share will typically undercut.
As I said earlier... explain Apple and how they get away with their pricing in the market. Is it not the same. Has Samsung not shown indications that they want to move more away from the value-end of the market? Has not Apple just shown record profits?
I dont have the answers clearly....
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
It would be interesting to know how many landscape / studio photogs want to use 4K video. And I dont mean that in a challenging manner. But if Canon is becoming more targeted, does the 5Ds require 4K? And how many of those will take 2 bodies? To be honest, everywhere I go, I take at least 2 bodies. But then most of my travel is for photography and therefore lose a body, means an expensive trip. Would everyone, myself included, want less to carry? Sure would.
I do think Canon's video strategy is weaker for that market ie A7S / GH4. I also dont fully understand why they dont consider it separate from the 1D-C and Cxxx market. Again, maybe they see themselves closer to Apple in terms of marketing / sales of their equipment, and think selling it low is going to leave Panasonic & Sony in the same position as Samsung. Who knows...
Will be interesting to see what they do at NAB, and whether the 1D-C is intended to "die" and be replaced with a new 1DX.
Upvote
0
Stu_bert said:
Very different markets! On one side we have the 94% who have either abandoned real cameras, or never have seen the need to own real cameras. Most people who don't now own a real camera, will NEVER own a real camera.
So we have two different markets. On the one side we have the Smart Phone users who don't want or need real cameras. And on the other side we have the shrinking real camera market. Comprised of Very Serious Photo Enthusiasts (VSPE), Rich People who treat cameras as Bling, a few casual photographers and the rapidly shrinking Pro contingent.
Smart Phones are getting better. The iPhone 6s or the iPhone 7 will kill whats left of the casual photographer market. More Professional will use these better Smart Phones, many PJs already have embraced the iPhone. That leaves the VSPEs and the Birders as the only people interested in real cameras. BTW I think that high-speed video capture will replace the professional sports shooters on the sidelines of the World Cup, Super Bowl, etc.
And the iPhone has already made an impact on video news gathering.
Upvote
0
I've never shot video with a DSLR and don't intend to do so. That feature costs me money in my FF camera Canon like Nikon did with the over-priced Df needs a body without video. Now Im used to GPS and wi-fi in my 6d and I use both features they should retained for a landscape inspired camera and they need to improve DR not simply rely on HDR.
Upvote
0
Stu_bert said:
We agree on that at least! I don't have clear answers either.
I've always thought that the primary benefit of the 1 series over the 7 series was image quality, along with a slight or maybe significant upgrade in other areas: fps, weather-sealing, auto-focus, battery-life, etc. The 1 series seems to be for pros (people for whom 6 fps is nowhere near enough), the 7 series maybe for wildlife and aspiring pros? (And surely both are purchased by well-heeled enthusiasts.)
I definitely think the DSLR market share is shrinking, too, which is another reason I think Canon needs to come in with a lower-than-usual introductory price: because if they want to increase sales, or even keep them static, they'll have to eat into Nikon's market share--mainly by luring new first-time buyers or snagging Nikon owners with better features at a good price.
Canon also needs to be concerned about losing its current customers to the mirrorless market. There are a thousand stories on the internet of people - pro and amateur - ditching their Nikon and Canon bodies for a Sony A7 model.
I'm in the same boat. I really don't want to pay $3500 for a DSLR. I bought a 6D because the 5DIII offered pretty much no benefit for my kind of photography (landscape, travel, street, portraiture) at a huge premium. 50MP would be a huge benefit, but if I can get an A7R II for much less, I might jump ship, and I know there are plenty of people who feel the same way. I believe Canon's pricing should address that.
Upvote
0
Sarpedon said:
And I suspect you will buy the A7R II. I probably locked myself in with my lenses and it would be a lot to change (maybe the A7R II plus an adapter for me then
). I think no matter what we end up with, be that a 6D, a D750 or a A7R II, they all take fantastically good pictures.
Upvote
0
Over the past couple years Canon has had some significant developments - STM lenses, latest gen. L lenses (w/fantastic performance improvements suitable for 50 MP bodies), Dual-pixel, etc. But, despite their #1 position they don't seem to have had the connection to the market they should. They haven't convinced the "average" P/S or camera phone shooter of the benefits or persuaded existing Rebel users to upgrade. The pros or enthusiasts who understand the benefits aren't the problem as much as consumer level. They also haven't incorporated certain technologies as quickly as the competition. Instead they have meaningless "slogan" oriented marketing campaigns: "We see impossible," "Bring It," and for pros: "Support Matters." Nothing with the impact of the old Andre Agassi 35mm Rebel campaign that teased average folks into thinking they too could shoot pro-grade stuff if they just bought a Rebel!
Trends seemingly minimized by Canon in the DSLR/MILC world: increase in serious/semi-serious female photographers (i.e. desire for smaller/lighter bodies & lenses); desire for instant sharing - Wi-Fi, NFC; the camera as a fashion accessory (mostly in Asia? e.g. colors per Nikon 1); drop in value of individual images (proliferation of stock images-impact on pro earnings, publication profit pressure, elimination of staff photogs, etc.--all restrain pro buyers). Canon is caught between the need to address niche buyers with extreme demands (high R&D costs, few buyers, but high value products) and capturing more entry buyers where "good enough" was mostly satisfied by competition two years ago.
In the U.S. they seem to have lost their marketing savvy more than anything else.
Trends seemingly minimized by Canon in the DSLR/MILC world: increase in serious/semi-serious female photographers (i.e. desire for smaller/lighter bodies & lenses); desire for instant sharing - Wi-Fi, NFC; the camera as a fashion accessory (mostly in Asia? e.g. colors per Nikon 1); drop in value of individual images (proliferation of stock images-impact on pro earnings, publication profit pressure, elimination of staff photogs, etc.--all restrain pro buyers). Canon is caught between the need to address niche buyers with extreme demands (high R&D costs, few buyers, but high value products) and capturing more entry buyers where "good enough" was mostly satisfied by competition two years ago.
In the U.S. they seem to have lost their marketing savvy more than anything else.
Upvote
0
Has anyone considered that the DSLR market may simply have become saturated? Every market has a saturation point, where a majority of potential buyers already has one of whatever it is being offered (ILCs in this case). Canon wants their users to turn around and buy a new DSLR every 2-3 years (for high end stuff), and based on their release cycle, every 1-2 years for the low end stuff.
Economies, despite "recoveries", are still tight for most middle class workers, and have always been tight for lower class workers/the unemployed/welfare. That lowers the saturation cap, and reduces "replacement/upgrade" demand. I don't think people want to or even can replace their cameras every couple of years. There is also a threshold of quality...ILCs are pretty high quality these days, in terms of build...materials, ergonomics, fit and finish, feel, etc. I think people are less likely to replace a great device as often as a cheaper one.
I can totally see P&S sales being stolen by smartphones and other mobile devices with cameras. I can even see some of the Rebel-level sales being stolen as well, although not nearly as much. It seems more likely that the ILC market (at large, not just Canon) is reaching or has reached a saturation point. It's already a global market, unlike smartphones which still have expansion potential in newer economies like China and India (where there are potentially billions of customers), so I don't know if there is a lot of room for expansion. The market will probably settle, find some kind of equilibrium with new buyers from new people (young families, new photographers, etc.), replacement buyers looking for an upgrade or to replace a broken camera, etc.
If some disruptive new technology finds it's way into consumers hands at some point that can produce high quality images, then the ILC market would then probably slide into a long term decline. Dunno if/when that might happen, though.
Economies, despite "recoveries", are still tight for most middle class workers, and have always been tight for lower class workers/the unemployed/welfare. That lowers the saturation cap, and reduces "replacement/upgrade" demand. I don't think people want to or even can replace their cameras every couple of years. There is also a threshold of quality...ILCs are pretty high quality these days, in terms of build...materials, ergonomics, fit and finish, feel, etc. I think people are less likely to replace a great device as often as a cheaper one.
I can totally see P&S sales being stolen by smartphones and other mobile devices with cameras. I can even see some of the Rebel-level sales being stolen as well, although not nearly as much. It seems more likely that the ILC market (at large, not just Canon) is reaching or has reached a saturation point. It's already a global market, unlike smartphones which still have expansion potential in newer economies like China and India (where there are potentially billions of customers), so I don't know if there is a lot of room for expansion. The market will probably settle, find some kind of equilibrium with new buyers from new people (young families, new photographers, etc.), replacement buyers looking for an upgrade or to replace a broken camera, etc.
If some disruptive new technology finds it's way into consumers hands at some point that can produce high quality images, then the ILC market would then probably slide into a long term decline. Dunno if/when that might happen, though.
Upvote
0
jrista said:
I think everyone agrees that is true for a number of countries, however as per your smartphone comment, there is still opportunities in Brazil, India, China but they need to have a compelling offering in comparison to smartphones camera aka "just a bit better" but not a smartphone. Still just like TVs, smartphones, BR players, Games Consoles and every other consumer device, the manufacturers indeed have to offer more than just an incremental upgrade to attract, otherwise the revenues will decline as people wont upgrade.
Agreed - disposable income is still tight, and how many people want to take a "complicated" picture. The minority, so the smartphone is good enough, and shots reasonable video.
Yes the smartphones have - but it is a combination of simplicity, good enough quality, a single device and simple workflow. The answer to that is not, in my opinion, a ILC / DSLR. It needs to have better camera functionality, integrate with their smartphone and be cheaper than their smartphone. Get people to see the benefits of what a camera can do, and you might hook them. Very few are going to buy ILC/DSLR.
Hmmm, not convinced about that last statement. Ask yourself why you use an ILC, and what would replace that? Chose your aperture & focal length post taking the shot? I think those people who have ILC want ILC for what it provides. They are photographers. The rest are those who want to take pictures. I think the challenge for the camera manufacturers is to show "the rest" they can take better pictures than a smartphone but without an ILC. A few may then go on to ILC, but first they have to get them away from "the smartphone takes my pictures and video"
Upvote
0
@Stu_bert: Well, there are some disruptive technologies out there under R&D. There is also the fundamental concept behind Lytro. Lytro has been a little too off the wall in their product offerings so far that I don't think anyone has even considered a little rectangular box to be used as a camera. The underlying technology, however, the fundamental theory of lightfield photography is quite sound.
I think, if someone either buys up Lytro to get the technology, and develops it into a "proper" camera body, it could be disruptive. I think it could be disruptive for the exact reasons you specify: most people don't want "complicated" photography. Aside from high noise, what's the most common issue with smartphone photos? Poor focus!
Lightfield technology could change that. If a company like Canon or Nikon or Sony purchased it, that could breath new life into DSLRs for the masses (not sure as a more of a "pro" that I would use it...maybe on a few occasions when my focus is off just slightly.) If another company gets a hold of it, or if Lytro somehow develops a compelling camera and gets the masses attention, I think that could decimate the big three's consumer sales.
That's just one of these kinds of disruptive technologies. There are a lot of people who want to be able to extract clear, photographic stills from their video. Aptina has multi-bucket pixel technology that can deblur the frames of motion video. That kind of technology could be used to create a video camera that can produce very high quality stills as well. That could be disruptive technology...and if it finds it's way into smartphones first, that could decimate the big three's consumer sales as well.
There are some other wild innovations out there way on the fringe as well. Picosecond photography, indirect photography that enhances resolution and signal strength for imaging in near total darkness, some really crazy technologies have emerged that have the potential to be disruptive in the future. Will they come in some radically different form factor? MAYBE. Microsoft just announced holographic glasses. They are big and clunky and ugly...right now. What happens a decade down the road when we can pop in a couple contacts, clip on a camera and microphone over our ear, and our entire worlds become fully interactive "holograms", potentially with the ability to take a picture...and include the holographic overlay in the picture. Even better, what if the holographic overlay was metadata? What if we had the bandwidth to stream video to a storage device or the net for extended periods of time, but were able to get perfect high resolution stills out of them as well? Just some random thoughts...but there is still the potential for disruptive technology.
I don't know that anything could really ever replace my DSLR and 600mm lens for my bird and wildlife photography. But I consider that equipment to be of a different class, a much more specialized class, than your entry level DSLRs (which still make up the bulk of DSLR sales.) But for a LOT of other kinds of photography, I think there are Rebel-decimating technologies just waiting around a corner or two.
I think, if someone either buys up Lytro to get the technology, and develops it into a "proper" camera body, it could be disruptive. I think it could be disruptive for the exact reasons you specify: most people don't want "complicated" photography. Aside from high noise, what's the most common issue with smartphone photos? Poor focus!
Lightfield technology could change that. If a company like Canon or Nikon or Sony purchased it, that could breath new life into DSLRs for the masses (not sure as a more of a "pro" that I would use it...maybe on a few occasions when my focus is off just slightly.) If another company gets a hold of it, or if Lytro somehow develops a compelling camera and gets the masses attention, I think that could decimate the big three's consumer sales.That's just one of these kinds of disruptive technologies. There are a lot of people who want to be able to extract clear, photographic stills from their video. Aptina has multi-bucket pixel technology that can deblur the frames of motion video. That kind of technology could be used to create a video camera that can produce very high quality stills as well. That could be disruptive technology...and if it finds it's way into smartphones first, that could decimate the big three's consumer sales as well.
There are some other wild innovations out there way on the fringe as well. Picosecond photography, indirect photography that enhances resolution and signal strength for imaging in near total darkness, some really crazy technologies have emerged that have the potential to be disruptive in the future. Will they come in some radically different form factor? MAYBE. Microsoft just announced holographic glasses. They are big and clunky and ugly...right now. What happens a decade down the road when we can pop in a couple contacts, clip on a camera and microphone over our ear, and our entire worlds become fully interactive "holograms", potentially with the ability to take a picture...and include the holographic overlay in the picture. Even better, what if the holographic overlay was metadata? What if we had the bandwidth to stream video to a storage device or the net for extended periods of time, but were able to get perfect high resolution stills out of them as well? Just some random thoughts...but there is still the potential for disruptive technology.
I don't know that anything could really ever replace my DSLR and 600mm lens for my bird and wildlife photography. But I consider that equipment to be of a different class, a much more specialized class, than your entry level DSLRs (which still make up the bulk of DSLR sales.) But for a LOT of other kinds of photography, I think there are Rebel-decimating technologies just waiting around a corner or two.
Upvote
0
jrista said:@Stu_bert: Well, there are some disruptive technologies out there under R&D. There is also the fundamental concept behind Lytro. Lytro has been a little too off the wall in their product offerings so far that I don't think anyone has even considered a little rectangular box to be used as a camera. The underlying technology, however, the fundamental theory of lightfield photography is quite sound.
I think, if someone either buys up Lytro to get the technology, and develops it into a "proper" camera body, it could be disruptive. I think it could be disruptive for the exact reasons you specify: most people don't want "complicated" photography. Aside from high noise, what's the most common issue with smartphone photos? Poor focus!
That's just one of these kinds of disruptive technologies. There are a lot of people who want to be able to extract clear, photographic stills from their video. Aptina has multi-bucket pixel technology that can deblur the frames of motion video. That kind of technology could be used to create a video camera that can produce very high quality stills as well. That could be disruptive technology...and if it finds it's way into smartphones first, that could decimate the big three's consumer sales as well.
There are some other wild innovations out there way on the fringe as well. Picosecond photography, indirect photography that enhances resolution and signal strength for imaging in near total darkness, some really crazy technologies have emerged that have the potential to be disruptive in the future. Will they come in some radically different form factor? MAYBE. Microsoft just announced holographic glasses. They are big and clunky and ugly...right now. What happens a decade down the road when we can pop in a couple contacts, clip on a camera and microphone over our ear, and our entire worlds become fully interactive "holograms", potentially with the ability to take a picture...and include the holographic overlay in the picture. Even better, what if the holographic overlay was metadata? What if we had the bandwidth to stream video to a storage device or the net for extended periods of time, but were able to get perfect high resolution stills out of them as well? Just some random thoughts...but there is still the potential for disruptive technology.
I don't know that anything could really ever replace my DSLR and 600mm lens for my bird and wildlife photography. But I consider that equipment to be of a different class, a much more specialized class, than your entry level DSLRs (which still make up the bulk of DSLR sales.) But for a LOT of other kinds of photography, I think there are Rebel-decimating technologies just waiting around a corner or two.
@Jrista - I think we're looking at things from different perspectives. The P&S market is dying rapidly and will be extinct soon. It doesnt need anything disruptive to put it there. Smartphones provide "good enough".
Could I see Lytro tech disrupting dSLRs if it was in a smartphone? Not significantly, as it only replaces one element - the focus side. Would it help cement the separation between photographers and smartphones if it was in a camera? I understood the physics not to be patentable so to speak, therefore I dont think it could
Pictures from video frames? Again, great tech. Would it make a smartphone users upgrade to a ILC ? No.
Holographic glasses and google glasses etc have the ability to replace smartphones, but do they compete with photographic tools. Not so sure.
And that's my perspective - for those people who were never really into photography, then a smartphone suffices as it's one less device to carry, and it does stills & video good enough to share online. What the camera manufacturers need to attract is those who want to do a bit more. Tracking AF, different lenses, great flashes - all the stuff which allows us to be creative. That's why people move up I think.
I think the camera manufacturers need to understand why the smartphone is so compelling for those people and decide if there is any opportunity to entice to buy another device - they wont get them to give it up, they might convince them to get a second device. And I think some will be prepared for the step up to ILC, but there's another segment who might buy an additional device if it worked kind of like a smartphone, had a better flash, a small zoom, and a slightly better sensor, but cost less than a high-end smartphone.
And in parallel they need to keep refining their ILC products by listening to all classes of users, and indeed looking at some of those disruptive technologies as I think most of them appeal to the photographer not the smartphone user - those that want to create and those that just want to capture.
Upvote
0
Not often discussed is the display side of smartphones. Not only do they take photos/video, they are also the photo album holder and can display shots in an easy to pass around fashion. For years the "standard" snapshot size was 3-1/2"x5". Then it grew to 4"x6". Smartphones are approaching those sizes and hence are as acceptable as the old fashion snapshot print.
Everyone passes around their phone to show pictures... I'm not sure passing around a DSLR w/L lens is as likely to happen, plus the screen is sub-standard for snapshot size. O.K. so you can Wi-Fi your shots to your phone and share that way.
Everyone passes around their phone to show pictures... I'm not sure passing around a DSLR w/L lens is as likely to happen, plus the screen is sub-standard for snapshot size. O.K. so you can Wi-Fi your shots to your phone and share that way.
Upvote
0
Stu_bert said:
The problem is - although the majority of the tech oriented members here will certainly disagree - is that all the upgrades in digital DSLRs from the first Canon rebel have been incremental. The first digital DSLRs were already capable of taking excellent quality photos. In my experience, the difference between the first 6MP rebel and the FF 6D is only incremental. Until my 9 year old original rebel conked out, there was no reason to upgrade because the image quality for general daylight photography is virtually unchanged in the past 10 years. 8" x 10" prints printed on an Epson photo printer are almost indistinguishable from my 6MP rebel, my new SL1 and my 6D. Coming from the film era, when you bought a camera, you kept it until it didn't work anymore. I still feel the same - and am amazed that so many folks will upgrade convinced that a 1/2 stop improvement in noise is actually meaningful. We live in an era where some technologies (smartphones) improve rapidly and many folks feel the need to have the latest and best. I think camera users are smart enough to know that camera technology already is highly capable and they don't need the latest. So, I agree completely that the market is totally over-saturated. Getting people to upgrade every 2 or 3 years has little to do with any actual improvements in the cameras. It has to do with marketing and convincing the consumer that each upgrade will actually improve their photography. If these 50 MP cameras sell well, they will have succeeded!
Upvote
0
old-pr-pix said:
True. And that's why its a big let down that Canon does not give their new camera at least wifi and have the ability to auto upload to your phone/ipad/whatever or your fav photosite (and should do gps also...). This is not the "interconnectivity" Canon itself says it needs to do better.
Upvote
0
Maiaibing said:
the idea of a 50mp camera also being able to directly upload to an ipad/iphone seems absurd to me. do you realize how fast you would bog down your devices storage? even if you are shooting raw + the smallest jpg and only uploading the jpgs immediately...what is the point of having the 50mp raw file at that point?
beyond just the idea of "oh wouldn't be convenient if we could do such and such.." i don't see much consideration as to WHY we would even want to. "quick and easy" seems to be justified in and of itself regardless of the pointlessness of whatever it is we want to be quick and easy.
i really don't get it...we have the instagrams of the world for quick and easy, instant publication an all that jazz. trying to meld that with massive Raw files that in their intent are designed to allow for further consideration via post production seems like trying to mix oil with water.
my forehead is raw with red marks from slapping it so many times reading threads like these.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
