What’s next from Canon?

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,882
15,465
I was pleasantly surprised to see that Canon allows for 15 fps with electronic shutter, but the buffer was still maybe a maximum of 3-4 sec at 15 fps. Honestly, for the price if a vertical grip was available I might have purchased one. However no vertical grip is a no go for me. Why Canon decided against a vertical grip?
Maybe because they did market research and also have sales figures that show it isn’t commercially worthwhile?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,220
2,396
...more good points here. I learned a lot...some of which I'd thought previously.

I saw the daily newspaper angle you're supplying here from the sports side of things--the stadia and arenas had, in some cases, rather significant space necessary for the newspaper photographers to work up their own film images, in order to 'beat' deadlines.

All one needed to do to find them was follow one's nose. I will never regret not having to smell fixer again!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,220
2,396
I think we'll see a R5 Mkii sometime in 2023. The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned - I need a backup RF-mount body, and one that has the same ergonomics and MP as the R5. I don't want to go out and buy another R5, only to find that a few months later an even better Mkii version is launched.

As for the R7 - I was very much hoping it would be based on the R5/R6 body. If that had been the case, I would have been happy to pay the same as an R6 for it, as is ideally specified as a birding camera. The specs, and from what I've read, the performance too, of the R7 are just what I wanted, but the completely different back-of-camera control layout (and lack of a third control dial) have completely put me off.

I'd be shocked if Canon shortened the product cycle of the 5-series from four years, which is where it has been since Canon "reset" their FF lineup in early 2012. If anything, I'd expect them to lengthen it slightly.

5D Mark III was introduced in 2012. 5D Mark IV came in early 2016. R5 came in 2020.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,220
2,396
Arguably it was the lack of need for cameras that killed camera shops. Everyone already has a camera in their pocket all day every day, why would they buy another? The latest iPhone is not even comparable to the type of 35mm camera average consumers used to buy, multiple lenses, high definition, clear in focus images that they can send to their friends in seconds having already edited and processed them.

Camera stores starting dying around the same time affordable DSLRs hit the market, beginning with the original Canon Digital Rebel in mid-2003. Smart Phone cameras didn't really start replacing compact point and shoot cameras en masse until around 2010, by which time most camera chains were already filing Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 for the second or third time. Look at the history of Wolf, Ritz, etc. in the U.S. The stores didn't close until the early 2010s, but they had been bleeding red ink for almost a decade by the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,220
2,396
That makes more sense!
Assuming that the ramp up of MILCs was up to 2012, what would be a logical reason for MILC sales to stay relatively stable for 10 years vs dramatic change in DLSR sales?
For me, the rise of the camera phone is logical and has replaced compact cameras but they weren't in the ILC figures. I can see that there would have been some impact to both DLSR and MILC but it doesn't show here.
Canon and Nikon didn't have MILCs in the early years so Sony was the only volume seller but the consistent volume couldn't just be for Canon/Nikon switchers - could it?

Canon introduced the EOS M line of MILCs in 2012. They've sold well in many markets from the very beginning. Nikon had the much less successful J series of cameras during that same time. Canon & Nikon didn't have any FF MILCs until 2018, but the chart chows all ILCs, not just FF cameras. APS-C and smaller senor ILCs were outselling FF cameras by several orders of magnitude in the early 2010s, so most of the units in the chart are APS-C or even Micro Four-Thirds, not FF.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,220
2,396
Maybe because they did market research and also have sales figures that show it isn’t commercially worthwhile?

If they wouldn't charge $300 less 1¢ for the damn things (admittedly, that was the price of the BG-E20 for the 5D Mark IV, the BG-E16 for the 7D Mark II was only $320 at launch) they might not lose so many sales of them to third parties!

20220529ss2.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

lustyd

EOS M6 Mark II
May 4, 2022
54
52
Camera stores starting dying around the same time affordable DSLRs hit the market, beginning with the original Canon Digital Rebel in mid-2003. Smart Phone cameras didn't really start replacing compact point and shoot cameras en masse until around 2010, by which time most camera chains were already filing Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 for the second or third time. Look at the history of Wolf, Ritz, etc. in the U.S. The stores didn't close until the early 2010s, but they had been bleeding red ink for almost a decade by the end.
I disagree, although perhaps because we are in different markets. In the UK digital cameras were certainly replacing 35mm compacts by 2002 and the impact of Facebook as a means to share images decimated the film processing market in mid 2000s. High end might appear to be where the money is, but mass consumer is bread and butter for stores. Take away the thousands of family holiday rolls of film and you're left with 50 rolls of bird watchers taken on high end gear by the 4 local enthusiasts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,690
1,928
Isn't it strange that Kodak provided the means to kill themselves?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,012
1,185
UK
I'd be shocked if Canon shortened the product cycle of the 5-series from four years, which is where it has been since Canon "reset" their FF lineup in early 2012. If anything, I'd expect them to lengthen it slightly.

5D Mark III was introduced in 2012. 5D Mark IV came in early 2016. R5 came in 2020.
You may very well be right, but the competition between the leading brands seems more intense than ever, and with updates becoming more reliant on firmware than hardware, I think there's a good chance that new gear will appear more frequently than in the past. If e.g. Sony introduce something exciting, Canon are likely to respond quiet quickly. Hoping for a R5 Mkii in 2023 ;)
 

davidcl0nel

Canon R5, 17 TSE, RF35+85 IS, RF70-200 4 IS, EF135
Jan 11, 2014
191
57
Berlin
www.flickr.com
The market is shrinking, Canon will never have more lines (3 is new already) to have for every number (8 and 9 or 4) a own camera.
R and RP will never be replaced. R6 or the successor will be maybe cheaper to replace R and RP in the middle. They might sell the RP in 3 years without any changes to get something in this pricepoint....

There will be one R100 or even R1000 for the real entry APSC market, but also not so much as before. They sold the 600D and even 550D while bringing the "new" 650D after a year and so on, same with 60 / 70 / even 77D - one 100ish every year and a 10ish every second year will not happen....
A R1000 will be maybe without a viewfinder like the old M1 to address the tiny sector.

R5s might happen, a R5 Mark II will be in 2 years or so. If a R5 Mark II should come in a few weeks they would had never brought the R5c to address the heat issue.
5D and 6D were separate lines with own cycles. R5 and R6 came together, so I think this will happen with R5 II and R6 II also. They will not bring a good R6 II to cannibalize the "old" R5 to early.


Lensewise more 1.2 stuff (which I don't care), or some other unicorn up-to-eleven-lenses like the proposed Tiltshift with autofocus and even 14mm to bring it for 5000€ or more. Not interested either. I stay with TSE17.
I have already all what I need now. 70-200 f4 is stellar good, 35 1.8, 85 2.0 and 16 2.8 are good as well and small - I like them a lot. I came from the 5D3 (2013) and wasn't interested in 5D4 either. R5 was a big step. My next step will be a R5 III in i don't know 2030.
I will use my TSE17 and EF135L till they explode. Nothing more needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,220
2,396
I disagree, although perhaps because we are in different markets. In the UK digital cameras were certainly replacing 35mm compacts by 2002 and the impact of Facebook as a means to share images decimated the film processing market in mid 2000s. High end might appear to be where the money is, but mass consumer is bread and butter for stores. Take away the thousands of family holiday rolls of film and you're left with 50 rolls of bird watchers taken on high end gear by the 4 local enthusiasts.
You're disagreeing with the same thing you're saying...

The proliferation of digital cameras is what ended the need for film developing and printing services. Even folks who wanted prints from their new digital cameras often started printing their own inkjet prints instead of paying to have chemical photo prints made by a local camera store. Home inkjet printers, combined with the convenience and lower cost of uploading digital files to online based printers, is what killed the brick & mortar camera store.

Eventually folks realized the inferiority of inkjet vs. chemical prints, but by then the damage was done and brick & mortar photo shops were already gone. Most folks had also moved on to only displaying the vast majority of their photos digitally.
 
Last edited:

max

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 20, 2010
89
27
I just want an R6 with a screen at the top... R5 has too many MP and is too expensive for me.
 

john1970

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
523
672
Northeastern US
You're disagreeing with the same thing you're saying...

The proliferation of digital cameras is what ended the need for film developing and printing services. Even folks who wanted prints from their new digital cameras often started printing their own inkjet prints instead of paying to have chemical photo prints made by a local camera store. Home inkjet printers, combined with the convenience and lower cost of uploading digital files to online based printers, is what killed the brick & mortar camera store.

Eventually folks realized the inferiority of inkjet vs. chemical prints, but by then the damage was done and brick & mortar photo shops were already gone. Most folks had also moved on to only displaying the vast majority of their photos digitally.
Your last sentence is very true. 99+% of the time I use my 50" TV as a 21st century slide projector when showing my photos to friends. I cannot remember the last time I bothered printing a photo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Atlasman

EOS R5
CR Pro
May 14, 2020
91
98
I don't know if they will, but Canon should release a 55-200 RF-S lens. That size is often available for sale in a bundle with an APS-C camera body. Even Nikon has a Z-DX lens in that range. And of course, that size is also available in EF-S and EF-M.
Or maybe an RF-s 70-350mm like Sony has done!
 
Jul 12, 2013
442
983
Maybe because they did market research and also have sales figures that show it isn’t commercially worthwhile?
I never know quite what the intentions are of those who post this sort of comment...(no snark intended)--at times it seems overly dismissive of those stating a different viewpoint.

[And yes some of those viewpoints are wrong, but naturally my own posts here are never to be dismissed;)!]

Of course Canon has both sales figures and market research at their disposal!

Sales figures are about the past, and market research is about (predicting) the future, right?

But just because sales figures and market research exist, it does not follow that their product development teams never make mistakes.

And in my view, Canon's development of all things EF-M was flawed...almost from the start.

[Canon's market research for their PIxma PRO-100 13x19 inkjet printer (about the same time) was flawed, too. But when used properly, it is a wonderful product.]

But back to the M: they never knew what they wanted it to be!

I was an early adopter of the M...with the original firmware that shipped with the M...the autofocus properties of this device were unbelievably bad--the original M/original firmware combination was nothing but a point-and-shoot camera with an absurdly large sensor.

But the original M has a flash mount...which works as a place to put an external mic...the original M has a MIC input.

As I recall (could be wrong), the UI for the original M is an odd blend of PowerShot and more-advanced features associated with the DSLRs of the time.

Somewhere on the 'net I posted, nearly a decade ago...that what the M needed was an on-board pop-gun of a flash...to brighten faces on bright, sunny days.

Sure enough with the M2...my desire for the on-board fill-flash was fulfilled...making it quite suitable for my own travel needs.

It all kind of runs together, but I think I purchased the M2 from an eBay seller based in Japan...as CanonUSA (apparently) decided not to sell-and-market the M2 here.

Same with the EF-M 11-22 IS lens...I bought two of these from Canada.

But then the M3 was released...and sold here in the USA. I passed after reading reviews and peeking at pixels...its images were sort of green?!

And I thought the M3 body was plasticky (as with the M5 that I purchased).

Over the years Canon made some curious decisions about the various Ms...I was (to put it mildly) flabbergasted when discovering that there is exactly (and only) one way to manually adjust exposure compensation on the M6 (as well as the M5)--with a dial on top of the camera!

Thankfully this 'feature' was modified for the M6MkII...with a dial in that position remaining as an option.

=====

So now it is an R world...or so we're led to believe.

The M6MkII has apparently been discontinued. I have to guess at what Canon's intentions are with the M etc.

The M6MkII, even without a viewfinder, is significantly larger and heavier than the M200. And frankly, the M200 more in line with what the M may be best at...a REALLY small and light package with an APS-C sensor inside.

=====

The title of the thread is What's Next for Canon or something-or-other.

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon continues with the M200-sized bodies...and even market them as a high-quality device capable of delivering superior video when used as a webcam.

We do just that in my family (using a 40D/EF-S10-18 IS as the video source)...as my wife still teaches yoga from home.

Canon could do a lot of good work on their webcam software...what works now is fine but Canon should consider implementing something along the lines of what Apple calls 'Center Stage'. Hell if I knew how I'd write the code myself...I'm sure it would sell cameras...and would surpass the Apple product in functionality.

But I'm afraid that the M6 and its analogs may be done. Canon Rumors was (sort of) right...all those years ago.

Why (in part)? Because the M6MkII is just too darned good, and too inexpensive...for what it offers.

But full-featured Ms may be done.

There, I admitted it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,882
15,465
-;
I never know quite what the intentions are of those who post this sort of comment...(no snark intended)--at times it seems overly dismissive of those stating a different viewpoint.
It’s not a comment, it’s a question with a ? indicating that fact, beginning with “May be“. It’s raising a point to be considered in a rational discussion as a possibility, and I cannot fathom how that could be considered in anyway dismissive, let alone overly dismissive. We want to know why Canon does not appear to be producing a grip.
 

lustyd

EOS M6 Mark II
May 4, 2022
54
52
Sales figures are about the past, and market research is about (predicting) the future, right?

But just because sales figures and market research exist, it does not follow that their product development teams never make mistakes.
I think this sums up a lot of issues. Canon were busy researching the future of taking photos and predicting the next wave of photo cameras. Consequently, in a market obsessed with video content Canon has the M6ii with a 30 minute video limitation imposed by software, and an obsession with viewfinders on cameras. They did at least keep the fold up displays for a while, but sadly those are disapearing with the inferior fully articulating screens that lead to creepy eyes looking to the side gaining momentum. Doing market research only works if you understand where the market is going already, and Sony seem to be better in this respect when looking at their range. A quick search suggests that video streaming alone (~$60bn) has a market twice the size of photography (~$30bn), and that doesn't even include video content such as YouTube. Canon were at least pretty quick to add streaming capability to firmware during lockdowns but they don't seem to be capitalising on that at all
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user