What’s next from Canon?

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,285
6,847
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.
What does Sony’s decision to prioritize other models and suspend production of the ZV-E10 say about the importance of the vlogging market segment?
 

lustyd

EOS M6 Mark II
May 4, 2022
54
52
What does Sony’s decision to prioritize other models and suspend production of the ZV-E10 say about the importance of the vlogging market segment?
Given that they never specified which components were in short supply, it says nothing at all. Their new 11mm 1.8 APS-C lens says a fair bit though, along with the reintroduction of the A6400 which is one of the more popular streamer cams. Streaming is a much larger market than vlogging so it makes sense ZV-E10 would come after A6400.
 
Oct 24, 2018
172
63
Finland
BSI is not IBIS :).
BSI is back side illuminated Sensor!
This is also perfect and needed for videos.
I hoped ibis ,sensor stabilisation for still side to remain even if cinema line…

Well I have ordered the R7… can’t afford R5C…

Price wise there is lots of space between from 2k, to 4k, for the r7c …

Also… too bad , they there will be no battery grip for R7. That is a feature inflation right there. R7 is not really a 7D2 successor…
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Oct 24, 2018
172
63
Finland
not yet sadly.... the H2S is what I was wanting from CANON.... as a real R7!

And R7 suppose to be with battery grip. Every time Canon omits something, it says: "this is not for professionals". Everybody remembers when Canon delivered first "R" model only with 1 card slot. People got mad. And now R7 has no battery grip.

H2S with 40 electronic fps has no practical value imho. Anthing with non-globalshutter, electronic shutter and hi FPS has no practical value, imho.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

SnowMiku

EOS 90D
Oct 4, 2020
186
136
And R7 suppose to be with battery grip. Every time Canon omits something, it says: "this is not for professionals". Everybody remembers when Canon delivered first "R" model only with 1 card slot. People got mad. And now R7 has no battery grip.

H2S with 40 electronic fps has no practical value imho. Anthing with non-globalshutter, electronic shutter and hi FPS has no practical value, imho.
I'm thinking that Canon decided not to have a battery grip option on the R7 to protect the R5. Interestingly I just found out that Canon had an official battery grip for the 600/700D but got rid of it for the 800D. They even make unofficial knockoff battery grips for the xxxxD DSLRS with a cable from the grip that goes into the cable release port, perhaps the R10/R7 might get that knockoff option.
 
Oct 24, 2018
172
63
Finland
I'm thinking that Canon decided not to have a battery grip option on the R7 to protect the R5. Interestingly I just found out that Canon had an official battery grip for the 600/700D but got rid of it for the 800D. They even make unofficial knockoff battery grips for the xxxxD DSLRS with a cable from the grip that goes into the cable release port, perhaps the R10/R7 might get that knockoff option.
unofficial knockoff battery grips - never ever seen on.

Well it is a "feature thievery"... or hidden inflation. They just want more money, or sell more higher priced camers... Well "7th" brand line got just damage, imho.
 
Oct 24, 2018
172
63
Finland
Is there anything relatively reasonably priced video lens in canon system , like fuji has,


Focus breathing free?
 

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,408
1,422
Turku, Finland
I'm thinking that Canon decided not to have a battery grip option on the R7 to protect the R5. Interestingly I just found out that Canon had an official battery grip for the 600/700D but got rid of it for the 800D.

Protecting the R5 from the R7? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure none of the xxxD battery grips ever turned profit. It's at least plausible that the xxD ones didn't either. Companies typically stop doing things that don't turn profit (and don't even function as loss leaders). It's pretty much their duty to their stakeholders. Like it or not, it's expressly not their duty to make things for the benefit of random individuals at online forums.

Any R7 battery grip would have needed to solve the problem of including another rear dial/joystick combination, and it's not clear how one could have fit on the limited real estate available on a grip and also not hinder usage in landscape orientation. That alone was probably plenty enough reason for Canon not to bother spending R&D resources on a grip.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

john1970

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
529
676
Northeastern US
not yet sadly.... the H2S is what I was wanting from CANON.... as a real R7!
I agree with your statement. The Fuji H2S is what the R7 should have been and been priced accordingly. Oh well, one less camera body to consider purchasing. Wait another 12-18 months for R1...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Oct 24, 2018
172
63
Finland
Protecting the R5 from the R7? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure none of the xxxD battery grips ever turned profit. It's at least plausible that the xxD ones didn't either. Companies typically stop doing things that don't turn profit (and don't even function as loss leaders). It's pretty much their duty to their stakeholders. Like it or not, it's expressly not their duty to make things for the benefit of random individuals at online forums.

Any R7 battery grip would have needed to solve the problem of including another rear dial/joystick combination, and it's not clear how one could have fit on the limited real estate available on a grip and also not hinder usage in landscape orientation. That alone was probably plenty enough reason for Canon not to bother spending R&D resources on a grip.
And yet some 3rd party manufacturers find ways to do it at least 50 % cheaper. Battery grip prices have gone up from 250 to 430-something. And it is still not profitable? I still feel the canon saying: "this R7 is not for pros".

R7 has metallic body, for long lasting use. R6 has plastic. So R7 has better body than R6.

Maybe canon could launch R7C , body would be like mini R3
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
520
1,138
And yet some 3rd party manufacturers find ways to do it at least 50 % cheaper. Battery grip prices have gone up from 250 to 430-something. And it is still not profitable? I still feel the canon saying: "this R7 is not for pros".

R7 has metallic body, for long lasting use. R6 has plastic. So R7 has better body than R6.

Maybe canon could launch R7C , body would be like mini R3
Yes, I think Canon is saying the R7 is not for pros. Not sure why so many folks;
a) can't understand that,
b) can't accept that.

Also not sure why so many forum members have to categorize these new cameras as successors to previous cameras. This is a new mirrorless lineup. These mirrorless cameras do not have to be successors. It's a new lineup...deal with it like mature adults. (OK, that was a joke!)

It is quite possible that Canon did not go higher-end with the R7 becuase they do plan on having a high MP FF camera - that is pro level. A high MP FF camera should have the pixel density that wildlife/birders want - whether cropping in camera or in post. So that should satisfy the wildlife/birder segment looking for better weather sealing, bigger body, grip. If they do release such a camera, then the R7 would be redundant if they had decided to make that model high-end. Therefore it is more of a consumer level camera.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

USMarineCorpsVet

Bird/Wildlife Photography
Jul 2, 2021
23
49
Yes, I think Canon is saying the R7 is not for pros. Not sure why so many folks;
a) can't understand that,
b) can't accept that.

Also not sure why so many forum members have to categorize these new cameras as successors to previous cameras. This is a new mirrorless lineup. These mirrorless cameras do not have to be successors. It's a new lineup...deal with it like mature adults. (OK, that was a joke!)

It is quite possible that Canon did not go higher-end with the R7 becuase they do plan on having a high MP FF camera - that is pro level. A high MP FF camera should have the pixel density that wildlife/birders want - whether cropping in camera or in post. So that should satisfy the wildlife/birder segment looking for better weather sealing, bigger body, grip. If they do release such a camera, then the R7 would be redundant if they had decided to make that model high-end. Therefore it is more of a consumer level camera.
There is a segment of the market that wants a crop sensor because of the perceived extra reach and cheaper cost. Many wanted a camera along the lines of the 7DMK2, not the 90D.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Oct 24, 2018
172
63
Finland
Yes, I think Canon is saying the R7 is not for pros. Not sure why so many folks;
a) can't understand that,
b) can't accept that.

Also not sure why so many forum members have to categorize these new cameras as successors to previous cameras. This is a new mirrorless lineup. These mirrorless cameras do not have to be successors. It's a new lineup...deal with it like mature adults. (OK, that was a joke!)

It is quite possible that Canon did not go higher-end with the R7 becuase they do plan on having a high MP FF camera - that is pro level. A high MP FF camera should have the pixel density that wildlife/birders want - whether cropping in camera or in post. So that should satisfy the wildlife/birder segment looking for better weather sealing, bigger body, grip. If they do release such a camera, then the R7 would be redundant if they had decided to make that model high-end. Therefore it is more of a consumer level camera.
Well, canon can keep 100 mpx to it self. Bacause majority of content is consumed via mobile phones. Only fullframers notice the difference, most entertainment consumers watching their phone screens do not notice the difference. Watching via mobile screens - I think people do not have time for enterainment.

Sony rep said, by 2024 mobile phone is better than DSRL.
 

vjlex

EOS R5
Oct 15, 2011
495
398
Osaka, Japan
Well, canon can keep 100 mpx to it self. Bacause majority of content is consumed via mobile phones. Only fullframers notice the difference, most entertainment consumers watching their phone screens do not notice the difference. Watching via mobile screens - I think people do not have time for enterainment.

Sony rep said, by 2024 mobile phone is better than DSRL.
I know many people consume content via mobile devices, but does the majority really do that exclusively? I guess I fall into the category of full-framers who notice, but I can't stand watching movies or YouTube videos on a tiny 5 inch screen when I know that it was meant to be appreciated on at least a home television, an IMAX theater screen at most. The same goes for a quality photo. Instagram on a mobile phone will do in a pinch. But I cannot fathom the people who think a portable device and one of the larger screens are interchangeable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

lustyd

EOS M6 Mark II
May 4, 2022
54
52
I know many people consume content via mobile devices, but does the majority really do that exclusively? I guess I fall into the category of full-framers who notice, but I can't stand watching movies or YouTube videos on a tiny 5 inch screen when I know that it was meant to be appreciated on at least a home television, an IMAX theater screen at most. The same goes for a quality photo. Instagram on a mobile phone will do in a pinch. But I cannot fathom the people who think a portable device and one of the larger screens are interchangeable.
Not the majority of people, the majority of content. By watch hours mobile viewing is orders of magnitude more common than using a larger screen. This is even more so when talking about static photos which are now very rarely printed and seldom seen on anything larger than an iPad.

I don't necessarily agree that high MP isn't useful though, GoPro have shown again and again that spare pixels can be used to process for great effect. Their stabilisation is absolutely amazing technology and makes MILC cameras look very basic by comparison, and the work Google do with computational photography is mind blowing given the quality of the inputs. If the traditional camera companies put in this kind of effort we'd see huge advances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

vjlex

EOS R5
Oct 15, 2011
495
398
Osaka, Japan
Not the majority of people, the majority of content. By watch hours mobile viewing is orders of magnitude more common than using a larger screen. This is even more so when talking about static photos which are now very rarely printed and seldom seen on anything larger than an iPad.

I don't necessarily agree that high MP isn't useful though, GoPro have shown again and again that spare pixels can be used to process for great effect. Their stabilisation is absolutely amazing technology and makes MILC cameras look very basic by comparison, and the work Google do with computational photography is mind blowing given the quality of the inputs. If the traditional camera companies put in this kind of effort we'd see huge advances.
Ah, maybe I misinterpreted what was said (as I often do).

Perhaps I should rephrase my question to ask: Is the majority of content being watched really being watched primarily on mobile devices? And is it the mobility or the size of the screen that is the salient point? Do 15 inch laptops count as mobile viewing? While I know it is pretty straightforward to approximate hours watched on mobile devices or internet connected devices, can the same be accurately done for larger, more traditional screens?

I don't think I disagree necessarily that a lot of people are satisfied consuming content on their 5 inch screens. It's just an unpalatable thought to me personally. I use my phone camera for documenting (literally taking pictures of non-digitized documents at work so I don't have to physically carry them home, weird signs or products I come across in stores but don't want to buy, etc), not capturing or memorializing. I don't think I've ever watched a video longer than 10 minutes on my phone, and generally I will wait till I am at an actual computer to watch it. I won't say never, but I don't see a phone camera supplanting an ILC for me any time in the near future. Two completely different tools that have a few overlapping functions. Mobile devices may be about convenience and quantity, but I seriously doubt they are capable of matching actual ILC or large screen quality for me.

That being said, I know my viewing habits are not representative.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

lustyd

EOS M6 Mark II
May 4, 2022
54
52
Nobody said it was about quality, and those imagining it is are a tiny, tiny niche market - just look at CD vs Spotify revenues! The convenience and ease is the main factor. I doubt many are watching feature length movies that way, but those don't account for a lot of the market either. Get on a train and look around, everyone is consuming media of some sort for the whole journey. Go to a fast food place and you'll probably see the same. Heck, even walking down most streets you'll see people holding up their little devices and watching something!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user