What if Canon were no longer #1?

[Loswr]

Oh, but real birders only use Swarovski, you can't possibly get good results with Canon binoculars!

Do the Swarovskis have better dynamic range?

 

[Orangutan]

Oh, but real birders only use Swarovski, you can't possibly get good results with Canon binoculars!

Do the Swarovskis have better dynamic range?

I don't know, but I can tell you that the Canons have worse DR!

 

[slclick]

Some folks live in a bizarre universe which breaks their camera bodies when the subsequent model is released. Glad I don't, my 5D3 is nearly as good as the day I bought it (early adopter) and far more camera than I need ...I would have been a good 6D user if it had been out at the time.

Nearly?

Sure, what is so hard to understand about that? The sensor gets dirty, I clean it but it's still not pristine and the exterior has wear marks. I have used it for over 5 years and 90k snaps. Nearly sounds pretty good to me.

It’s not hard to understand what nearly means, I was merely wondering what has become deficient in such a way that it still works but not quite as well. Wear marks don’t affect how well it works. A dirty sensor might but as stated can be cleaned. Buttons can fail or become less responsive (what I expected in your camera). I’d say to the best of my ability to tell, mine works exactly as well as the day I bought it.

You didn't ask that, you simply asked 'nearly?'

To answer your more complete question...nothing has become deficient.

 

[rrcphoto]

+1

High end cameras are evolving into durable goods. The lenses are already there. Year to year sales have very little relation to the usage stats..... for example, I might be a fanatic canon shooter, but not buy a new body for at least 5 more years....

Disclaimer: I am not a professional that depends on my gear to make a living.

That said, Don's nailed it. That's 100% me. I giggle at the thought of spending $3k+ for a 5D4 when my 5D3 is still 90% as good some five years after buying it.

And it's not for the lack of money. I have the money to buy a new rig every year if I was so inclined, but it's against my nature to chase happiness through tech or convince myself that moving from point A to point B on the plot below is going to be some barrier-smashing technological advancement that I need.

- A

DSLR's are more much ahead on the maturity curve than the average Mirrorless is. They are also on longer release cycles, and there is less manufacturers of DSLR's than there is mirrorless. All of which contribute to declining shipments when compared to mirrorless.

 

[Tugela]

Just supposin'....

Talking to a third party rep yesterday and he was saying that there are some new marketing figures coming out showing that Canon are no longer #1 for FF camera sales. Apparently this was sales based on profit, not shipping and Sony had taken #1. Though not sure if it was Japan, Asia or global.
The problem with marketing is that you can spin the numbers a lot of different ways but this really would mark a significant turnaround in the market, and the fact that (if true) Sony could get anywhere near this would be a surprise at this time. But it will be interesting to see what comes out in the next few days.

So what do you think is the likelihood of this actually happening?

What is happening is that the transition to MILC is continuing and picking up steam. Since Sony is leading the charge in FF in this area, obviously they are taking top spot and will continue to do so in the immediate future, at least until such time as Canon and/or Nikon get serious about MILCs.

The issue is that most of the performance enhancements in ILCs going forward is going to come from the computer inside the camera, and MILCs benefit far more from this than DSLRs. DSLRs have gone about as far as they can go, while MILCs have no ceiling in that respect, so as technology develops time will favor MILCs in the market place.

I think that neither Canon nor Nikon have the processors to seriously compete with Sony in the MILC space, so in the short term (the next few years) we should expect cameras like the a7 to start to dominate in the market. Sony are due for another processor refresh around 2018, so things like the a7III and a7SIII may be a significant step up from the current market leader a7RIII in terms of overall performance (primarily on the video side). You have to think that is making Canon and Nikon execs pretty nervous around now, because as things stand they are not really in a position to compete against that.

 

[transpo1]

Just supposin'....

Talking to a third party rep yesterday and he was saying that there are some new marketing figures coming out showing that Canon are no longer #1 for FF camera sales. Apparently this was sales based on profit, not shipping and Sony had taken #1. Though not sure if it was Japan, Asia or global.
The problem with marketing is that you can spin the numbers a lot of different ways but this really would mark a significant turnaround in the market, and the fact that (if true) Sony could get anywhere near this would be a surprise at this time. But it will be interesting to see what comes out in the next few days.

So what do you think is the likelihood of this actually happening?

What is happening is that the transition to MILC is continuing and picking up steam. Since Sony is leading the charge in FF in this area, obviously they are taking top spot and will continue to do so in the immediate future, at least until such time as Canon and/or Nikon get serious about MILCs.

The issue is that most of the performance enhancements in ILCs going forward is going to come from the computer inside the camera, and MILCs benefit far more from this than DSLRs. DSLRs have gone about as far as they can go, while MILCs have no ceiling in that respect, so as technology develops time will favor MILCs in the market place.

I think that neither Canon nor Nikon have the processors to seriously compete with Sony in the MILC space, so in the short term (the next few years) we should expect cameras like the a7 to start to dominate in the market. Sony are due for another processor refresh around 2018, so things like the a7III and a7SIII may be a significant step up from the current market leader a7RIII in terms of overall performance (primarily on the video side). You have to think that is making Canon and Nikon execs pretty nervous around now, because as things stand they are not really in a position to compete against that.

Agree.

 

[Loswr]

What is happening is that the transition to MILC is continuing and picking up steam. Since Sony is leading the charge in FF in this area, obviously they are taking top spot and will continue to do so in the immediate future, at least until such time as Canon and/or Nikon get serious about MILCs.

The issue is that most of the performance enhancements in ILCs going forward is going to come from the computer inside the camera, and MILCs benefit far more from this than DSLRs. DSLRs have gone about as far as they can go, while MILCs have no ceiling in that respect, so as technology develops time will favor MILCs in the market place.

I think that neither Canon nor Nikon have the processors to seriously compete with Sony in the MILC space, so in the short term (the next few years) we should expect cameras like the a7 to start to dominate in the market. Sony are due for another processor refresh around 2018, so things like the a7III and a7SIII may be a significant step up from the current market leader a7RIII in terms of overall performance (primarily on the video side). You have to think that is making Canon and Nikon execs pretty nervous around now, because as things stand they are not really in a position to compete against that.

LOL. ;D

Thanks, with the bitter, unrelenting cold in New England and a blizzard on the way, I needed a good laugh to lighten the mood.

The transition to MILC is picking up steam? Fact: the MILC market has been flat for five years (as long as CIPA has been tracking them as a subset of ILC shipments). dSLR sales have been declining, but where is your evidence that those sales are part of a transition? Far more likely (Occam's razor and all that), market saturation and maturity (very incremental improvements in lines) account for the bulk of the decline.

Canon can't compete with Sony in the MILC space? Globally, Canon has grown rapidly from no mirrorless offerings to #2 in sales. So, they've already beaten all of Sony's competitors...who's next?

The a7 series will dominate the market? To suggest that any full frame camera will dominate the ILC market is beyond ridiculous, beyond ludicrous, it's simply asinine.

The, "Current market leader a7RIII," which market is it leading, exactly? The sub-sub-niche market of full frame MILC, where there's only Sony and the even more uber-niche Leica in the game? That's like saying Kia is the market leader of car brands that start with the letter K. Sheesh.

Canon execs are nervous? Given that Canon's relatively limited investment in mirrorless to date has brought them to #2 in the global MILC market, and Sony already dropped out of the dSLR market because they couldn't compete with Canon and Nikon...if anyone is nervous, it's the Sony execs quaking in terror of the possibility that Canon will make serious efforts in the MILC space.

While not good for much else, at least your post provided me with a hearty guffaw. Thanks!

 

[3kramd5]

The issue is that most of the performance enhancements in ILCs going forward is going to come from the computer inside the camera, and MILCs benefit far more from this than DSLRs.

Not at all. The only difference is that a MILC can display what the processor is doing via its primary (electronic) view finder. An SLR could do exactly everything a MILC can do in mirror lockup mode using the rear display (or with an added EVF.

Whether Canon and Nikon have SOCs to compete this generation may be an open issue, but building and programming processors is a well understood discipline. Managing the associated heat is sometimes more difficult (especially in weather-sealed boxes), but the generally bigger form factor of an SLR can be exploited for thermal management.

 

[ahsanford]

I think that neither Canon nor Nikon have the processors to seriously compete with Sony in the MILC space, so in the short term (the next few years) we should expect cameras like the a7 to start to dominate in the market. Sony are due for another processor refresh around 2018, so things like the a7III and a7SIII may be a significant step up from the current market leader a7RIII in terms of overall performance (primarily on the video side). You have to think that is making Canon and Nikon execs pretty nervous around now, because as things stand they are not really in a position to compete against that.

You nailed it. Canon's going to fold while the going's good because... processors. :

For the umpteenth time, though Sony has a clear technological leg up in parts of the spec sheet, in sensor performance, buffer/fps performance, etc. Canon seems impervious to losing share as a result. It is possible that folks value other things than the point you are making:

Processors don't stack up to 65 first party full-frame lenses.

Sensors don't stack up to wonderful ergonomics and controls.

Eye AF doesn't stack up to terrific reliability, service and resale value.

So circling any one part of the spec sheet or flagging a core tech advantage that Sony has as some endgame-level development that Canon cannot overcome is simply ridiculous.

- A

 

[transpo1]

I think that neither Canon nor Nikon have the processors to seriously compete with Sony in the MILC space, so in the short term (the next few years) we should expect cameras like the a7 to start to dominate in the market. Sony are due for another processor refresh around 2018, so things like the a7III and a7SIII may be a significant step up from the current market leader a7RIII in terms of overall performance (primarily on the video side). You have to think that is making Canon and Nikon execs pretty nervous around now, because as things stand they are not really in a position to compete against that.

You nailed it. Canon's going to fold while the going's good because... processors. :

For the umpteenth time, though Sony has a clear technological leg up in parts of the spec sheet, in sensor performance, buffer/fps performance, etc. Canon seems impervious to losing share as a result. It is possible that folks value other things than the point you are making:

Processors don't stack up to 65 first party full-frame lenses.

Sensors don't stack up to wonderful ergonomics and controls.

Eye AF doesn't stack up to terrific reliability, service and resale value.

So circling any one part of the spec sheet or flagging a core tech advantage that Sony has as some endgame-level development that Canon cannot overcome is simply ridiculous.

- A

Exactly. Which is why we continue to fight for competitive features from Canon because the system itself is superior.

 

[Mikehit]

Exactly. Which is why we continue to fight for competitive features from Canon because the system itself is superior.

The system is superior which why they have to fight to be competitive....run that by me again....

 

[transpo1]

Exactly. Which is why we continue to fight for competitive features from Canon because the system itself is superior.

The system is superior which why they have to fight to be competitive....run that by me again....

Ergonomics, lens selection is all better than the competition. DPAF is great. But other sensor tech and video features are lacking. Being #1 in sales means they’re not incentivized to adopt competitive video features or the processing power to keep up with them. One can only hope that their next generation of cameras (including the rumored FF mirrorless) will do so.

 

[Mikehit]

Exactly. Which is why we continue to fight for competitive features from Canon because the system itself is superior.

The system is superior which why they have to fight to be competitive....run that by me again....

Ergonomics, lens selection is all better than the competition. DPAF is great. But other sensor tech and video features are lacking. Being #1 in sales means they’re not incentivized to adopt competitive video features or the processing power to keep up with them. One can only hope that their next generation of cameras (including the rumored FF mirrorless) will do so.

Maybe (and this was my point, as it is for Neruo and others) for the average camera buyer video features are a good second place to things like ergonomics and lens selection so Canon don't need to rush into the video market. I am sure they are incentivised to do it, but only once they have met the functions that really drive their market (ergonomics, lens selection etc).
You keep making the mistake of confusing 'prioritising' with 'incentivising'.

 

[unfocused]

For the umpteenth time, though Sony has a clear technological leg up in parts of the spec sheet...

I think you give Sony too much credit. Sony has a "clear technological leg up" only if you consider the difference between receiving a 98 on a term paper a significant leg up over receiving a 97.

 

[transpo1]

Exactly. Which is why we continue to fight for competitive features from Canon because the system itself is superior.

The system is superior which why they have to fight to be competitive....run that by me again....

Ergonomics, lens selection is all better than the competition. DPAF is great. But other sensor tech and video features are lacking. Being #1 in sales means they’re not incentivized to adopt competitive video features or the processing power to keep up with them. One can only hope that their next generation of cameras (including the rumored FF mirrorless) will do so.

Maybe (and this was my point, as it is for Neruo and others) for the average camera buyer video features are a good second place to things like ergonomics and lens selection so Canon don't need to rush into the video market. I am sure they are incentivised to do it, but only once they have met the functions that really drive their market (ergonomics, lens selection etc).
You keep making the mistake of confusing 'prioritising' with 'incentivising'.

My use of the word is correct- because Canon is ahead, they are not incentivized to add 4K into many models or to quickly develop the next generation of processors to keep up with it. In fact, if 4K were not in competitors’ models, I doubt they would implement it at all. This is called competition. If Sony were crushing them in camera sales (which they are not), Canon would be incentivized to move faster and compete on these features. Which is why I hope other manufacturers begin to catch up with Canon, because greater competition will bring a windfall of greater features at greater pace at more competitive prices to us all.

 

[ahsanford]

For the umpteenth time, though Sony has a clear technological leg up in parts of the spec sheet...

I think you give Sony too much credit. Sony has a "clear technological leg up" only if you consider the difference between receiving a 98 on a term paper a significant leg up over receiving a 97.

Respectfully, I don't think I do.

On sensors, they've gone from a clear gap a few years back (esp. DR for landscape / studio shooters, consider D810/D800/D800E/A7R2 vs 5D3) to a smaller gap now.

On throughput, it's a comical delta between Sony and Canon. Roughly three thousand dollars gets you Sony's 42x10 vs. Canon's 30x7 or 50x5.

On AF, I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison looking at point counts as the systems are different (I prefer SLR setups strongly here). But one could argue that having AF points across the entire frame (without pulling an iPad-photography-like handheld liveview move with an SLR) is a very nice thing for Sony.

On the bigger top-line features, Sony also fares well: IBIS, tilty-flippy in the higher end FF space, the ability to adapt other lenses, amplify light in the VF, not need manual focusing screens, etc. are nontrivial features.

On a less top-line feature level, it's more of a push to me. Sony has Eye AF and a faster flash sync, Canon has DPAF and DPRAW (if that ever blossoms).

I can't speak to video (not my thing), but the 5D4 does some nasty crop things that Sony doesn't, correct?

So I honestly believe there's something to Sony (and Nikon) offering more in their bodies-per-dollar these days. They kind of have to in order to win share from the #1 company. But that doesn't dismiss some huge entrenched 'system advantages' Canon has (EF portfolio, reliability, ergonomics), nor does it tempt me to leave the fold.

- A

 

[transpo1]

For the umpteenth time, though Sony has a clear technological leg up in parts of the spec sheet...

I think you give Sony too much credit. Sony has a "clear technological leg up" only if you consider the difference between receiving a 98 on a term paper a significant leg up over receiving a 97.

Respectfully, I don't think I do.

On sensors, they've gone from a clear gap a few years back (esp. DR for landscape / studio shooters, consider D810/D800/D800E/A7R2 vs 5D3) to a smaller gap now.

On throughput, it's a comical delta between Sony and Canon. Roughly three thousand dollars gets you Sony's 42x10 vs. Canon's 30x7 or 50x5.

On AF, I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison looking at point counts as the systems are different (I prefer SLR setups strongly here). But one could argue that having AF points across the entire frame (without pulling an iPad-photography-like handheld liveview move with an SLR) is a very nice thing for Sony.

On the bigger top-line features, Sony also fares well: IBIS, tilty-flippy in the higher end FF space, the ability to adapt other lenses, amplify light in the VF, not need manual focusing screens, etc. are nontrivial features.

On a less top-line feature level, it's more of a push to me. Sony has Eye AF and a faster flash sync, Canon has DPAF and DPRAW (if that ever blossoms).

I can't speak to video (not my thing), but the 5D4 does some nasty crop things that Sony doesn't, correct?

So I honestly believe there's something to Sony (and Nikon) offering more in their bodies-per-dollar these days. They kind of have to in order to win share from the #1 company. But that doesn't dismiss some huge entrenched 'system advantages' Canon has (EF portfolio, reliability, ergonomics), nor does it tempt me to leave the fold.

- A

Seems to be a very honest and smart assessment.

 

[bwud]

On sensors, they've gone from a clear gap a few years back (esp. DR for landscape / studio shooters, consider D810/D800/D800E/A7R2 vs 5D3) to a smaller gap now.

Being as how “spec sheets” are being discussed, I’d argue the gap between Sony and Canon sensors is just as large today (or actually larger; sony’s latest addition is far more difficult than its earlier differentiator) as in the recent past. If one goes by differences,

Sony had on dye ADC and BSI
Canon had DPAF

Then canon “caught up” by having DPAF and on dye ADC, but now Sony has on dye ADC BSI full frame stacked DRAM sensors in production.

How meaningful the manifestation of that technology is is arguable. The A9 is certainly impressive, largely due to that stacked sensor architecture.

On AF, I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison looking at point counts as the systems are different (I prefer SLR setups strongly here). But one could argue that having AF points across the entire frame (without pulling an iPad-photography-like handheld liveview move with an SLR) is a very nice thing for Sony.
- A

Unfortunately, as you drift from the center of the frame, the AF gets less reliable (anecdotally based only on my own experience with an A7Rii for >2 years and an A7Riii for about 2 months), much like my 5Diii.

I wonder how DPAF compares.

 

[ahsanford]

Seems to be a very honest and smart assessment.

Now, I've been accused of being a Canon apologist here more than once. We could easily split hairs on how the big sexy top-line spec sheet items with Sony aren't fully realized in the field or are marginalized by some fine print. We could also argue DPAF is a far more useful piece of technology than Eye AF, or that IBIS isn't as valuable as Lens IS, etc. We could totally pick apart what Sony isn't delivering that we have with Canon today. But these latest supercameras (D850, A9, A7R3, A99 II despite some limiting fine print) are imposing offerings.

- A

 

[bwud]

Seems to be a very honest and smart assessment.

Now, I've been accused of being a Canon apologist here more than once. We could easily split hairs on how the big sexy top-line spec sheet items with Sony aren't fully realized in the field or are marginalized by some fine print. We could also argue DPAF is a far more useful piece of technology than Eye AF, or that IBIS isn't as valuable as Lens IS, etc. We could totally pick apart what Sony isn't delivering that we have with Canon today. But these latest supercameras (D850, A9, A7R3, A99 II despite some limiting fine print) are imposing offerings.

- A

I’d argue that vociferously. DPAF allows PDAF from practically anywhere on the sensor. An eye tracking AF code could be added to make use of that hardware. EyeAF alone is neat and works really well (it’s like black magic), but ultimately is only as good as the hardware it runs on, and currently that hardware relies on a limited number of masked pixels.

If Sony starts making split pixel sensors (they have the capability as is evidenced by the sensors they built for Samsung’s latest galaxy smartphones, but probably not yet the IP given the lack of it in any of their own products) or if canon releases an eye tracking algorithm for live view, then you have harmony with really neat software running on really capable hardware.