Canikon another dinosaur?

Started Jun 3, 2013 | Discussions thread
MatsP
Contributing MemberPosts: 869Gear list
Like?
Re: Different situation
In reply to marcus2137, Jun 6, 2013

I don't think the article is accurate or applies to the situation with camera tech today.  In many of his examples, a new technology comes out which eclipses an existing technology and makes it obsolete (Sony walkman VS MP3, Kodak film VS digital camera age, etc).  I don't think that is the situation here.

This is more of a V8 situation.  Based on his logic, the V8 engine would long LONG be extinct due to newer "disruptive" technologies such as turbo/supercharging, direct injection, etc.  After all, more than 10 years ago already, Honda released an engine that was a 2.0L 4 cylinder that produced 240hp, comparable to many v8s at the time (A Dodge Ram around the same time period, with a 5.9L v8 had between 230-245hp, depending on the year).  So why not throw the Honda engine in all of our trucks, keep the horse power about the same, and save tons of fuel?

Because in some technologies, size will always give a natural advantage.  With engines, at any stage of technology, the larger engine will always produce more power, and especially have more torque (the honda engine was just much more advanced at the time, but can't compete with any modern V8 of the last few years now that they have also updated their technology).

I think our cameras are a similar situation.  Just like small engines because strong enough for the average person to be content having it in their small sedan, a larger engine will always rule the construction sites, raceways, and any setting that requires ultimate power.

At any stage of technology, full frame cameras will have a natural advantage.  The advantage will be greater light gathering capabilities, larger pixels (less demand on lenses, and greater DOF flexibility/possibilities.  Will small sensor cameras become 'good enough' for people like my mom?  I think they already are.  But for those who demand the best, and for most working professionals, larger sensor cameras will continue to rein.

In general, where the article really strays is that generally comparing newer innovations of technology to older obsolete stages of tech, saying the newer innovation is enough to disrupt the market.  This is not the situation today with digital cameras.  This was the situation with FILM vs DIGITAL, a newer technology eclipsed the older one.  The situation of larger sensors vs smallers sensor cameras is not the same though, that is the same level of technology simply presented in different forms.

The article does compare the previous large view cameras to the 35mm cameras that largely replaced them.  This is the closest he gets to a cogent argument, but I still believe it is inaccurate to apply to digital sensors.  It's the closest argument because film technology was the same in the large camera and the small camera, so it wasn't really a newer better technology eclipsing the older and obsolete form.  But I also think this example is inaccurate because I believe that people switched from large format to 35mm because the convenience level of each was so drastically different.  Imagine carrying around a large format view camera and film for it VS. a small 35mm camera with a roll of film that pops in and out easily.

People switched to 35mm simply because the size different and convenience was drastically better than the large format system.

Are mirrorless or 4/3 cameras today Drastically smaller and more convenient than a 35mm format digital or an APS-C-sized digital?  I wouldn't say they are.  The smallest 35mm digital today, a 6D, with a small lens, is a fairly compact and portable system.  The new Canon 100D is unbelievably small and incredibly light (lighter in the hand than the specs suggest), and is VERY close to the size and convenience of the smaller sensor cameras.  So much so, that many people, light myself, wouldn't consider a mirrorless or 4/3 camera after seeing just how compact (and still comfortable) the 100D is.  And the best part?  Canon 'COULD' put a 35mm sensor in the 100D body, and combined with a small zoom or the already amazingly perfect and tiny 40mm pancake, would make a system that is probably 95% as compact and convenient as a mirrorless or 4/3 camera, while offering all of the advantages of the larger sensor.

This makes great sense. Canons latest attempts to making smaller dslrs, 6D and 100D, are very interesting as an example of a survival strategy for dslr in the new landscape with threats from the mirrorless camp. I'm really not sure I would have bought me an E-M5 if I had been aware of this new trend a year ago. But Canon need better sensors as well to compete, they will surely show up quite soon.

My guess is that Canon will continue as a very strong player on this market, with smaller APS and FF dslr bodies and also smaller lenses. Others like Sony and Fuji may soon develop FF mirrorless bodies. This will be a serious threat to MFT.

 MatsP's gear list:MatsP's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Canon Pixma MG8150 DxO Optics Pro Standard +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
YepNew
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
GeesNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow