Skeptical about a 1"-sensored compact from Canon

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
Joseph Black
Regular MemberPosts: 209
Like?
Re: Skeptical about a 1"-sensored compact from Canon
In reply to Marco Nero, 2 months ago

Marco Nero wrote:

pacnwhobbyist wrote:

I think there's a distinct possibility that Canon will not release a 1" sensored compact mainly because such a camera would cannibalize sales of their existing G1X Mark II. I would say there's a 50/50 chance that a new G series emerges that keeps the 1/1.7" sensor but makes operational improvements such as an EVF, articulating touch screen, better lens etc etc.

What do you guys/gals think?

Canon don't have a choice.

No, Canon does not.  A G1 X series will always cost more with a near-APS-C sensor than an S series with a 1" sensor.  Still, the RX1OOIII costs the same as a G1 X II so it's really the RX100 and RX100II that are threatening the S120 market.

It was quite clear to me that they cut corners with the s120 but no amount of onboard digital tomfoolery can compensate for a larger sensor.

Some of us who have owned many of the S series cameras would disagree, but your point about a larger sensor being better is still valid.

The competition (Sony) brought out the RX100 camera series (with a 1" sensor) to compete with the Canon S-Series which was eating into their own profit margins... now Canon has lost too many sales to Sony.

I haven't seen much evidence to prove that.  The S and G series cameras are legendary, but the RX100 series is eating into the G1 X market.  For reference, the G16 is $500, S120 $450, and the RX100III is $800 right now.  Those are very different market segments.

Even major online reviewers are stating that the RX100 MkIII is able to produce images nearly identical to Canon's G1X.

The real cost difference is in the features, lenses, high ISO performance, and Sony's less than stellar colors, menus, ergonomics.

Those same reviewers are claiming that only in low light does the 1.5" sensor on the G1X give it more capability. But the size differences between these two cameras is very distinct.

The cost difference isn't unless you're still including the RX100 I and II.

.
Canon are backed into a corner.

Canon is interested in exploring any new market segment that may be profitable.  I'm not sure the market leader can be backed into a corner, and the mirrorless market is evidence enough of that insofar as Canon has barely dipped its toes in with the M.

They've declared that the DSLR has saturated the market place and that they intend to scale back DSLR models to just a few prosumer models.

Could you provide a link to that information as I have no recollection of reading that anywhere.

They begrudgingly produced the EOS-M to make a half-hearted stand with more mature mirrorless cameras already on the open market.

Probably because mirrorless cameras barely held a candle to their DSLR offerings.  The market has changed somewhat in that mirrorless with EVFs aren't quite as sad as they used to be.

And now people are complaining that Sony (and other camera manufacturers) are offering more for less when it comes to subcompact cameras.

Basically only in the 1" compact market.  I'd say "people" are a vocal few rather than the silent majority keeping Canon rich.

.
The ONLY way forward for Canon is to produce larger lenses and larger sensors. Both are restricted by limitations on technology but the lenses and improvements in optical capability are also restricted by Physics. Canon MUST produce a larger sensor camera to remain relevant. They've been dragging their feet for the last 10 years just to protect investors and shareholders but even this has got to end. I expect slow-moving Canon to produce slightly larger bodied compact cameras with larger sensors just to be able to keep swimming in the pond where the smaller fish are eating most of the food.

I think Canon could be seen as slow moving from a certain perspective and trendsetting from another.  Canon made CMOS sensors THE larger sensor to have.  They proved a technology because before they came along CMOS was known for being inferior/noisy.  Canon avoids gimmicks.  Canon refines.  The smaller fish are eating very, very little food.  Canon may be a big fish in an ever more crowded pond, but Canon takes a holistic approach and that requires time to evolve and perfect.  Sony is fine with cranking out new bodies every six months because they believe quantity and gimmicks will sell.  They are great at making sensors to sell to the rest of the industry, but with that kind of advantage you would think they would rule the camera world by now if their bodies and lenses were so amazing, wouldn't you?

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Marco Nero.
www.pbase.com/nero_design

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow