sderdiarian: Statements like "nasty small cameras", "acidic mirrorless camera" and "multiply their wares like bacteria in a dirty petri dish" as compared to bow and scrape language like "these two giants" set my teeth on edge from the get-go.
But they were nothing next to the author's apparent ignorance of CIPA data for 2014 showing 18% growth of mirrorless shipments in the North American market and 8% in Europe as compared to 25% and 37% declines in DSLR sales in these two critical markets respectively.
These "two giants" short sightedly elected to protect sales/reap profits from old technology; let them reap what they've sown, as GM did in cars before them. And let's commend those smaller companies/divisions that have invested in and moved mirrorless technology forward rather than paying them left-handed compliments.
Like to see a re-write by Richard Butler or Barney Britton, I'm sure it would have a different tone.
I'm surprised you find a 25% decline in US DSLR shipments and a 37% decline in European DSLR shipments is nothing to worry about. If I were Canon or Nikon I would be extremely worried.
Worldwide, CSC penetration is 30% of the ILC market, mostly from small players who previously had minimal market share. If Canon or Nikon made a competitive CSC, the % would change dramatically, purely because of brand recognition.
You can only rely on brand name for so long. It cuts less ice in developing markets who don't have the legacy baggage, and Asia is now the largest single market.
Damn Fuji - keeps designing lenses I actually want. I'm running out of stuff to trade in....
Actually looks pretty nice. Lens looks a little chunky but its a small camera.
Now if they had a made it slightly larger with a built in EVF it would be well balanced. Yes, I know you can attach one but that makes things more of a pain than need be and it uses the hotshoe.
I don't understand the marketing decisions at all though.
Simple man: It's unbelivable the hate being spewed towards Canons decision to produce this camera. Certainly people realize not all cameras perform equally in all aspects. If this camera is not for you; merely pass along. Canon has an entire line up of cameras to choose from. Find the one that closely matches your requirements. Select it as your next camera.
Canon. The camera people who like options choose to use.
I did choose. I bought a Nikon.
(Sorry, couldn't resist. You really should get paid by Canon with a line like that).
No EVF no deal. Sorry Samsung, without an EVF a 28MP camera is a waste of time!
jkoch2: If one compares the 2014 operating profits, relative to sales, of the imaging segments of Canon (14.5%), Nikon (4.8%), Sony (11.3%), Oly (-8.3), or Fuji (6.3%), Canon is still king of the shrinking hill. Canon can't make the world buy more cameras, but it will stay in business so long as it outperforms its competitors where it counts. If not the smartest camera company, then certainly the least dumb. Canon's edamame-counters are doing something right!
I don't think they had anything like the problems Nikon had at the Sendai plant.
And why would Canon's stock price dive if office equipment is doing so well. Overall as a company they are doing fine.
Since Canon have done little other than rehash old sensors and cameras for the last 5 years, it is little surprise their profits are higher. They were not hit by the Tsunami either. But they rely heavily on brand recognition and legacy to ensure people buy their products.
Also, Sony and Canon probably don't factor the cost of sensor fab into the imaging division. Nikon, who have no sensor fab, have to account for sensor costs since it is a supplied part. In Sony, it is a separate part of the business. Comparing profit can be very misleading.
Every company that relied on branding without making improvements has declined, sooner or later, relative to the competition. You can fool all the people some of the time....
57even: This is not altogether surprising - the market has matured after soaring increases in sales from the early 2000s. The market levelled out after the recession in 2008/9 and started declining.
Yes, phones have taken over from point and shoots, but they were mostly outsourced anyway. Most camera makers probably earn more selling camera modules to phone companies.
The decline in high-end sales is a reflection of the lack of real improvement in successive models. High replacement rates were previously driven by sensor improvements, but that strategy has now switched to packaging - trad SLR vs CSC, mod vs retro, fixed lens vs interchangeable, big vs small. stills vs. video.
Cameras are now like cars - all good enough that brand identity, features and styling matter more than actual physics or image quality. Most will swear blind that 'their' camera is better whatever testing reveals, and most folk are happy with an iPhone. Who cares about sensor quality? (OK I do, but most don't)
I didn't say people cared about DxO. I said the improvements were enormous - enough for every review to comment on them.
I did define 'much better'. Much less noise, 50% or more increase in megapixels, higher max ISO, higher tonal and dynamic range. DxO just demonstrates this.
If you think people are happy with 'good enough' when something better comes out, check sales of iPhone 6.
"How so? People bought the cameras they needed to do the things they need to do. By your logic, everyone should be pony'ing up for a PhaseOne."
People stay in the price bracket they can afford, whether its a D3000 or a 5Dmk3.
But within each bracket improvements were huge from model to model a decade ago. Check out DxOMark charts for the Nikon D70, D90, D7000 and D7100. 6 - 12 - 16 - 24 MP. Huge change in SNR, DR, ISO - but the last jump was far less significant than the first. The technology matured.
People get the best they can afford, not the best there is. They live with restrictions because they have to. If something comes along 3-4 years later that is the same price but much better, there is a good reason to upgrade. If the difference is marginal, there is no incentive.
Fact is each upgrade is no longer the major money-spinner it once was.
This is not altogether surprising - the market has matured after soaring increases in sales from the early 2000s. The market levelled out after the recession in 2008/9 and started declining.
No surprises here, surely? Compact small-sensor digicams were bread and butter to all these companies. Since most of them don't make phones (except Sony and Samsung) this chart merely reflects the loss of that market.
I suspect there is a lot more margin on high end products. The XT1 is Fuji's best seller, and the A7 is even more expensive. The EM5 wasn't cheap either. Add lenses and the CSC business model is fairly clear.
Of camera makers, only Fuji and Sony maintained overall market share (which is a good result considering) and actually increase CSC market share (which for Fuji meant coming from nowhere in 3 years).
I can't see Apple getting into dedicated cameras, but I reckon Samsung is a potential threat to all the established players, simply because of their phone market customer base and huge resources. Integrating cameras and phone/tablet function is something they are uniquely placed to do. What is the most logical upgrade path for a Galaxy phone owner?
Judging from all the complaints and dumb comments, this is going to be an excellent lens :-)
The NX1 is looking seriously competitive! And that zoom lens is pretty impressive.
helltormentor: @ Barney Britton
Is that true that the X-TRANS sensor becomes ISOless from 400 on? (By ISOless, I mean there is no noise penalty if we increase exposure in post rather than increasing sensitivity in camera while shooting).
Not sure about that...
Clearly implies cut off at ISO 1600 - almost on the button.
Very nice Barney, quite funny too. Did you actually give up on the 56mm AF or was it just simpler to work manually? I know that modelling lights are not usually all that bright.
From experiment and some data from Bill Claff it appears to be ISOless from around 1600 ISO.
HG South Africa: With regards to section 13 of this review on 'real world' DR, Simon Joinson of DPR says that the lens has no effect on DR. The 7Dii was paired with an EF 50mm f/1.4 and the D7000 was paired with Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED.All over the web you will find tests that show how lens contrast rendering can affect the DR in files - the Leica Forum has an extensive segment.At the focal lengths of these lenses and considering the different crop factors, adjustments would have had to be made to get similar rendering in the side-by-side comparison windows.In section 11, when comparing again to the D7000, where the Nikon is now mounted to a Nikkor 50mm lens, their is no difference under the 2 different light settings (in spite of the 7Dii not being perfectly focussed in this test).
Go see Tony Northrup's review of the 7Dii sensor and IQ on Youtube.I use this camera with L glass and the genuine 'real world' results are fantastic. Even EFS lenses such as the 15-85 give wonderful tonal results.
It was the photos that never got taken that were the problem... ;)
JoEick: Rishi, you need to stop being defensive and actually read what is being criticized. Everyone knows Sony exmor sensors have better low ISO DR. We knew this years before this article tried making it into something groundbreaking.
People (including myself) are taking offense to those who try to overstate the effectiveness in being able to get a shot or not, based on the low ISO DR. It's just pushing people to let their gear dictate everything for them, without any thought or skill required by the photographer.
Extra DR is nice and never hurts (except in photographer skills), but it's not really the feature that is making photos possible that were previously not possible with some basic photography skills in merging exposures.
I am aware that this is DPR, a gear praising website, where suggesting features are not needed or are overstated, is like breaking all the 10 commandments in one shot. Photographer skills are going backwards, while tech marches forwards. :(
"only if you're on glue - the lack of detail and resolution from the D7000 is staggering."
What is also staggering is your utterly transparent and over the top reaction to criticism of your pet camera.
JEROME NOLAS: A second class sensor for 1,799.00?
Are you saying popularity is a guarantee of quality?
xval: Well, it's obvious that Canon is not the "King of the Hill" anymore. DR is disappointing. But how important is it? In some cases it's critical, in most cases it's nice to have. In any case there is no way to reproduce it on monitor or paper. So people use phoshopping to emphasis shadow details which results in "pictures". Far from realistic photo. Nevertheless most are happy with HDR-looking something. ;) And even call it photography.
When DR doesn't matter much everything else becomes more important. That's where 7d2 excels. For me video with autofocus + uncompressed video out actually was one of the main reasons to upgrade. I need it. 7d + 7d2 + 2x (dirt cheap EFS 24mm lens) make a good setup for stereo photography, something I need too.
You don't need HDR to see the banding and noise in the shadows. Just try using a bit of dodge and burn.
Most 'realistic' photographs are a long way from the bland default JPEGs that come from the camera. If some people don't know how to post process, then you get some awful results, but that does not invalidate the need for improved DR.
We can finally get somewhere close to film nowadays. Unless you own a Canon of course, in which case you still can't.