Just Ed: Not as revealing at the recent interview with Nikon execs, but useful none the less. Both seemed to point out that the camera market and the public's desires do indeed differ by geographical region.
It is interesting that both Canon and Nikon express that mirror-less is less popular in the US than elsewhere. Possibly Canon was right not to put much energy into mirrorless technology, at least yet.
As to camera size, I find uses for both by medium sized 6D and small sized Sl-1. Each shines, but in different situations imo.
I don't know how you can judge the public's response to mirrorless without offering a mirrorless option that is similarly equipped in terms of features and performance. (I'm obviously not referring to the optical viewfinder.) Canon's offering was particularly pathetic. It was late to market and uncompetitive. Then they complain that sales are slow and inventories are high. No kidding.
Donnie G: "Canon should do things the same way that Sony does". REALLY? Sony is closing 65 stores in the U.S. and eliminating 1,000 jobs. They call it restructuring or cost control. Others might call it RETREAT. Canon controls their costs by selling specific products to the regions of the globe where there is an actual demand for that product, (ie., the EOS M2). Thus, no excess inventory and no wasted marketing dollars. Which is the better cost control strategy? Don't know? Sony does!
"Canon should make their CMOS chips the same way that Sony does, because the Sony chips are way better". REALLY? Some Gear Heads may indeed see an advantage in the Sony chip design, but Gear Heads make up less than 1% of the camera market, and chip design, by itself, doesn't sell cameras. Brand identity does. Over 70 million Canon EOS DSLR owners think the Canon brand is perfect for their needs. How many Sony Alpha, DSLR, SLT, NEX, etc., owners feel as strongly about the Sony brand?
"REALLY? Some Gear Heads may indeed see an advantage in the Sony chip design, but Gear Heads make up less than 1% of the camera market, and chip design, by itself, doesn't sell cameras. Brand identity does. Over 70 million Canon EOS DSLR owners think the Canon brand is perfect for their needs."
You have just described Canon's biggest problem. No need to innovate; rest on your laurels...err...rely on brand identity. Most consumers don't notice anyway, right? Maybe not at first, but early adopters and geeks play a big part in brand identity and Canon's may well be eroding. I can tell you that I am one of those 70 million Canon users, one who gets asked daily for camera recommendations, and I no longer recommend Canon unequivocally.
As for the Sony chip design, it is demonstrably and objectively superior and by no small margin—whether it makes a difference to you or not.
Jon Lewis: Hi AllThe price doesn't bother some people but the caperbilitysof the camera do the MkIII wasn't enough of an upgradeAnd a 1DX is a bit too much of a sports camera so many are waiting
Depending on what and how you shoot, the MkIII could be a huge upgrade. It was for me. It gave me everything I wanted except for improved image quality and smaller size/lower weight. (Canon has really become complacent relative to their competition when it comes to sensor tech.) The AF system in the 5D3 and 1DX is a juggernaut. Very very impressive.
D1N0: Digital camera's haven't improved very much over the past few years. The megapixelrace is over, there is no must have new technology. The improvements in iq are minimal compared compared to 2010 when the D7000 and K-5 came out. So people are not so eager to replace their camera's. A new sensor technology would help, but there is not much room for improvement, unless you can drastically enhance high ISO performance.
I would argue that there is huge room for improvement in sensor tech and Sony has proven this with every new iteration of their EXMOR sensor. Dynamic range. Dynamic range. Dynamic range. And, I agree, high ISO performance.
coroander: Let's look at apples and apples, since the article provides so many incomparable numbers. income from sales of ILCs:Canon -1.7%Nikon -6%Fuji (unknown, ILCs not reported separately)Olympus +5%
It's quite possible (even likely) mirrorless sales income has increased over the past 12 months, while income from DSLRs has decreased.
It's hard to know with Nikon or Canon. Nikon's mirrorless system with its tiny sensor is pretty pedestrian from an enthusiast's POV. Similarly, Canon's late arrival to the ILC market with a substandard offering make it hard to know if sales in this segmant are slow because of economic conditions or the simple fact that their offerings stink.
QuarryCat: dpreview is going crazy…. for sony
the Zeiss lens are fantastic, but I hate the camera I tried (7R) - it's a nightmare for shooting without tripod, for shooting in dim light or in dark, it is a nightmare for architecture, it is nor good for my portraits…
I like Alpha 99 and I even like Nex 6 bit Alpha 7R is a waste of recources for me.
You lost me when you suggested it's inappropriate for architecture and portraits—and you forgot to mention how unworthy it is for sports...
km25: Fuji looks like a company that comes up with new ideas in a slow and deliberate manor. Some companies would just start making cameras with this idea. Then sell the next model in a year or two. Even when the X100 and the X-Pro 1 came out Fuji followed up with a lot of frim ware up grades. It is good that all these companies are moving forward. I think Nikon should goo back to producing their own sensors, their best one is the one they designed themselves, 16MP in the Df and D4. Someone should an article about how many MP one would really need, want and the advantages to having high or low MPs. The use of APS-C, FF and medium format digital. Not just dry numbers, but some real life experiences.
Are you kidding, km25? That Sony sensor in the D800 is stunning. It's not just the resolution, which may be more than most need. It's the dynamic range. As a Canon shooter, I would kill to have that sensor in a 5D3 body.
I clicked on the link to this review as soon as I saw it looking forward to seeing how the Markins and Acratech ball heads stood up to their heavier brethren. Very disappointed to see that they were not included. :( Whether or not the balls are smaller, these manufacturers are typically considered along with the others so their inclusion would have been quite useful.
I wish there weren't trade offs (other than price) when choosing between the two bodies. Why no electronic shutter on the A7R? Why a composite body on the A7R vs magnesium for the A7? The A7 seems to have a better AF system too.
Bill T.: Can anybody characterize the amount of vibration introduced by the A7R "noisy shutter?"
I shoot stitched panormas with very long lenses, where mirror vibration from my present camera bodies is a major nuisance requiring clumsy work-arounds. I wonder if I will have issues with A7R shutter vibrations with say 200mm+ lenses when tripod mounted?
According to the table of differences, only the A7 has electronic first curtain.
I have to speak in support of Mayer. In context, her comments aren't nearly the big deal that it would otherwise seem. And kudos for getting out in front of the issue with pro accounts.
I think that the general direction of Yahoo has changed for the better since she took over. And people have been complaining forever about Flickr's UI. I think the changes are a step in the right direction. There have been legitimate reasons to abandon Flickr but this isn't one of them.
GPW: Who the hell need 2 terabytes of storage?
I have 3TB in still images alone. I know others who have much more. Of course, those are RAW images. I don't know that you can even upload RAW to Flickr.
It seems to me that Adobe and its defenders are completely missing the fact that photographers, perhaps in a way that is different from other creative disciplines, are creating work which we expect to remain relevant, important, and accessible for our lifetimes. If a designer creates an advert or a film maker creates a film, once they are done they are typically done. A photograph can continue to evolve over time. Unless it is done for a client, it remains part of us, part of our history, part of our being. The idea that we could reach a point where we can no longer access our photographic library due to cost (or whatever), even if the chance is slight, is something we do not wish to contemplate. And to be clear, when I say "access" I do not mean "view". I refer to being able to access the work product that went into the image -- the layers, the filters, etc. — and continue to refine that vision if desired.
djsphynx: All this talk about Adobe and the future of its product offerings has me thinking even further down my workflow. Because of all this, I'll begin to move away from PSD files where possible since I don't want to be beholden to their formats which may or may not work long term.
As for me, I'll stick to PS CS6, I'll retire LR in all likelihood (don't want to be tied to their catalogues since LR will inevitably be only offered in CC) and will pick up a couple of alternatives, starting with Pixelmator and Aperture.
They have the option to do what they did, I have the option to do what I'm about to do. The thought of not being able to open a file in a few years is scary as hell for me (and for other photographers), I can't imagine ever subscribing ad agreeing to such a scheme.
I certainly agree with your sentiments about using CS6 until I absolutely have to move on—and then praying that a good alternative emerges in the meantime. I can't imagine ever choosing to rent software. I don't have quite the same concerns about LR though that may be foolish on my part given the clear direction Adobe is headed.
Ilya the Great: If only Nik software could replace PS! Can it?
I wonder if Nik/Google has had second thoughts about eliminating Snapseed for the desktop. Nik/Google is the company that first comes to mind as being able to take advantage of this competitive opening that Adobe has created with their money grab.
To summarize, yes, Adobe knows they're screwing photographers and, no, they don't care. Yes, you will lose the ability to access your PSD's and other Adobe-formatted files the moment you quit paying and, no, there is nothing you can do about it.
Contempt is not a strong enough word to describe what I feel about Adobe right now. I truly hope that the outrage being expressed across photography forums actually translates into lost sales.
What outfitter did you travel with? Was the expedition photo-centric?
Love the article, Eric. What an experience.
I do agree that, at the very least, a smaller watermark would enhance the enjoyment of your images. Love that Petrel shot (the ship).
JmaverickPro: When they first announced this tactic I was really upset about it, but since using it I have to say I am honestly very pleased with it. I think it's currently the only win-win situation for everyone.
The only people who should be complaining about this are the boot leggers. The product works offline and allows access too all programs.
Assuming Master collection costs around $2500, at the current rate of $50 a month (I am only paying $29 as an "upgrader"), it would take 4 years to pay out the same thing it would cost to own it. By that time, Adobe would have already released 2 if not 3 more versions that you would again have to purchase.
The way I say it everyone wins. The legitimate owners get a price cut, and Adobe actually gets paid for the product they make.
I wonder if your initial assumption, $2500 for the suite, is accurate. My employer pays less than half of that. You do raise an interesting issue though. I wonder if this move will stop piracy or encourage it. For those thinking it will stop piracy, remember that the programs are still downloaded and installed locally. You just rent instead of own.
I'd love to know the real story behind all this. Regardless of the true response to Creative Cloud, you would expect Adobe to say that "everyone wants to rent software but you" once they decided to move forward. On the other hand, Adobe isn't going to slit its own throat if it doesn't believe this attempt to squeeze more cash out of its customer base isn't going to work. It makes me wonder what percentage of their revenue is derived from corporations vs. individuals and small businesses. I would guess it is the latter that will find this most unacceptable. I can't imagine myself ever renting software from any vendor.