If you really want to know why the whiners here hate Canon, then check out today's news on canonrumors.com
There's a great piece on that super duper mirrorless revolution there too. Heh heh heh!
Nice job you did here too, DPR.
There's nothing wrong with dressing up/pimping out/personalizing/customizing your gear. Thanks Fuji for offering some fun choices.
lightsculpture: Talking about mirrorless, I am just glad that Canon did not do what some of their competitors did - abandoning their DSLR customers overnight and switching to SLT/MILC.
In fact, I see Canon's strategy to develop a unified strategy for CDAF capable dual pixel sensor that can be used in both DSLR and mirrorless to be brilliant. This way, they can keep their DLSR customers happy while position themselves to compete in the mirrorless market. Provided they decide to put the dual-pixel sensor in their mirrorless, that is.
I agree lightsculpture. Canon's dual pixel sensor tech can be fine tuned to provide unique and drool worthy performance enhancements to any product category in the company's portfolio. I'm sure that we will see a number of variations on this tech from Canon introduced in several products shortly. This Canon tech is likely to be the main driver of camera sales for the company for the next 5 to 10 years. Nobody else will be able to touch it either.
Donnie G: Here are my crystal ball predictions, (for 2014 thru 2016), that I've come up with for my fellow Gear Heads to attack:
1. Camera sales will continue to shrink in the U.S. and Europe due to weak economies and even more widespread adoption of cellphone camera usage by the traditional P&S user.
2. Mirrorless interchangeable lens compact cameras (sensors sized APS-C or smaller) will continue to make up less than 15% of camera sales.
3. Fujifilm's X series will become the dominate MILC camera brand.
4. Canon and Nikon will continue to adapt to these new market conditions and will collectively own better than 80% of all camera sales regardless of type.
5. One or more of the current camera makers will quit the business or will be bought by another company.
Yeah, I said it!
IMO, as long as cameras are battery dependent devices, then EVFs will be a hinderance to camera performance. Higher resolution displays that refresh at a rate fast enough to follow action as effortlessly as OVFs do will require either battery technology that hasn't been invented yet, or the dumbing down of all other camera functions in order to power the EVF displays. Add to that the expectation that the camera will do video recording too and you can then see the problem faced by the camera maker who's trying to make an EVF that functions as well as an OVF. I doubt that the average consumer would be willing to make that trade off in camera performance. I know that I wouldn't. Then again, if your subject matter hardly ever moves, then the EVFs of today are certainly good enough as is.
Here are my crystal ball predictions, (for 2014 thru 2016), that I've come up with for my fellow Gear Heads to attack:
JRFlorendo: Canon is serious about still photography when they match Sony's EXMOORE sensors, that's what every Canon fanbase has been waiting for +8 years now.
Well Kat, if you remember that the so called superior product, touted as such by the geeks, lost out to one that they claimed to be inferior, then you certainly must remember that the votes that decided that outcome were casts by the billions of average everyday consumers who could care less about specs on paper. We geeks get all hot and bothered by spec sheets. However, the average citizen simply wants what's familiar and comfortable to them. We geeks are the few, while average citizens are the many. It's as simple as that. :)
Well guys, those are all nice arguments that would carry a lot more weight if Sony could break even, or better, make a small profit from their consumer camera business sometime during 2014, or 2015, or, well, you get the picture. Right now, it just sounds like the old "BETA tape recording has far superior image quality over VHS tape recording" dialogue. Any of you guys old enough to remember how that tech war ended? :)
Anastigmat: Canon is an electronics company. You wonder why they haven't made a smartphone yet.
It also should be noted that Canon makes parts for smartphones, so the statement that" smartphones are not their enemy" is a very accurate one.
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?
T3: The SL1 might have a small body, but the included kit lens is larger than previous models. And the SL1 resides in a system of relatively large DSLR lenses. What they should have done was make the SL1 a mirrorless body for the EOS M system. That way, you can have a compact body, but you can also put compact lenses on it. But as it is (a compact body in a big-lens system), it's a half-@assed solution. So I think a lot of Ameicans simply think, "Well, if I'm going to put big Canon DSLR lenses on it, I might as well get a bigger DSLR body than what the SL1 has." Plus, Canon sells other Rebels that are cheaper than the SL1. So, again, I think a lot of Americans looking to buy a Rebel simply say, "I think I'll just get the slightly larger, cheaper Rebel rather than the SL1."
There are plenty of Canon PowerShot cameras, such as the G15, G16, G1 X II, that can easily meet the demand for a small high quality body/lens combo. Just because they aren't ILC models doesn't make them inferior to the competition. As a matter of fact, the G1 X II may even prove to be the "must have" camera in the smaller than APS-C category. Time will tell.
While you bring up some valid points, especially about the kit lens' size in relation to the size of the SL1 body, your comment is note worthy in recognizing that Canon provides so many choices within their Rebel line that customers can easily find a model that fits them without having to leave the Canon brand. That is a major strength of the Canon product portfolio. Also, it was never said that the SL1 was selling poorly. The camera just wasn't selling in the numbers that the company expected, and this is only true of sales in the U.S.. I suspect that if the Rebel SL1 finds widespread acceptance in the U.S. and Europe, then Canon might be inclined to offer a mirrorless version in the future. For some markets there is small and then there is too small.
"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!
Donnie G: 2015 will be the "death" year for at least one of the current crop of camera manufacturers. Who will be the one to quit the camera business? Hint! It won't be any of the DSLR makers. Heh Heh Heh
Why isn't Pentax on my list of extinct species? Good question. Well, while itty bitty little ole Pentax would seem to be extremely weak in this declining camera market, it should be noted that they are already lean and mean. They don't have a bunch of redundant low end compact models. They do interchangeable lens models exclusively, and more importantly, they have an excellent up market camera in their 645D that competes in a space that neither of the big 2 are in. So yes, I think Pentax could prove to be a stronger competitor under these market conditions than most. I'm willing to bet that Ricoh thinks so too. :)
Excellent response Leiduowen, and you're right. Just the same, I'll stick by my educated guess, prediction, or whatever name you want to put to it. After all, it's still just entertainment to me. :)
The fact that one or more camera brands will have to exit the marketplace in the not too distant future has been known, by those of us who follow these trends, for a long time. There'll be fewer competitors because there will be fewer overall camera sales to angle for. It's normal for brands to disappear from time to time. Remember Contax, Kodak, Minolta, etc.. Heck, some, like Olympus, even reappear after a long absence. For me, following these trends is kind of a hobby. So yes, I'm chuckling, because I believe I can finally pin a date on the start of the next episode of this particular marketplace soap opera. It's like fantasy football to me. It's entertainment!
2015 will be the "death" year for at least one of the current crop of camera manufacturers. Who will be the one to quit the camera business? Hint! It won't be any of the DSLR makers. Heh Heh Heh
Smartphones have changed the game dramatically at the low end of the camera business. So much so, that I expect all of the camera manufacturers will quit making their lowest priced compact all in one models within the next year or two and concentrate on selling higher end models, like large sensor mirrorless super zooms, MILCs and DSLRs. It would make sense since those are models that smartphones can't compete against. The traditional low priced compact shirt pocket camera is dead and buried, except for rugged waterproof types. Canon, Fuji, and Sony can concentrate on their higher profit customer base in the broadcast and cinema industries. Nikon and the rest may have tougher choices ahead of them. The next two years should be interesting.
rich889: The sense that I came away with in this interview that Nikon is extremely complacent. For instance, Nikon does NOT want to create a high quality mirror-less camera because it might detract from their DSLR revenue so instead they blame the American public. Denial to cover mediocrity. They ignore the fact that the move towards mirror-less is a growing market, and that the picture quality of Nikon 1 v1 and v2 is indeed INFERIOR to APS-C and even Micro Four Thirds. Nikon has not been an pioneer in the digital age for over 15 years, but the recent falling-off of quality (as shown by problems with the D600) is troubling, and is a shame for those of us who have used Nikon equipment for decades.
I'm willing to bet that Nikon is already busily at work on making a high quality camera that doesn't have a mirror box, and they will bring it to market as soon as they can design one that is better than the product it is intended to replace, yet can still be used with their legacy lenses and accessaries. While pros and hard core enthusiasts might like having a tool that is a little smaller and lighter than what they're carrying today, they will still expect it to work with the gear they already own. There's really no need for Nikon to "throw out the baby with the bath water" in order to please the "tiniest is best" crowd. That crowd can be happily served by the m4/3 camera companies or a smartphone vendor. :)
I took your advise and visited the bythom.com site. The article pointing to the strengths and weaknesses of the competing camera manufacturers and their importance or relevance to their parent companies' revenue stream was an especially good read. It shows that Darwinism is very much at work among these very different companies, and that's why they each have their own unique approach to product creation and marketing.