kalieaire: I find it funny how Canon expected the SL1 and their other size reduced dslrs to be popular. Coming from 35mm film, the 300D was a good size, with the grip it was nearly perfect. When the 20D came out, I was joyous of the better fit. When the 5D2 came out I was even more happy, now comparable to a 1 series. I have small hands too, tendonitis, and a bit of reduced grip strength, so anything larger than the 5D2 hurts pretty bad at the end of a wedding. Point being, DSLRs should generally be larger in size, and absolutely not too small.
Smaller DSLRs are only useful for cheap parents looking to buy their high school kids their first camera based solely on price, not usability, capability, or what the kids want and would like to use.
As for snubbing the mirrorless market, the EOS M represents the biggest innovation to cinematography since the 5D2 because if its size. I can rig my EOS M in a lot more places than my 5Ds or 7Ds.
From their statements, Canon's execs are obviously clueless.
You probably have tendonitis because you grip the camera too tight. That's a common issue I see. The reality is that you don't have to grip a camera tight with your right hand at all if you properly support the body and lens with your left hand from underneath. That's what I do, and as a result I can comfortably hold cameras with even small grips, because I don't need to grasp the camera so tightly that the my hand and the grip conform into a single mass! There's actually space between my camera grip and my right palm. No squeezing of the grip. My hand and wrist are relaxed. No tendonitis.
I guess that's why I'm perfectly okay with using anything from an SL1 to a Leica M to an E-M10, which have small grips or even no grips (i.e. a Leica).
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.
You're being rather foolish if you think that a strong Canon push into mirrorless would mean Canon might abandon their DSLR customers. Canon's DSLR usership is too large and pervasive. The same can't be said of their competitors' DSLR usership. Canon's DSLR usership is quite unique in the industry, along with Nikon's, because it's mainly a two-brand market. These two companies basically own that segment, like Apple and Samsung own the lion's share of the smartphone market. Even if a Canon mirrorless system took off like a rocket, they have such a huge DSLR usership that it would continue to be supported for a very, very long time.
justmeMN: Shame on Canon, for not aggressively rushing into the money-losing mirrorless sector. :-)
Let's face it, people overwhelmingly like to buy from certain brands. With smartphones, it's Apple and Samsung. With ILC cameras, it's Canon and Nikon. Everyone else is just an also-ran. If Canon and Nikon would introduce truly compelling APS-C MILC's, you can bet that the mirrorless market would do a lot better because people would be buying these compelling Canon and Nikon APS-C MILCs. But instead, Canon comes out with the weak EOS M, and Nikon chose the tiny 1" format.
KW Phua: Canon and Nikon will wait until they see Reporters use smart phone or mirror less to shoot Olympic or world cup then yes the enemies are here. For now, Smart phone only kill PnS, will come to mirror less before DSLR, so why invest in mirror less? Anyone can shoot F1 with smart phone or mirror less? LOL!
@ lightsculpture- lightweight has a LOT to do with the popularity of tablets. And the fact that Windows tablets don't sell well don't negate that. Windows tablets don't sell well for a lot of other reasons (too late to the game, unpopularity of Windows 8, Windows 8 RT doesn't run Windows software and has little support, etc).
halc: Considering that smartphones have already killed Canon's pocket camera sales, they should perhaps view their business differently.
I can't understand how slow and tired Canon has become.
It's DSLR line is pretty much only alive because of inertia, old legacy lens selection and 5DmkIII. Everything else they ship is old, tired, worse than competition in features and performance.
Inertia. Old Canon users.
They will grow less and less every year.
Unless Canon really does something new, innovative and something that makes them competitive again.
"The market shares they command today will refute everything you said"
-- so said Kodak, Blackberry and Nokia.
I think it's strange that people think the smartphone will kill mirrorless before DSLR. Mirrorless and DSLR more or less do the same thing: provide interchangeable lenses on big sensors. The difference is that mirorless can do it without a flapping mirror, and can be made more compact than DSLR. In a few years, any current performance gaps between these two devices will be even narrower. But mirrorless will always have the advantage of better portability. And as we have seen with tablets causing a steep decline in laptop sales, portability counts for a lot in the consumer space. Which is why I think that, eventually, DSLRs will be devices mainly used by working pros who shoot things like the Olympics or world cup (or people who just don't mind carrying around the "laptops" of the camera world), while most consumers will be using mirrorless (the "tablets" of the camera world). Obviously, we're not anywhere close to that yet, but I think that's what will eventually happen.
larrytusaz: I suppose I'm getting old, but a smartphone camera holds about as much appeal to me as canned spaghetti does to a 5-star restaurant chef. If you can't be bothered to tote a real camera with you when we have such small marvels like a Sony RX100, and any of them will absolutely smoke even the best smartphone camera, then you have zero credibility as a photographer as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not a snapshooter, I'm a hobbyist photographer, I could give 2 turds less what the Polaroid and Kodak Instamatic crowd like. They're beneath me and any other hobbyist or professional as far as any relevance beyond just being the mass consumer that makes prints at WalMart.
I lot of really good pro photographers working today totally disagree with you. For example, watch this interview by the great David Allen Harvey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKv1rATlQnE
(jump to 1:30 in the video where he talks about shooting with his iPhone). Likewise, other pro photogs that I admire, such as Zack Arias, Jim Richardson, etc. all talk enthusiastically about shooting great photos with their iPhones. Here's Jim Richardson's Instagram gallery, mostly shot with his iPhone:
The reality is that today's smartphones produce very good quality, and it's a very good exercise to get good at shooting great images with these devices because it's really photography at its purist: a single focal length, a composition, the light, and shoot!
Another collection of images worth looking at:
Still think a smartphone isn't a "real camera"? Well, the problem is really in your head.
Anastigmat: Canon is an electronics company. You wonder why they haven't made a smartphone yet.
@Donnie G, you mind telling us what "parts" Canon makes for smartphones, because if they are any, they are probably trivial or incidental parts that are of little consequence to Canon's bottom line. To imply that Canon has any significant role in the manufacturing of smartphones that would add any additional significance to the statement "smartphones are not the enemy" is simply wishful thinking. You seem to imply that Canon is ok with smartphones because Canon "makes parts" for smartphones and would therefore make a lot of money off of smartphone sales. That's a ridiculous stretch. The reality is that Canon is merely acknowledging that smartphones aren't going away, are here to stay, and so their best strategy is to find ways to work with these ubiquitous devices, or work in areas where smartphones can't go.
DaytonR: I was amazed by the comment that Professional users wanted lighter lenses ...... :)
I think there are a lot of pro users who like to put on a brave face, and act as if carrying loads of heavy equipment is a badge of honor and something to be proud of. But after carrying a heavy gear bag for hours on end, with multiple bodies, and multiple Speedlites...it gets to be hard on your body. So while few pros may admit it to one another (although they seem to be admitting it quietly to Canon), weight and size is an issue. But no one wants to say, "My back and legs hurt because I'm carrying 30lbs of gear"...because it makes you sound weak. You also have to remember that weight is an issue when traveling, too. Especially for carry-on. There are a lot of airline weight restrictions now. Maybe studio photographers, or rich weekend warriors who shoot from their BMW's, don't care about the size and weight of their gear, but heavy bulky gear is just that...heavy and bulky. And if you can get the same results with lighter gear, why not?
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."
Donnie, you and Canon are both missing the point that a small body is only half the equation. The other half of the equation is the lenses. Their DSLR lenses are big. Offering a single 40mm pancake helps, but it's hardly a situation of "so many choices" or "a major strength of the Canon product portfolio." Sure, they can offer a bazillion Rebels, and Rebels to be one of the best options for someone who wanted a compact, easy-to-carry ILC camera. But that was before mirrorless ILC technology. Five years from now, is the Rebel still going to be the go-to camera for the photographer who wants a compact, easy-to-carry ILC? No, by then mirrorless ILC's are going to be that much more mature, and I think the flapping mirror and thick bodies of DSLRs-- along with their large size of DSLR lenses-- are going to look overly large, like a Motorola brick phone next to a slim smartphone.
As for bringing up Canon Powershots into this ILC topic, I think you're now just grasping at straws now.
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."
fdfgdfgdgf: "DSLRs can capture the moment better than mirrorless, because you're viewing directly, not through an LCD"
That was a good one
@photoguy622 - I think that's a generational thing, mainly coming from people who are used to the look of an OVF because that's what they grew up with. It reminds me of what film users say about digital, how they used to say the same thing: "there's just something 'better' and 'more realistic' about using film." Film is not digital, and digital is not film. But they both can still deliver great results. Same with EVF and OVF. EVF is not OVF, and OVF is not EVF, but they both can still deliver great results. It's just that the perception of which is the "nicer experience" is very subjective, and often influenced by what you're used to. Obviously, if you're used to how an OVF looks, that's the mental expectation you have.
But I do think that EVF quality and performance and look will evolve over time. I think we're still in the very early days of high quality EVF.
lacikuss: What is Mr. Olympus going to do when Full frame dslr becomes small and cheap?
it is happening already...
FF DSLRs aren't going to get any smaller than APS-C DSLRs, which are relatively large and fat compared to m4/3 bodies. And are FF lenses going to get any smaller? Nope. FF lenses are pretty huge compared to m4/3 lenses. I love my FF DSLR gear, but all of it is large, chunky, and fat compared to my m4/3 gear. That's why I have *both* FF and m4/3 gear...they each have their pros and cons, especially when it comes to the size of the gear! For work, I still mainly use my DSLR gear, but for my personal, casual, travel, street, and around-town shooting, I always grab my m4/3 camera.
It's great having the option of both. But I don't see FF DSLRs ever getting as small as m4/3 cameras. Add in lenses, and the difference in size is even greater. That's a physical size gap that won't ever be bridged. Maybe the price gap will shrink, but not everything is about price. With m4/3, part of the value proposition is the size of the equipment.
fuxicek: great camera but the lenses are somehow expensive, there is no budget 50mm or better 25mm f1.8 lens... for 100 euro you can get only toy lenses...:( ...and I wonder, if there is any small external flash, like Nikon´s SB400?
The way I see it, I'm paying a bit of a premium to have such ultra-compact lenses. Sure, some of my Canon DSLR lenses are cheaper, but they are also quite a bit larger. So in terms of value per dollar with m4/3 lenses, compact size is part of the value proposition. I guess it's like paying extra for a slim ultrabook, when bulkier laptops can be had for cheaper.
Now my only question is: black or silver?
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
@Donnie G- You find it entertaining. I find your "entertainment" pretty pathetic. It's like cheering that a new animal species has disappeared. "Woohoo! The polar bear has gone extinct! I win! Hehehe." Pretty sad that you find such things so enjoyable. But I suspect you're the kind of person who also enjoys firing people, too.
PinPoint: I predict Oly will make mirrorless camera with APSC and FF sensor not long from now, when competition gets stiffer...consumer are smarter now, not necessary bigger sensor always better but bigger sensor can bring image quality to the next higher level...
"...next higher level" for what? I think that's what people really need to ask themselves. I hear newbies and amateurs constantly saying that they want to get a new camera for "better image quality." Then I typically ask, "Better image quality for what? Why do you need it?" I usually get bewildered silence, or some inane answer like, "Because better is better"...which isn't really an answer at all.
We now live in an age where cameras are simply delivering stunning image quality. Unless you're a pro shooting for ad agencies, I think most people should work on developing their own photographic skills rather than constantly chasing "better image quality" for no concrete reason.
Anastigmat: After Olympus straight-jacketed itself with the 4/3 sensor, it has 2 choices
1. compete with mainstream camera makers using APS-C AND full frame sensors or
2. "push the envelope"
Unfortunately for Olympus's shareholders and fans, Olympus has chosen not to compete.
I use APS-C and FF. But I also use m4/3. I like m4/3 for what it is. It allows for lens sizes that simply aren't attainable with APS-C and FF. I guess that's why I like m4/3. Personally for me, if I had to consolidate down to only two formats for my own use, it would be m4/3 and FF. Small and big. But that's just me.
I'm not sure why you're getting any glee out of that. Less choice and less competition in the marketplace is a bad thing. Just because it may be a brand that you aren't using doesn't mean that you should find any enjoyment in the elimination of a company from the marketplace. Do we really want it to be a three or four brand market? Or a two or three brand market? Maybe you do, but I don't.
waxwaine: "Mirrorless is the future" ( with deep serious voice) ... jajaja(lol)You can't replace photographic experience with an lcd. Ask any photographer kow much they love the sound of mechanical shutter.Then, MILCs can be replaced by phones, but this is not the case for DSLRs.
@waxwaine - also, EVFs can automatically adjust their brightness depending on the ambient lighting. In low light, you can have EVF gain/amplification so that you get a much brighter, easier to see viewfinder image than you would with an OVF. Obviously, there's no way to dynamically boost the brightness of an OVF, let alone magnify it on demand, etc. Plus, unless you're using a FF DSLR, most OVF's aren't really that great anyways. So if anything, in the future, if you really want the biggest, brightest, most capable viewfinder possible, I think the choice will be EVF, not OVF.