Jogger
Veteran Member
That would be a huge waste of an FF sensor. Pancakes are compromised designs and will never match the quality of a real lens. It would be better to have an APSc or 43 sensor with a good lens.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon arrogance or truth?
- Thread starter dv312
- Start date
J
Jim Radcliffe
Guest
Two words... BULK & WEIGHT
I have been using Canon DSLRs ever since the Canon D30 hit the shelves. I have had a wonderful experience with my Canon gear but I have come to the point where I just don't use it the way I used to... and frankly, I don't want to use it due to those two words... bulk & weight.
I have had much more fun and frankly, more keepers using my MFT gear. My recent purchase of a Pentax K5 further opened my eyes. I bought a Canon 5D MKII about a year ago and have used it only a couple of times since I bought it. Now that is really ridiculous. When you spend that kind of money and then leave the camera on the shelf for lighter gear it's time to get rid of it.
There is no denying that the 5D MKII IQ is amazing and that Canon's L glass is also very good but the truth is.. what good is any of it if it's a pain in the butt to lug around and use or you leave it at home because of the bulk & weight?
My GH2 will arrive soon and that camera, along with the GF1 and K5 will be just about all I need for what I shoot.
The K5 is really all the DSLR I need.. and it is built like a very small tank. The 5D II feels very plastic in my hands and is not water sealed. While in New Orleans for Mardi Gras I was hit a couple of times with heavy rain. The K5 got soaked but I was not worried about it and it functioned perfectly before and after the soaking. I can't say the 5D would have done as well. Once it starts raining I always put the 5D away. Is the K5 as good as the 5D II? Yes in some ways, no in others but life is full of compromises and this time the Canon loses. I'm putting it all up for sale over the weekend. It's been a good friend but it's time for a change.
I think Canon and Nikon both are great systems but when you are that big you seem to think you know best what the customer wants and you also have a tendency to protect your line of products by not offering a competing system that might undercut your big sellers.
I don't think Canon is arrogant... I think they're in business and that just might be the reason they can't see the forest for the trees.
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.
I have been using Canon DSLRs ever since the Canon D30 hit the shelves. I have had a wonderful experience with my Canon gear but I have come to the point where I just don't use it the way I used to... and frankly, I don't want to use it due to those two words... bulk & weight.
I have had much more fun and frankly, more keepers using my MFT gear. My recent purchase of a Pentax K5 further opened my eyes. I bought a Canon 5D MKII about a year ago and have used it only a couple of times since I bought it. Now that is really ridiculous. When you spend that kind of money and then leave the camera on the shelf for lighter gear it's time to get rid of it.
There is no denying that the 5D MKII IQ is amazing and that Canon's L glass is also very good but the truth is.. what good is any of it if it's a pain in the butt to lug around and use or you leave it at home because of the bulk & weight?
My GH2 will arrive soon and that camera, along with the GF1 and K5 will be just about all I need for what I shoot.
The K5 is really all the DSLR I need.. and it is built like a very small tank. The 5D II feels very plastic in my hands and is not water sealed. While in New Orleans for Mardi Gras I was hit a couple of times with heavy rain. The K5 got soaked but I was not worried about it and it functioned perfectly before and after the soaking. I can't say the 5D would have done as well. Once it starts raining I always put the 5D away. Is the K5 as good as the 5D II? Yes in some ways, no in others but life is full of compromises and this time the Canon loses. I'm putting it all up for sale over the weekend. It's been a good friend but it's time for a change.
I think Canon and Nikon both are great systems but when you are that big you seem to think you know best what the customer wants and you also have a tendency to protect your line of products by not offering a competing system that might undercut your big sellers.
I don't think Canon is arrogant... I think they're in business and that just might be the reason they can't see the forest for the trees.
--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.boxedlight.com
The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear used to capture it.
aroundomaha
Veteran Member
Actually what disappoints me about that isn't their tone but that they apparently will not produce tools for anything except mass market. No specialization at all. The "avid" amatures want different things than the DSLR toting soccer parent.
To my mind this means more room for the company that is willing to innovate. Canon and Nikon are resting on their past success and current market share.
--
Aroundomaha
http://aroundomaha.smugmug.com/EP1
To my mind this means more room for the company that is willing to innovate. Canon and Nikon are resting on their past success and current market share.
--
Aroundomaha
http://aroundomaha.smugmug.com/EP1
Perhaps, but this isn't a comparable situation, at all.
I presume you are talking about "personal computers," back in the infancy of that market.
But here, we are talking about just one minor segment in a very, very mature market.
Canon will always sell more DSLR cameras than the entire mirrorless segment.
Canon will always sell more compact cameras than the entire mirrorless segment.
Canon has always been a very conservative company -- letting its competitors carve out new markets and new technologies, then shrewdly picking and choosing whether to compete in those markets or with those new technologies. If "knows how to make money" better than just about any other camera company, and presumably sees no need to cannibalize sales from its existing markets by entering the mirrorless segment.
Tom Hoots
http://thoots.zenfolio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomhoots/
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4330317199/albums
John Carson
Veteran Member
Mirrorless account for around 20% of the interchangeable lens market in Japan and there is every reason to expect that will spread to the rest of the world once supply bottlenecks are overcome and marketing is ramped up. Long term, mirrorless will account for virtually the entire interchangeable lens market.
In ten years, you will be lucky to find a DSLR from any manufacturer in the shops.
--
john carson
John Carson
Veteran Member
When technology is changing very rapidly, building things to last doesn't make a huge amount of sense. However building electronic components to last is easy to do when it does make sense.
--
john carson
This is exactly what I want to point out. This digital age is simply changing too fast. Anyway, we will see what happen in 20 years, which is the timeline of several important problems yet to solve, generated from this age.
John Carson
Veteran Member
When an electronic global shutter is developed, the limit on usable fps will be smashed. It could be, say 60 fps, which will be enormously attractive to sports photographers.
If autofocus performance can be made comparable to that of current high-end DSLRs, which I expect it can, then that will be the end of high-end DSLRs for sports shooting (EVFs will need to improve, but EVFs are currently used in the video cameras used to record sports events for television, so the core technology is already there). At this point, Joe Average will decide to jump ship too. Flapping mirrors will rapidly seem as obsolete as the typewriter.
The future is mirrorless, but that doesn't necessarily mean Panasonic and Olympus. It could be Sony or Nikon or, desperately scrambling to catch up, Canon.
--
john carson
If autofocus performance can be made comparable to that of current high-end DSLRs, which I expect it can, then that will be the end of high-end DSLRs for sports shooting (EVFs will need to improve, but EVFs are currently used in the video cameras used to record sports events for television, so the core technology is already there). At this point, Joe Average will decide to jump ship too. Flapping mirrors will rapidly seem as obsolete as the typewriter.
The future is mirrorless, but that doesn't necessarily mean Panasonic and Olympus. It could be Sony or Nikon or, desperately scrambling to catch up, Canon.
--
john carson
Jogger
Veteran Member
Wow. And people are saying that Canon is arrogant.. lol.
Once upon a time, Oly said that it would conquer the SLR world with their new fangled "Digital" lenses and superior sensor format. They even claim the FASTEST AF SLR IN THE WORLD.. lol.
The Canon rep just restated the company byline in a calm and collected manner. I doubt he cares what people on here think.
petr marek
Well-known member
I did the same.
I couldn´t adapt my small and ultrasharp rangefinder lenses on Canon and I didn´t have smooth and fast autofocus while shooting video, all because of that mirror. My camera bag is now much lighter with GH2 and M43 lenses and I can use ANY lens I want via adapter. That makes me happy
.
I couldn´t adapt my small and ultrasharp rangefinder lenses on Canon and I didn´t have smooth and fast autofocus while shooting video, all because of that mirror. My camera bag is now much lighter with GH2 and M43 lenses and I can use ANY lens I want via adapter. That makes me happy
.ThingsAbove
Forum Enthusiast
Sony's A-55 uses a pellicle-type semi-translucent mirror design (something Canon had years ago for sports photographers). It offers the best of both worlds in that it allows the quicker AF of a mirror design while the mirror itself doesn't move (except for sensor cleaning) so the camera is capable of 10fps. It uses an EVF as well since the transparent mirror doesn't deliver enough image brightness for an optical VF.
It is an APC sized sensor and the body size is about 2/3 of a typical Canon DSLR. I came very close to buying into that system rather than 2/3 but no local camera stores stocked it and I prefer to give my money to local businesses.
Anyway, that Sony design is a stepping stone to mirrorless (it's almost mirrorless) DSLR design.
MegaDon
Active member
Great Post. It is simple why the m43 format is going to enjoy a larger market share over time. Bulk and weight. This is a competetive advantage that the big honkin DSLRs can't compete against. As the m43 keeps improving it will consolidate and overtake some segment of the DSLR market.
Actually, I think the iPhone generation would just stick to taking photos with their iPhone and use apps to edit their photos, adding in shallow DOF, monochrome effects, etc.
Tim in upstate NY
Veteran Member
. . . I've been a Canon DSLR user for many years now since getting the original DRebel back in 2004. Before that I used a Minolta Maxxum 7000 which was and still is a good tool for shooting with film (my daughter was still using it with just the 50/1.7 lens up until a few years ago while in college). Now I've moved on to a more compact and user friendly system (m4/3) that suits my needs most of the time better than my 5DmkII which I still use for some purposes when image quality is paramount.
. . . Canon would have to do something truly exceptional with a new compact system to make me even think about changing systems again. If you don't pay attention to your customers' needs, they go somewhere else and it's not so easy to get them to come back. Minolta dropped away for me when it was time to go digital and now Canon has done the same thing when it was time to switch to a compact system.
. . . Canon would have to do something truly exceptional with a new compact system to make me even think about changing systems again. If you don't pay attention to your customers' needs, they go somewhere else and it's not so easy to get them to come back. Minolta dropped away for me when it was time to go digital and now Canon has done the same thing when it was time to switch to a compact system.
I beg to differ. I have a black Pentax KX (not the DSLR, the film SLR) that works perfectly even up to today, with match-needle metering intact. And even if the metering did conk out, everything else about the camera can still be operated without batteries. I still use it at times (as recently as last week), and note that this camera is from the 70's.
On the other hand, I also have a digital camera that's made by Toshiba (PDR series, back when they made digicams early this century). It's basically dead now.
SHood
Veteran Member
This is why you will never see something like the x100 from either Canon or Nikon. Looks like Fuji could own this niche market.
Michael Everett
Veteran Member
As the Canon guy said, (to paraphrase) mirrorless is selling in Asia and Europe but has yet to make much of a dent in the very large American market.
Well, duh, if Pany could get their act together and actually ship cameras to America then they might make a bigger dent in the American market. I am thinking of the GH2, the camera that can best give DSLR's a run for their money.
I don't think it's arrogant for one poster to claim that mirrorless will become the norm in ten years. I disagree, I think that will be the case in five. Mirrorless vs. DSLR is where film vs. digital was ten years ago. The digital was convenient but film was where you went when you wanted quality. It won't be long before Canikon are there with their mirrorless cameras. Digital technology, including EVF's, is moving faster, faster than mechanical technology. It's coming, it's coming.
Michael
Well, duh, if Pany could get their act together and actually ship cameras to America then they might make a bigger dent in the American market. I am thinking of the GH2, the camera that can best give DSLR's a run for their money.
I don't think it's arrogant for one poster to claim that mirrorless will become the norm in ten years. I disagree, I think that will be the case in five. Mirrorless vs. DSLR is where film vs. digital was ten years ago. The digital was convenient but film was where you went when you wanted quality. It won't be long before Canikon are there with their mirrorless cameras. Digital technology, including EVF's, is moving faster, faster than mechanical technology. It's coming, it's coming.
Michael
SteB
Veteran Member
I own both a Canon DSLR system and an Olympus 4/3 system. Also I've been commenting about where things are heading since the m4/3 systems was first announced.
There are quite a few partial truths in what Rainer Fuehres says, but also what he says conceals a lot of truths that I suspect that Rainer Fuehres would be less willing to talk about.
Canon and Nikon have been doing very nicely our of the DSLR boom, and it's been very profitable for them, far more profitable than compact digital cameras. They have an edge in DSLR technology that they wouldn't want to give up. A DSLR is a curious mix of electronic technology and old fashioned mechanical technology. It is not an easy technology to master and even the giant Panasonic had to buy mirrobox components off Olympus for their DSLRs, with the giant Samsung also being beholden to the much smaller Pentax for a similar reason. It's not just about mirror box assemblies, but how this integrates with other components like AF. This gives Canon and Nikon an edge and it means that without gigantic R&D and investment no one is ever going to out-compete them. So Canon and Nikon are for the moment very happy with the pre-eminence of the DSLR. The main dilemma for Canon and Nikon is that DSLRs probably have a limited life, and as soon as the AF and viewfinder technology on mirrorless ILCs passes a certain tipping point, the DSLRs will lose their pre-eminence.
It is not in Canon or Nikon's interest to compete with mirrorless systems at the moment. Most of what gives them the edge with DSLRs, would not give them an edge with mirrorless cameras. Their only edge would be consumer loyalty and a large system of DSLR lenses. There is no evidence that Canon or Nikon would be any better at making mirrorless cameras and improving AF in them and viewfinder technology than anyone else. In fact they would on the face of it be at a disadvantage to the electronic giants like Panasonic, Sony and Samsung, who have a much better base of the core electronics technology necessary for improving the performance of mirrorless cameras.
Likewise if and when Canon or Nikon introduce a mirrorless system it would necessarily compete with their own successful and profitable DSLRs. Whilst Canon and Nikon can design their own mirrorless cameras in such a way that they aren't competing so directly with their DSLRs, this will rather handicap what they can produce, as ultimately mirrorless systems are supposed to compete with DSLRs. By this I mean as a tool, DSLRs and mirrorless ILCs are both meant to be portable systems for producing high quality stills, and now video i.e. they occupy a similar photographic niche.
Sony have also tied themselves into a bit of a knot with 2 systems that will ultimately compete with each other. Once AF develops past a certain tipping point with mirrorless systems, there will be little point in Sony's SLT cameras. This will leave Sony with a bit of a headache as obviously a NEX camera of the GH2 type class is self-evidently going to be a serious competitor to Sony's own SLT cameras. It will create rather odd dynamics.
I've said from the moment m4/3 was announced, Canon in particular would be loathe to introduce a mirrorless system. If Canon introduce a mirrorless system it will inevitably start raising questions about the long term future of their very profitable DSLR system.
The irony for Canon is that the better the mirrorless ILC system they introduce, the bigger the headache for them. Just let's hypothetically say that Canon introduced a mirrorless ILC camera that had much better performance and functionality that the Panasonic GH2. Being that the GH2 is already competing against some Canon DSLRs the problem should be obvious. The better the Canon ILC, the bigger the problem problem of internal niche competition for Canon (you can probably tell I'm an ecologist). Canon can only get around this by purposely designing their ILC system not to directly compete with their DSLRs. However, this would clearly restrain their design of ILCs - as self-evidently the very purpose of the ILC is to serve a niche currently occupied by DSLRs. So this is the bit of truth Rainer Fuehres was not talking about, and would almost certainly not want to talk about.
There are quite a few partial truths in what Rainer Fuehres says, but also what he says conceals a lot of truths that I suspect that Rainer Fuehres would be less willing to talk about.
Canon and Nikon have been doing very nicely our of the DSLR boom, and it's been very profitable for them, far more profitable than compact digital cameras. They have an edge in DSLR technology that they wouldn't want to give up. A DSLR is a curious mix of electronic technology and old fashioned mechanical technology. It is not an easy technology to master and even the giant Panasonic had to buy mirrobox components off Olympus for their DSLRs, with the giant Samsung also being beholden to the much smaller Pentax for a similar reason. It's not just about mirror box assemblies, but how this integrates with other components like AF. This gives Canon and Nikon an edge and it means that without gigantic R&D and investment no one is ever going to out-compete them. So Canon and Nikon are for the moment very happy with the pre-eminence of the DSLR. The main dilemma for Canon and Nikon is that DSLRs probably have a limited life, and as soon as the AF and viewfinder technology on mirrorless ILCs passes a certain tipping point, the DSLRs will lose their pre-eminence.
It is not in Canon or Nikon's interest to compete with mirrorless systems at the moment. Most of what gives them the edge with DSLRs, would not give them an edge with mirrorless cameras. Their only edge would be consumer loyalty and a large system of DSLR lenses. There is no evidence that Canon or Nikon would be any better at making mirrorless cameras and improving AF in them and viewfinder technology than anyone else. In fact they would on the face of it be at a disadvantage to the electronic giants like Panasonic, Sony and Samsung, who have a much better base of the core electronics technology necessary for improving the performance of mirrorless cameras.
Likewise if and when Canon or Nikon introduce a mirrorless system it would necessarily compete with their own successful and profitable DSLRs. Whilst Canon and Nikon can design their own mirrorless cameras in such a way that they aren't competing so directly with their DSLRs, this will rather handicap what they can produce, as ultimately mirrorless systems are supposed to compete with DSLRs. By this I mean as a tool, DSLRs and mirrorless ILCs are both meant to be portable systems for producing high quality stills, and now video i.e. they occupy a similar photographic niche.
Sony have also tied themselves into a bit of a knot with 2 systems that will ultimately compete with each other. Once AF develops past a certain tipping point with mirrorless systems, there will be little point in Sony's SLT cameras. This will leave Sony with a bit of a headache as obviously a NEX camera of the GH2 type class is self-evidently going to be a serious competitor to Sony's own SLT cameras. It will create rather odd dynamics.
I've said from the moment m4/3 was announced, Canon in particular would be loathe to introduce a mirrorless system. If Canon introduce a mirrorless system it will inevitably start raising questions about the long term future of their very profitable DSLR system.
The irony for Canon is that the better the mirrorless ILC system they introduce, the bigger the headache for them. Just let's hypothetically say that Canon introduced a mirrorless ILC camera that had much better performance and functionality that the Panasonic GH2. Being that the GH2 is already competing against some Canon DSLRs the problem should be obvious. The better the Canon ILC, the bigger the problem problem of internal niche competition for Canon (you can probably tell I'm an ecologist). Canon can only get around this by purposely designing their ILC system not to directly compete with their DSLRs. However, this would clearly restrain their design of ILCs - as self-evidently the very purpose of the ILC is to serve a niche currently occupied by DSLRs. So this is the bit of truth Rainer Fuehres was not talking about, and would almost certainly not want to talk about.
Sam Bennett
Veteran Member
Tom Hoots wrote:
.
--
Sam Bennett
http://www.swiftbennett.com
http://www.flickr.com/sambennett/
.
If you believe Olympus and Panasonic's numbers, the market they've identified is actually larger than the entire dSLR market. That's part of the reason they've invested so heavily to address it. Now, whether serving that market requires a CSC is another question - I personally suspect not.
This is probably true. People seem to ignore that the compact market is huge - much larger than the dSLR market. Of course, this market is in a lot of flux - it's being eroded by phone cameras on one side, and CSCs and dSLRs on the other. That ultimately is where the biggest threat to Canon is.
I agree. And again, if the other manufacturers are able to define the market, Canon would be in an excellent position to introduce a product into it, without having to fight to define it.
--
Sam Bennett
http://www.swiftbennett.com
http://www.flickr.com/sambennett/
Agree,
And it shows in Canon's product development over the past few years - very incremental - 'we've got you and we know it.' The most revolutionary thing was video on the 5D, but that was some time ago now. Maybe the 5D MkIII may do something but...
The video debate was that they wouldn't risk making video too good in their SLRs - else they would canabalise camcorder sales.
Nikon are similar, no camcorders, but plenty of Pro DSLR users.
Carl
--
http://www.cdmc.smugmug.com
And it shows in Canon's product development over the past few years - very incremental - 'we've got you and we know it.' The most revolutionary thing was video on the 5D, but that was some time ago now. Maybe the 5D MkIII may do something but...
The video debate was that they wouldn't risk making video too good in their SLRs - else they would canabalise camcorder sales.
Nikon are similar, no camcorders, but plenty of Pro DSLR users.
Carl
--
http://www.cdmc.smugmug.com
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum