They're horrible, and not improving. DSLRs are "out there" already. Sales should have plateaued. Sales should only be to existing owners upgrading, and a few new entrants. If mirrorless cameras are the next best thing, they should be dominating as all the dSLR owners buy into the system, and there should be more upgraders from other areas because they are so much better.
I guess I just don't understand where your getting your information that sales are horrible.
How about from your article above? Around a quarter of dSLR sales (and flat), when they should be growing like crazy if they really are as great as the proponents claim.
You and I must be reading different articles here is a quote from dpreview:
Umm... are you looking at the same article? In two consecutive quarters the proportion of mirrorless sales increased at very roughly the same rate as the smart phones have in the same period (according to your graph), and it's done so in all of the markets except "other countries".
From the article:
I expect them to be dominating if they are as good as the proponents say they are. They aren't dominating, so either they aren't as good as the proponents say they are, or they are just being marketed very poorly. I'd say it's the former, hence my question - what can Canon do to make them interesting?
I understand what you're saying and I'm not sure what Canon could do to make them more widely accepted or interesting.
Here is what would make it interesting for me:
They're way too big.
That would be helpful.
At least the kit zoom needs to retract inside the body.
Think more along the lines of the G1X sensor.
Try 12,800.
Can't see a reason for that.
Well, it's better than an LCD or the crappy OVF on the G-series.
Body only? I'd say $599 or less, $699 with kit lens.
I'd want on-sensor PDAF like the Nikons,
The NEX camera body is really small and light so are you talking about the lenses? Hard to see the camera getting any lighter and smaller.
Great idea, but then the body cannot be really small unless the kit lens is only a small prime.
The Sony NEX is supposed to have a sensor close to the size of the current Canon crop cameras. Isn't the G1X sensor smaller than that? Why would you want a smaller sensor?
Again, why? I always assume that the top ISO is unusable except under extreme need so 25600 might make 12800 actually usable. At least it would make 6400 fully usable.
Well, that would be better but it is hard to see how they could do that.
I am not familiar with what a PDAF is.
Body and lenses, but mostly lenses.
The G1X lens retracts mostly inside the body.
To get a smaller system.
Because that's a practical limit for the sensor in the G1X.
Then they might as well not bother, IMHO.
Phase Detection Auto Focus. It's what makes SLRs focus so much faster and track so much better than mirrorless systems or compacts, and it's what the Sony adapter adds for the same reasons.
Why do some people perpetuate this myth? The Canon Powershot G1X is not overpriced. Even at Full retail. Some even sell it at under $749 but not because they can't sell it at full retail but because they are trying to compete with rival stores to build a regular customer base. At $749 it's a STEAL. Many serial cameras are replaced annually but not always. Canon have already formally stated that the G1X is not a successor to the G12 but a separate machine in another class. An example is the excellent Canon Powershot Pro1 which was not subjected to any successor since 2004. How many people waited year after year for a Pro2? How many excellent pictures did they miss because they wanted to wait for something that didn't exist?
The G1X already outperforms the Nikon1 in image quality.
You can get a Canon T2i with kit lens for $649 which will out-perform the G1X in every way except compactness. You can get a T3i with kit lens for $749. That's why the G1X seems overpriced.
Probably none.
I'd give up some image quality for the speed and performance of a camera like the Nikon 1. According to the dpreview review, the Nikon 1 has fast and accurate phase-detection tracking AF and exceptional continuous shooting rates - up to 60 fps. That's important to me for some of the types of photos I take.
A steal of buyer's money. But that is ok. There is one sucker born every second anyway. Canon wants us to believe that G1x is not a follow-up of G12 so that they could sell it at higher price. But with the advance of technology Canon should be able to price G1x at G12's and get similar profit margin. By the way I am glad that I picked up LX5 at $275 (new) and satisfited with the result I am getting even though I was initially interested in G12.
