Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon's pincer movement

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hap Mullenneaux
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
H

Hap Mullenneaux

Guest
Why has Canon packed so much into it's S series?
Why didn't Canon replace the Pro 90IS?
Why has Canon brought the price of DSLR's down so fast?

The latest announcements suggest a master plan. Canon hasn't gone after the bulky fixed lens prosumer cameras like the Sony F717 because that market is slated for extinction. Canon has been lowering the entry price for DSLR's ever since it introduced the D30. It's aggressive pricing is not only giving it command of the DSLR market, it is eliminating the market below it. Meanwhile we see full featured S series cameras rivaling the G3 in image quality. The price gap between the pocket point and shoot and the digital SLR is closing. Soon the only digitals that will make sense will be cheap P&S, pocket P&S, and SLR. Sounds just like the current state of 35mm film cameras, doesn't it? Remember how the bulky fixed lens 35mm rangefinders like the Canonet were pushed out by affordable SLR's?

Look at the recent Canon announcements. We have the cheap P&S in the A series, the pocket P&S in the S series, and the new 10D. There is still enough room between the S50 at $600 and the 10D at $1,500 street price for a G3 type camera to exist for awhile. In the long run, however, Canon would rather introduce you to its fine family of lenses.
Just my two bits,
Hap
 
Hap Mullenneaux said:
Canon hasn't gone after the bulky fixed lens prosumer cameras like the Sony F717 because that market is slated for extinction.
Click to expand...
According to who?
Member said:
Canon has been lowering the entry price for DSLR's ever since it introduced the D30. It's aggressive pricing is not only giving it command of the DSLR market, it is eliminating the market below it.
Click to expand...
The pricing may be aggressive, but all it'll do, IMO, is push down the price of ZLEVs. The very capable Fuji 602 is already selling at $500 street price. How long will it be for a D-SLR to reach that price level?

The D10 body is 30+ ounces, much heavier than the heaviest ZLEV. Even the lightest D-SLR body, the Pentax *ist, at 18 ounces, is the same weight as a Nikon 5700. Add a 5x to 8x zoom lens and the D-SLRs become back breakers when compared to the ZLEVs.

ZLEVs are also far smaller in overall size. All the current D-SLRs, even the Pentax *ist, are handcuffed by the need to maintain backward compatibility with 35mm camera lens mounts.

No interchangeable lens D-SLR, as yet, has solved the problem of a live preview. For the consumer level, this is a big selling point.
Member said:
Canon would rather introduce you to its fine family of lenses.
Click to expand...
The D10 is $1500 for the body only. How much would it cost to match the 5x to 8x zooms built into the ZLEVs? You could keep the cost under $2000 with Sigma lenses, but Canon glass? No way.

--
BigWaveDave
 
BigWaveDave said:
Hap Mullenneaux said:
Canon hasn't gone after the bulky fixed lens prosumer cameras like the Sony F717 because that market is slated for extinction.
Click to expand...
According to who?
BigWaveDave said:
Canon has been lowering the entry price for DSLR's ever since it introduced the D30. It's aggressive pricing is not only giving it command of the DSLR market, it is eliminating the market below it.
Click to expand...
The pricing may be aggressive, but all it'll do, IMO, is push down
the price of ZLEVs. The very capable Fuji 602 is already selling
at $500 street price. How long will it be for a D-SLR to reach
that price level?
Click to expand...
The point is that it doesn't matter if it never reaches that level. The main market for ZLEVs (hey, I like that acronym!) has been amateur photographers who can't justify dropping $2000+ on a body, not including lenses. Many of them probably still have film gear with lenses, too. They're the ones who have been dropping $1000+ on ZLEVs. They'll still be willing to drop $1000+ on a camera -- and if they can get a real D-SLR, with everything that entails, they're likely not to even consider a ZLEV, with the depth-of-field, sensitivity, and responsiveness issues they have, no matter how cheap they are.
BigWaveDave said:
The D10 body is 30+ ounces, much heavier than the heaviest ZLEV.
Even the lightest D-SLR body, the Pentax *ist, at 18 ounces, is the
same weight as a Nikon 5700. Add a 5x to 8x zoom lens and the
D-SLRs become back breakers when compared to the ZLEVs.
Click to expand...
Why would you want to add a 5x to 8x zoom lens? I wouldn't. I'dd add a prime, and keep the weight and bulk down to the same ballpark as a ZLEV -- and get significantly better image quality into the bargain.
BigWaveDave said:
ZLEVs are also far smaller in overall size. All the current
D-SLRs, even the Pentax *ist, are handcuffed by the need to
maintain backward compatibility with 35mm camera lens mounts.

No interchangeable lens D-SLR, as yet, has solved the problem of a
live preview. For the consumer level, this is a big selling point.
Click to expand...
Yep, for the CONSUMER level. The point is that the main ZLEV market isn't consumer level -- it's people who'd like a D-SLR but can't justify the cost (or the weight).
BigWaveDave said:
BigWaveDave said:
Canon would rather introduce you to its fine family of lenses.
Click to expand...
The D10 is $1500 for the body only. How much would it cost to
match the 5x to 8x zooms built into the ZLEVs? You could keep the
cost under $2000 with Sigma lenses, but Canon glass? No way.
Click to expand...
Sure you could -- just get a couple of primes instead of a zoom. Hey, with the Pentax, you can even get those primes used for real cheap.

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/
 
These are people who can't program the clock in their VCRs.

All in one is an attractive design for people who just want to snap a few family pics.

I agree, though, that the prices will be coming down -- way down, thanks partly to Canon.
Hap Mullenneaux said:
Why has Canon packed so much into it's S series?
Why didn't Canon replace the Pro 90IS?
Why has Canon brought the price of DSLR's down so fast?
The latest announcements suggest a master plan. Canon hasn't gone
after the bulky fixed lens prosumer cameras like the Sony F717
because that market is slated for extinction. Canon has been
lowering the entry price for DSLR's ever since it introduced the
D30. It's aggressive pricing is not only giving it command of the
DSLR market, it is eliminating the market below it. Meanwhile we
see full featured S series cameras rivaling the G3 in image
quality. The price gap between the pocket point and shoot and the
digital SLR is closing. Soon the only digitals that will make
sense will be cheap P&S, pocket P&S, and SLR. Sounds just like
the current state of 35mm film cameras, doesn't it? Remember how
the bulky fixed lens 35mm rangefinders like the Canonet were pushed
out by affordable SLR's?
Look at the recent Canon announcements. We have the cheap P&S in
the A series, the pocket P&S in the S series, and the new 10D.
There is still enough room between the S50 at $600 and the 10D at
$1,500 street price for a G3 type camera to exist for awhile. In
the long run, however, Canon would rather introduce you to its fine
family of lenses.
Just my two bits,
Hap
--
Click to expand...
 
My opinion is just opinion but it is interesting that over the course of 50 years the 35mm film camera evolved into three catagories: cheap, small or interchangeable lens SLR. Big and relatively expensive fixed lens film cameras like the ones from Olympus appear to have a very small following. As DSLR's continue to become smaller and/or cheaper, why will it be any different with digital? Cameras like the Coolpix 5700, Olympus E20 and Sony F717 will be the worst of both worlds. Still suffering from some P&S limitations but too big to keep with you all the time. The whole idea of these cameras is that they are all-purpose. Direct competition from a DSLR with a much larger sensor exposes what they can't do, like shoot at high ISO, limit DOF, etc.
Hap
 
Petteri Sulonen said:
BigWaveDave said:
Hap Mullenneaux said:
Canon hasn't gone after the bulky fixed lens prosumer cameras like the Sony F717 because that market is slated for extinction.
Click to expand...
According to who?
Petteri Sulonen said:
Canon has been lowering the entry price for DSLR's ever since it introduced the D30. It's aggressive pricing is not only giving it command of the DSLR market, it is eliminating the market below it.
Click to expand...
The pricing may be aggressive, but all it'll do, IMO, is push down
the price of ZLEVs. The very capable Fuji 602 is already selling
at $500 street price. How long will it be for a D-SLR to reach
that price level?
Click to expand...
The point is that it doesn't matter if it never reaches that
level. The main market for ZLEVs (hey, I like that acronym!) has
been amateur photographers who can't justify dropping $2000+ on a
body, not including lenses. Many of them probably still have film
gear with lenses, too. They're the ones who have been dropping
$1000+ on ZLEVs. They'll still be willing to drop $1000+ on a
camera -- and if they can get a real D-SLR, with everything that
entails, they're likely not to even consider a ZLEV, with the
depth-of-field, sensitivity, and responsiveness issues they have,
no matter how cheap they are.
Click to expand...
Sure it matters if D-SLRs never reach the level of ZLEVs. You're forgetting about the market below the ZLEVs. You think none of those consumers have higher aspirations?
Petteri Sulonen said:
Petteri Sulonen said:
The D10 body is 30+ ounces, much heavier than the heaviest ZLEV.
Even the lightest D-SLR body, the Pentax *ist, at 18 ounces, is the
same weight as a Nikon 5700. Add a 5x to 8x zoom lens and the
D-SLRs become back breakers when compared to the ZLEVs.
Click to expand...
Why would you want to add a 5x to 8x zoom lens? I wouldn't. I'dd
add a prime, and keep the weight and bulk down to the same ballpark
as a ZLEV -- and get significantly better image quality into the
bargain.
Click to expand...
Add one prime to a D10 and you'll be roughly twice the weight of a Nikon 5700. Now, how many primes are you gonna need to match the 5700's 8x zoom range? I'd say 4 minimum. There's just no comparison here ...
Petteri Sulonen said:
Petteri Sulonen said:
ZLEVs are also far smaller in overall size. All the current
D-SLRs, even the Pentax *ist, are handcuffed by the need to
maintain backward compatibility with 35mm camera lens mounts.

No interchangeable lens D-SLR, as yet, has solved the problem of a
live preview. For the consumer level, this is a big selling point.
Click to expand...
Yep, for the CONSUMER level. The point is that the main ZLEV
market isn't consumer level -- it's people who'd like a D-SLR but
can't justify the cost (or the weight).
Click to expand...
Disagree. I am a consumer. I have no "pro" aspirations. I don't think you can so easily generalize the user base for any camera. But I agree about cost and weight considerations. I'll add size in there, too.
Petteri Sulonen said:
Petteri Sulonen said:
Petteri Sulonen said:
Canon would rather introduce you to its fine family of lenses.
Click to expand...
The D10 is $1500 for the body only. How much would it cost to
match the 5x to 8x zooms built into the ZLEVs? You could keep the
cost under $2000 with Sigma lenses, but Canon glass? No way.
Click to expand...
Sure you could -- just get a couple of primes instead of a zoom.
Hey, with the Pentax, you can even get those primes used for real
cheap.
Click to expand...
Well, I was thinking about 1 lens, but obviously one the main attractions with a D-SLR is interchangeable lenses. But I still don't think 4 Canon primes are gonna keep you under $2000. Now, you could get by with two of Canon's lesser priced zooms, say a 20-35 and a 28-135, but again, you'll be adding to the overall size and weight.

--
BigWaveDave
 
Hap Mullenneaux said:
Why has Canon packed so much into it's S series?
Why didn't Canon replace the Pro 90IS?
Why has Canon brought the price of DSLR's down so fast?
The latest announcements suggest a master plan. Canon hasn't gone
after the bulky fixed lens prosumer cameras like the Sony F717
because that market is slated for extinction. Canon has been
lowering the entry price for DSLR's ever since it introduced the
D30. It's aggressive pricing is not only giving it command of the
DSLR market, it is eliminating the market below it. Meanwhile we
see full featured S series cameras rivaling the G3 in image
quality. The price gap between the pocket point and shoot and the
digital SLR is closing. Soon the only digitals that will make
sense will be cheap P&S, pocket P&S, and SLR. Sounds just like
the current state of 35mm film cameras, doesn't it? Remember how
the bulky fixed lens 35mm rangefinders like the Canonet were pushed
out by affordable SLR's?
Look at the recent Canon announcements. We have the cheap P&S in
the A series, the pocket P&S in the S series, and the new 10D.
There is still enough room between the S50 at $600 and the 10D at
$1,500 street price for a G3 type camera to exist for awhile. In
the long run, however, Canon would rather introduce you to its fine
family of lenses.
Just my two bits,
Hap
--
Click to expand...
"Prosumer" cameras were dealt the deathnell blow this week with the announcement of the Canon 10D. Next year (perhaps this) DSLR's will come down to a pricepoint that it would be stupid to waste your money on a prosumer model when a true DSLR costs the same thing. There will always be a market for point and shoots, but not for prosumer cameras.
 
Petteri Sulonen said:
Matthew Cromer said:
http://www.pbase.com/image/4887622

I keep hearing how you can't limit DOF with, for example the Sony
717. I think the case is overstated pretty severely.
Click to expand...
Nice, and clearly better than what my D7i can do: the faster lens
does make a difference. However, I'd like to be able to do
something like this:

http://www.seittipaja.fi/budapest/crop0077.jpg

I couldn't have taken a picture like this at a longer focal length.
Click to expand...
That's a very nice picture Petteri. I assume that was taken by a D-SLR? What focal length and exposure are we talking about here? (BTW, took a peek at your album(s) - really beautiful pictures).

As far as limiting DOF, I agree it's more difficult than with a D-SLR. However, it can be done. For example, for this shot I focused on the tree, which is on a plane closer to the camera than the squirrel. The DOF was enough to keep the squirrel's head in focus, but the back of the squirrel is slightly out of focus:



--
BigWaveDave
 
Let's not forget that 35mm film cameras come in three categories. The above mentioned pocket cams and SLRs, but also Leica type rangefinders - pocketable (in large pockets) but enabling taking quality pictures. There is still the void to be filled in the digital field.

There is a place for a Leica-sized, handy camera with a good EVF (much better than today), large movable LCD, interchangeable lenses. I would want one.

Dan
 
BigWaveDave wrote:
[snip]
BigWaveDave said:
Sure it matters if D-SLRs never reach the level of ZLEVs. You're
forgetting about the market below the ZLEVs. You think none of
those consumers have higher aspirations?
Click to expand...
I think that once they do have higher aspirations, they'll get an SLR. That's what's happened in film. All-in-ones like the excellent Olympus Centurion are pretty rare. It's a niche market.

[snip]
BigWaveDave said:
Add one prime to a D10 and you'll be roughly twice the weight of a
Nikon 5700. Now, how many primes are you gonna need to match the
5700's 8x zoom range? I'd say 4 minimum. There's just no
comparison here ...
Click to expand...
I agree, the D10 is big. That's why I'm actually drooling for the *ist. As to "how many primes," I'd say about three or four. However, speaking only for myself, I'd dispense with the tele and get a 20, 35, and 50 instead, of which I'd probably pack two on any given shoot. Yep, still bigger than the 5700, but about the same heft as the Minolta D7i, which is well within my willing-to-carry envelope.
BigWaveDave said:
BigWaveDave said:
BigWaveDave said:
ZLEVs are also far smaller in overall size. All the current
D-SLRs, even the Pentax *ist, are handcuffed by the need to
maintain backward compatibility with 35mm camera lens mounts.

No interchangeable lens D-SLR, as yet, has solved the problem of a
live preview. For the consumer level, this is a big selling point.
Click to expand...
Yep, for the CONSUMER level. The point is that the main ZLEV
market isn't consumer level -- it's people who'd like a D-SLR but
can't justify the cost (or the weight).
Click to expand...
Disagree. I am a consumer. I have no "pro" aspirations. I don't
think you can so easily generalize the user base for any camera.
But I agree about cost and weight considerations. I'll add size in
there, too.
Click to expand...
Sorry for using "consumer" carelessly: pros are consumers too. I'm trying to make the distinction between the PnS crowd and the advanced-amateur crowd. The main market for ZLEV's has been the advanced-amateur crowd. I think most of us will migrate to D-SLR's once the price drops below the pain threshold... while the PnS'ers will want something easy to carry and easy to use.

[snip]
BigWaveDave said:
BigWaveDave said:
Sure you could -- just get a couple of primes instead of a zoom.
Hey, with the Pentax, you can even get those primes used for real
cheap.
Click to expand...
Well, I was thinking about 1 lens, but obviously one the main
attractions with a D-SLR is interchangeable lenses. But I still
don't think 4 Canon primes are gonna keep you under $2000.
Click to expand...
Including the $1500 body? Nope. However, the pill gets a lot sweeter if you take into consideration that (1) you can get many of these used for 20%-50% off the normal street price, (2) you don't need to get them all at once, (3) they retain their value much, much better than any ZLEV -- you can keep using them for decades, after bodies have come and gone. A body is an expense: a good lens is an investment.

Here are some prices I picked up from a European web store (after I subtracted the VAT). You can very likely find better deals Stateside (or even elsewhere in Europe, if you hunt around a bit more than I did):

+ 20 mm f/2.8 USM: ca $500 (a medium wide on the 10D)
+ 35 mm f/2 USM: ca $300 (normal)
+ 50 mm f/1.8 II: ca $90 (short tele/portrait)
+ 135 f/2.8 USM: ca $350 (medium tele)
+ 2x Extender II: ca $370

At the single shop where I just checked the prices, they only listed L lenses for 200 mm and up: this does get mroe expensive:

+ 200 mm f/2.8L II: ca $800
BigWaveDave said:
Now,
you could get by with two of Canon's lesser priced zooms, say a
20-35 and a 28-135, but again, you'll be adding to the overall size
and weight.
Click to expand...
But I don't want zooms! Zooms make me take sloppy photos, and the lesser-priced ones are slow.

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/
 
Dan Wajnman said:
Let's not forget that 35mm film cameras come in three categories.
The above mentioned pocket cams and SLRs, but also Leica type
rangefinders - pocketable (in large pockets) but enabling taking
quality pictures. There is still the void to be filled in the
digital field.
There is a place for a Leica-sized, handy camera with a good EVF
(much better than today), large movable LCD, interchangeable
lenses. I would want one.

Dan
Click to expand...
Me too!
 
BigWaveDave said:
Petteri Sulonen said:
Matthew Cromer said:
http://www.pbase.com/image/4887622

I keep hearing how you can't limit DOF with, for example the Sony
717. I think the case is overstated pretty severely.
Click to expand...
Nice, and clearly better than what my D7i can do: the faster lens
does make a difference. However, I'd like to be able to do
something like this:

http://www.seittipaja.fi/budapest/crop0077.jpg

I couldn't have taken a picture like this at a longer focal length.
Click to expand...
That's a very nice picture Petteri. I assume that was taken by a
D-SLR? What focal length and exposure are we talking about here?
(BTW, took a peek at your album(s) - really beautiful pictures).
Click to expand...
Thanks. This is film: Canon AE-1, 50 mm f/1.4 SSC, Kodak T-Max 400. Aperture f/1.4, shutter speed probably 1/60 or 1/125, I don't remember exactly. I took it hand-held, and I don't like to go below that unless it's absolutely necessary.
BigWaveDave said:
As far as limiting DOF, I agree it's more difficult than with a
D-SLR. However, it can be done. For example, for this shot I
focused on the tree, which is on a plane closer to the camera than
the squirrel. The DOF was enough to keep the squirrel's head in
focus, but the back of the squirrel is slightly out of focus:

Click to expand...
Good capture: I bet you hunted for this one a while. With small subjects and long tele (or macro), the DoF issue goes away. I like to work near normal focal lengths, though, and here I bump into the limit all the time.

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/
 
Dan Wajnman said:
Let's not forget that 35mm film cameras come in three categories.
The above mentioned pocket cams and SLRs, but also Leica type
rangefinders - pocketable (in large pockets) but enabling taking
quality pictures. There is still the void to be filled in the
digital field.
There is a place for a Leica-sized, handy camera with a good EVF
(much better than today), large movable LCD, interchangeable
lenses. I would want one.
Click to expand...
You have to have very big pockets to pocket a Leica M (with lens). It's actually heavier and bigger than my Canon AE-1 SLR: the sleeker lines only make it look more compact. The lenses are generally smaller, though.

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/
 
The early Leicas with collapsible lenses fitted pretty well in coat pockets.

Since digital sensors are small, "digital lenses" are small, as you mention, easily retracting into the camera body. All we need is a really good EVF and a large, movable LCD ( EVEN SMALL VIDEO CAMERAS HAVE ONE!).

Dan
Petteri Sulonen said:
Dan Wajnman said:
Let's not forget that 35mm film cameras come in three categories.
The above mentioned pocket cams and SLRs, but also Leica type
rangefinders - pocketable (in large pockets) but enabling taking
quality pictures. There is still the void to be filled in the
digital field.
There is a place for a Leica-sized, handy camera with a good EVF
(much better than today), large movable LCD, interchangeable
lenses. I would want one.
Click to expand...
You have to have very big pockets to pocket a Leica M (with
lens). It's actually heavier and bigger than my Canon AE-1 SLR: the
sleeker lines only make it look more compact. The lenses are
generally smaller, though.

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/
Click to expand...
 
Petteri Sulonen said:
BigWaveDave said:
Petteri Sulonen said:
Matthew Cromer said:
http://www.pbase.com/image/4887622

I keep hearing how you can't limit DOF with, for example the Sony
717. I think the case is overstated pretty severely.
Click to expand...
Nice, and clearly better than what my D7i can do: the faster lens
does make a difference. However, I'd like to be able to do
something like this:

http://www.seittipaja.fi/budapest/crop0077.jpg

I couldn't have taken a picture like this at a longer focal length.
Click to expand...
That's a very nice picture Petteri. I assume that was taken by a
D-SLR? What focal length and exposure are we talking about here?
(BTW, took a peek at your album(s) - really beautiful pictures).
Click to expand...
Thanks. This is film: Canon AE-1, 50 mm f/1.4 SSC, Kodak T-Max 400.
Aperture f/1.4, shutter speed probably 1/60 or 1/125, I don't
remember exactly. I took it hand-held, and I don't like to go below
that unless it's absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...
Well now, that's not playing fair. That 50mm f/1.4 turns into an 80mm telephoto on a D10. You'd need to be in the 28-35mm range, and then, of course, you're gonna have greater DOF.
Petteri Sulonen said:
Petteri Sulonen said:
As far as limiting DOF, I agree it's more difficult than with a
D-SLR. However, it can be done. For example, for this shot I
focused on the tree, which is on a plane closer to the camera than
the squirrel. The DOF was enough to keep the squirrel's head in
focus, but the back of the squirrel is slightly out of focus:

http://www.pbase.com/image/12812235/original.jpg
Click to expand...
Good capture: I bet you hunted for this one a while. With small
subjects and long tele (or macro), the DoF issue goes away. I like
to work near normal focal lengths, though, and here I bump into the
limit all the time.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but I just wanted to point out there are workarounds (like limiting DOF by focusing slightly in front of the subject).

--
BigWaveDave
 
Dan Wajnman said:
The early Leicas with collapsible lenses fitted pretty well in coat
pockets.
Since digital sensors are small, "digital lenses" are small, as you
mention, easily retracting into the camera body. All we need is a
really good EVF and a large, movable LCD ( EVEN SMALL VIDEO CAMERAS
HAVE ONE!).
Click to expand...
Actually, I don't think I'd settle for less than an APS-sized sensor, if only because of the DoF issue. But show me an M-mount compatible digital rangefinder with the D100/*ist sensor, and I'm very interested.

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top