-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canikon has literally stopped making new cameras
- Thread starter Mirrorless Crusader
- Start date
David Hull
Veteran Member
PK24X36NOW
Senior Member
LMAO your handle says it all. Nikon and Canon are not being "left in the dust" by Olympus, Panasonic and Sony, because Nikon and Canon make cameras that are far better than those made by Olympus, Panasonic and Sony. It is Olympus, Panasonic and Sony that are being "left in the dust," as they try to make "different" cameras out of desperation because they can't compete with the "big boys."
Last edited:
salla30 wrote:
Canikon are heading downwards, they just don't know it yet
Neither does their balance sheet.
On what basis do you say that IBM's PC was 'far from the best PC of the day'? Are you talking about oddballs like the Commodore Amiga or something, alternatives which weren't the "PC" we generally refer to? As far as the actual PC goes, IBM's were just fine and usually led the pack. The standard of quality for a PC was if it would run all - ALL - the same software that the IBM PC did.
Hardware can be cloned but the copyrighted BIOS could not be. Others had to reverse-engineer it and hope it would act the same way as IBM's.
I remember back in the mid 80's brands such as the "Orange" and "Peach" which were introduced to compete against, of course, Apple. But the only way they could do that was to purchase enough of Apple's operating system that doing it legally was not very profitable. If Apple had patents and copyrights, it was their prerogative to enforce them.
Never heard of any such thing being said, but there was the underlying theme that 'IBM is the standard' and that was true. Were they the only PC? No, and they were not the best value either I would guess. My first PC was bought in 1987 and cost me $2000; an IBM like it might have cost double.
That I believe is the arena that cost IBM their position in the PC market - they simply had to charge a lot more for their product than Northgate, Dell, Gateway and other brands. I worked at an enormous IBM microchip fab during the mid 80's to early 90's and the money they spent, and the money they paid out to their people, was absolutely staggering.
Not necessarily better built, although the IBM PC Jr. was a huge mistake and gave them a black eye.
By the way, Google Books has many computer-type magazine from the 80's and 90's, complete and free to read online or download. The prices that equipment used to cost, and 1% of the capability of today's machines, it's just amazing.
IBM offered their OS/2 and OS/2 Warp. I seem to recall that they began working on OS/2 with Microsoft but at some stage they broke off the collaboration. Microsoft went on to develop Windows and IBM finished up OS/2 on their own, hence it had some similarity to Windows but was definitely not a 'clone' of it at all.
I almost feel bad for you because clearly you've jumped your trolley.
Yes, that's right, Canon and Nikon cameras are no good and nobody really has any reason to buy one instead of an Oly or Panny.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Mirrorless destroying Canikon... where? How?
David Hull
Veteran Member
I think that is pretty much how it did happen. MSFT and IBM were jointly developing OS/2 and tehn MSFT apparently wanted to change direction (probably seeing what Apple was doing with the MAC OS). There was another one in there as well done by Gary Kildall at Digital Research called Gem. Apple sued the heck out of them and got DR to kill it. That worked so well that Apple later tried it again with MSFT over Windows MSFT prevailed and the rest is history.
It is funny talking about this stuff. OS/2 had a rather interesting UI with tabs at the top (sort of like a modern day web browser). This interface still lives on with Lotus Notes to this day, I think. At least that is how it was the last time I used it, now most everyone uses Microsoft "Look Out" (woops, I mean Outlook).
David Hull
Veteran Member
nor their customersMidwest wrote:
Neither does their balance sheet.salla30 wrote:
Canikon are heading downwards, they just don't know it yet
Oh, I forgot there is a guy below who said they were all sheep.Baaaah....
C
cgarrard
Guest
I see it as the opposite, small companies are desperate to keep holding onto what little they have in the face of falling camera sales, a crappy economy, and shift of users going to smart phones.
Meanwhile "Canikon" as you put them, are still dominating the camera market in money and sales.
Funny post though!
Carl
http://www.photographic-central.blogspot.com (Gear reviews)
http://www.carlgarrard.blogspot.com/ (Best work compilation)
Also formerly AlphaMountWorld.com (Now off the web)
David Hull
Veteran Member
Actually, OLY does build serious cameras for pros, I even found one on e-bay here:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-CF-40L-Fiberoptic-Colonoscope-/190899424520
It's scary just to think about it
I think this is one place where they are making money.
--
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26158506@N07/
Last edited:
We've been here before when he was masquerading with one of his other IDs. Guess he can't figure out how to look up a company's Investor Relations and get the real numbers, easier to spew hyperbole.
TrapperJohn
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 16,488
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 12,288
Let's face it - these high end cameras are a smaller version of an exotic car. The cost, while not an issue, is secondary to what the device means to the owner.
Most of us are strictly amateurs, a fair number spend more time chatting up the technical aspects than actually using the darn things. We don't really 'need' them as much as we just want them, and unlike an exotic car, they don't have huge insurance premiums and repair bills. Price up a taillight lens for a Ferrari some time... We buy better and better cameras, not necessarily for better photographs, but to make ourselves feel better by exploring the new capabilities. Much the same reason one buys a super fast car when there are speed limits and officers to enforce them. It's the experience, as much if not more than, the destination. And the cost, while a factor, isn't the primary factor.
All of this gets back to where the industry is going, what it feeds off of. It feeds off of new features to draw new or repeat customers. And in that respect, the DSLR may well be doomed, because it is beginning to reach the practical limits of the design. The mirror and prism block improvements to viewfinder display, while the legacy film lens mount and registration distance, along with the larger sensor that isn't nearly as much better than the smaller sensors as it once was, impose a limit on how small the body and especially the lenses, can become.
Mirrorless isn't burdened down with those immutable legacy obstacles. Sensor tech has pushed the 4/3 sensor, long the butt of jokes, to parity with the larger sensors when used under typical photographic situations, while the bodies and the lenses can be quite a bit smaller. The field is wide open for improvement, and mirrorless in its current state has only existed for about four to five years.
As electronics drove the rise of the DSLR, they may well end up driving it's decline.
Most of us are strictly amateurs, a fair number spend more time chatting up the technical aspects than actually using the darn things. We don't really 'need' them as much as we just want them, and unlike an exotic car, they don't have huge insurance premiums and repair bills. Price up a taillight lens for a Ferrari some time... We buy better and better cameras, not necessarily for better photographs, but to make ourselves feel better by exploring the new capabilities. Much the same reason one buys a super fast car when there are speed limits and officers to enforce them. It's the experience, as much if not more than, the destination. And the cost, while a factor, isn't the primary factor.
All of this gets back to where the industry is going, what it feeds off of. It feeds off of new features to draw new or repeat customers. And in that respect, the DSLR may well be doomed, because it is beginning to reach the practical limits of the design. The mirror and prism block improvements to viewfinder display, while the legacy film lens mount and registration distance, along with the larger sensor that isn't nearly as much better than the smaller sensors as it once was, impose a limit on how small the body and especially the lenses, can become.
Mirrorless isn't burdened down with those immutable legacy obstacles. Sensor tech has pushed the 4/3 sensor, long the butt of jokes, to parity with the larger sensors when used under typical photographic situations, while the bodies and the lenses can be quite a bit smaller. The field is wide open for improvement, and mirrorless in its current state has only existed for about four to five years.
As electronics drove the rise of the DSLR, they may well end up driving it's decline.
Mirrorless Crusader
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 285
- Reaction score
- 93
Bump. Still nothing from Canon. As I said in the other thread, more new large-sensor cameras and lenses from Sony in seven weeks than Canon has announced all year.
People are actually buying Canon cameras, Canon doesn't need new ones to prop up their business. Sony just throwing things out there in desperation to see what sticks. How many lens series do they have now? Will people actually buy the alpha7 on a promise of lenses and accessories?
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Canon just came out with 3 new large sensor cameras last year.... are manufacturers supposed to release new $3000 cameras on an annual basis?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum