Reading mode: Light Dark

So..., is Canon becoming the Japanese Kodak?

Go to last post
Au contraire, I believe Canon is putting their R&D in exactly the correct direction: improved focus and excellent, sharp and cheap lenses.

Dual pixel technology gives almost the entire sensor fast phase detection autofocus, without sacrificing any pixels or light to pure phase detection. No other company can do that. The 70D is just the first implementation of the technology, it undoubtedly will only get better.

For about $1000, you can get Canon's lineup of STM lenses which are equivalent to 16mm - 400mm. They are super sharp, focus fast and silently, and are very light. Each of the lenses is equal to or better than any other company's lenses (for the money). Of course, if you want to spend more money - Canon can serve up the best telephoto lenses in the world, as well as a broad lineup of other lenses that only Nikon can touch.

Quietly, Canon has built a mirrorless platform with a few excellent lenses at nice prices. I believe that they can release a knockout mirrorless camera tomorrow if they wanted to with dual pixel technology. I believe they aren't only because they'll mainly be competing for market share with themselves. So for now, we get the lackluster EOS M. Oh... not a terrific performer, but for the money - it is possibly the best lowlight compact camera you can buy.

Want flashes? Again, only Nikon can compete.

There are some small areas of the market where Canon is absent. A truly compact low light camera. A fixed lens camera. A rangefinder style camera. Despite those absences, Canon dominates in market share. Only Nikon is close, and... interesting... Nikon is also absent from those same small market areas.

And of course, much of this thread is going to be fierce fighting over sensor ability - dynamic range, high ISO and such. When I look at pictures, I don't notice shortcomings in Canon sensors. In fact, when I look at pictures, I'm more likely to notice color rendering shortcomings in OTHER camera makers before I notice a lack of dynamic range in Canon. Curiously, no one is yelling up and down in these forums about color rendering. Anyway, it may be that Canon is behind in dynamic range. To the extent that dynamic range is one of dozens of aspects which make a good camera, I hope that Canon catches up. I find it simply impossible to believe they won't.
 
SystemAgnostic said:
Au contraire, I believe Canon is putting their R&D in exactly the correct direction: improved focus and excellent, sharp and cheap lenses.

Dual pixel technology gives almost the entire sensor fast phase detection autofocus, without sacrificing any pixels or light to pure phase detection. No other company can do that. The 70D is just the first implementation of the technology, it undoubtedly will only get better.

For about $1000, you can get Canon's lineup of STM lenses which are equivalent to 16mm - 400mm. They are super sharp, focus fast and silently, and are very light. Each of the lenses is equal to or better than any other company's lenses (for the money). Of course, if you want to spend more money - Canon can serve up the best telephoto lenses in the world, as well as a broad lineup of other lenses that only Nikon can touch.

Quietly, Canon has built a mirrorless platform with a few excellent lenses at nice prices. I believe that they can release a knockout mirrorless camera tomorrow if they wanted to with dual pixel technology. I believe they aren't only because they'll mainly be competing for market share with themselves. So for now, we get the lackluster EOS M. Oh... not a terrific performer, but for the money - it is possibly the best lowlight compact camera you can buy.

Want flashes? Again, only Nikon can compete.

There are some small areas of the market where Canon is absent. A truly compact low light camera. A fixed lens camera. A rangefinder style camera. Despite those absences, Canon dominates in market share. Only Nikon is close, and... interesting... Nikon is also absent from those same small market areas.

And of course, much of this thread is going to be fierce fighting over sensor ability - dynamic range, high ISO and such. When I look at pictures, I don't notice shortcomings in Canon sensors. In fact, when I look at pictures, I'm more likely to notice color rendering shortcomings in OTHER camera makers before I notice a lack of dynamic range in Canon. Curiously, no one is yelling up and down in these forums about color rendering. Anyway, it may be that Canon is behind in dynamic range. To the extent that dynamic range is one of dozens of aspects which make a good camera, I hope that Canon catches up. I find it simply impossible to believe they won't.
Click to expand...
Well, then tell me which camera in the Canon line up, or announced as being on the horizon, can compete with the current top level mirror less cameras on the basis of size, form, function.

If you want FF, and were starting from scratch now, there is nothing in the Canon line up that could compete with the A7R for the combination of size and function. That sensor is far better than anything Canon offers.

If you want something in the APSc size format, I own both a 7D and a Fuji XE1. I can tell you which of the two I take with my on trips, OS, to functions etc. The 7D is great for sports, but that is about it really. The Fuji has better low light function, is lighter, rangefinder format, and just exciting and fun to use.

And what about video ? My 5D used to be my goto for video, but now, no way. It still works fine, but the capacity to take, say, a Blackmagic pocket camera, shoot raw or prores HQ in flat format, produces far more flexible files and a better work flow. And, I can get away with either using my Canon lenses with a metabones booster, or MFT lenses if I want a light set up.

Without doubt there will be any number of punters here who are happy to keep chugging along with their hefty SLRs. Without doubt there are a number of pro users who absolutely need the functionality of an SLR. But many of us now suspect that the days of an SLR being the everyday go to machine are drifting away into the sunset.
 
There is no character difference between pro or amateur. It does not mean that a pro suddenly becomes an objective user of equipment and has better opinions about it. Pro's can troll, be brand loyalists, and everything else that an amateur can be.
 
If a company does not innovate, eventually it will lose momentum to the competition. Those who studied business know that to every business innovation there is an S curve. Every good company that once created an award winning product that made them successful, cannot ride that wave forever, they have to innovate. But if that same company only relies on riding the wave of the innovation that made them successful by only doing incremental upgrades to their innovative product line, eventually the S curve will plateau and then cause downturn. I want to remind everybody, that this has happened to IBM, and it is now happening to a giant like Microsoft.

Nikon and Canon should not be thinking that the only thing they need to do to stay successful is to make their cameras better, faster, and their glass better and faster, because this is not innovation, this is expected. The innovation in camera market seems to be happening among mirror-less and cellphone makers.
 
Last edited:
rstone said:
Anyone still use a turntable to play records?
Click to expand...
As it happens there has been a huge renaissance in vinyl and turntables are in a state of active growth. And it's not just old farts but young people who are new to LP records. The funny thing is that the format that appears to be dying is the CD which has lost the battle with downloads. The physicality of LP records and (believe it or not) their high resolution attracts buyers.

And, to answer your question, yep I do use a turntable to play records.
 
Could be and IMO the next xxD and xD releases will tell a lot. Canon needs to up their game or other companies will continue to eat their lunch and erode their market share but the same is happening to Nikon.

I agree completely with his comments on the Fuji XT1 as I've added one with 2 zooms to my bag and now I don't even want to shoot with the Canon because the Fuji is that good and the shooting experience is that engaging. Fuji has a long way to go obviously to displace the DSLR for sports, action and wildlife but things do change rapidly in this arena. For travel, street, photojournalism, portrait and even wedding use the Fuji has become a very compelling system that will only get better.

Up until recent I've been a pure Canon shooter for nearly 40 years but I'd be lying if I said I don't have my doubts.

Bob
 
Yah is someone really comparing the demise of film to digital photography to DSLR's to mirrorless?

Lets see...I can go out on the street, ask 10 out of 10 people, and I bet they understand what digital photography is. And I can ask 10 out of 10 people and I would guess at least 9/10 if not a perfect 10/10 do not have a clue what mirrorless is.

The advantages, conveniences, and sheer brute force that digital photography represented at the time has absolutely zero parallels with the minor size/weight conveniences of mirrorless especially considering that shallow DOF and low light photography will always have constraints not answered by sensor improvements i.e. in the absence of light you will *always* capture significant photon shot noise, etc that can only be remedied by longer exposures or a combination of bright lenses + large sensors for which the absence of a mirrorbox is negligible in space/weight savings.

In reality Camera companies should have been making products like what is shown in this recent DigitalRev video (i.e. Trigger Trap).

http://www.digitalrev.com/article/how-to-shoot-earth-shattering/MjU5MTY1MTU4

They should also be utilizing social media to teach better photography.

Since Canon has the most modern DSLR mount of any brand, most mature touch screen, dual pixel AF, and best liveview implementation, strong emphasis on video...if anything out of any DSLR brand they are the least like Kodak. And have any of the mirrorless brands truly embraced smartphone coupling to the degree that something like TriggerTrap has? Not really. There are many mirrorless cameras not named GH4 that do video *horribly* wrong in very recent and very expensive offerings btw.

If social media has been successful in getting adolescents to grown men to dunk ice on their head, some having actually died or been critically injured while recording such things, think about if Canikon were only fractionally successful at getting some folks more interested in enthusiast photography beyond selfies.

What that recent DigitalRev video should be getting people to think about, is that they can explore really cool ideas and tools...the camera (i.e. t2i + 50mm 1.8) has absolutely zero significance in nurturing this movement.
 
Last edited:
LaszloBencze said:
LaszloBencze said:
Anyone still use a turntable to play records?
Click to expand...
As it happens there has been a huge renaissance in vinyl and turntables are in a state of active growth. And it's not just old farts but young people who are new to LP records. The funny thing is that the format that appears to be dying is the CD which has lost the battle with downloads. The physicality of LP records and (believe it or not) their high resolution attracts buyers.

And, to answer your question, yep I do use a turntable to play records.
Click to expand...
My guess is young people are discovering true high fidelity for the first time through the nostalgia of vinyl but this too shall pass. I sold high end audio in the 60's and 70's and I can assure you the resurgence of vinyl is a fad.

People spend hundreds of thousands of $$ on 60's era muscle cars when they could use that money to buy an incredible sports car that would blow the doors off the pristine 70 Hemi Cuda or Challenger they shelled out $500K for. In the early 70's I owned a 70 Buick GSX stage1 that fools are paying well into the 6 figures for today if it's in immaculate condition. Do I wish I still owned it? No way.

I'm not saying vinyl is a bad thing but nostalgia sometimes makes us do foolish things with our money.

Bob

--

http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
 
Last edited:
Paul JM said:
SystemAgnostic said:
Au contraire, I believe Canon is putting their R&D in exactly the correct direction: improved focus and excellent, sharp and cheap lenses.

Dual pixel technology gives almost the entire sensor fast phase detection autofocus, without sacrificing any pixels or light to pure phase detection. No other company can do that. The 70D is just the first implementation of the technology, it undoubtedly will only get better.

For about $1000, you can get Canon's lineup of STM lenses which are equivalent to 16mm - 400mm. They are super sharp, focus fast and silently, and are very light. Each of the lenses is equal to or better than any other company's lenses (for the money). Of course, if you want to spend more money - Canon can serve up the best telephoto lenses in the world, as well as a broad lineup of other lenses that only Nikon can touch.

Quietly, Canon has built a mirrorless platform with a few excellent lenses at nice prices. I believe that they can release a knockout mirrorless camera tomorrow if they wanted to with dual pixel technology. I believe they aren't only because they'll mainly be competing for market share with themselves. So for now, we get the lackluster EOS M. Oh... not a terrific performer, but for the money - it is possibly the best lowlight compact camera you can buy.

Want flashes? Again, only Nikon can compete.

There are some small areas of the market where Canon is absent. A truly compact low light camera. A fixed lens camera. A rangefinder style camera. Despite those absences, Canon dominates in market share. Only Nikon is close, and... interesting... Nikon is also absent from those same small market areas.

And of course, much of this thread is going to be fierce fighting over sensor ability - dynamic range, high ISO and such. When I look at pictures, I don't notice shortcomings in Canon sensors. In fact, when I look at pictures, I'm more likely to notice color rendering shortcomings in OTHER camera makers before I notice a lack of dynamic range in Canon. Curiously, no one is yelling up and down in these forums about color rendering. Anyway, it may be that Canon is behind in dynamic range. To the extent that dynamic range is one of dozens of aspects which make a good camera, I hope that Canon catches up. I find it simply impossible to believe they won't.
Click to expand...
Well, then tell me which camera in the Canon line up, or announced as being on the horizon, can compete with the current top level mirror less cameras on the basis of size, form, function.
Click to expand...
Are you really saying "form, function" when talking about mirrorless cameras with their probematic forms (tiny, bad grips) and so-so function (bad AF tracking, so-so lens selection, so-so wide angle edge sharpness and so on)?

Mirrorless cameras are a good example of "form over function".
Paul JM said:
If you want FF, and were starting from scratch now, there is nothing in the Canon line up that could compete with the A7R for the combination of size and function
Click to expand...
Size? You mean hat extra large size of the 70-200mm f4? Which is much bigger and heavier, and less good optically? Ho hum. Function... really? You mean its problematic shutter shake problem function, or its awful AF performance function? Or its crappy ergonomics as a function?
Paul JM said:
. That sensor is far better than anything Canon offers.
Click to expand...
Better? How is AA-less false detail grid edges better? How is worse high ISO than my 6D better? How is the mangled RAW output better?
Paul JM said:
If you want something in the APSc size format, I own both a 7D and a Fuji XE1. I can tell you which of the two I take with my on trips, OS, to functions etc
Click to expand...
On trips, OS, functions... The trip part I understand, after that you lost me.
Paul JM said:
. The 7D is great for sports, but that is about it really. The Fuji has better low light function,
Click to expand...
It has a low light function?
Paul JM said:
is lighter,
Click to expand...
Yes.
Paul JM said:
rangefinder format,
Click to expand...
Yeah, range finders were the essence os ergonomics. Oh, wait.
Paul JM said:
and just exciting and fun to use.
Click to expand...
Toys can be fun. ;)
Paul JM said:
And what about video ? My 5D used to be my goto for video, but now, no way. It still works fine, but the capacity to take, say, a Blackmagic pocket camera, shoot raw or prores HQ in flat format, produces far more flexible files and a better work flow. And, I can get away with either using my Canon lenses with a metabones booster, or MFT lenses if I want a light set up.

Without doubt there will be any number of punters here who are happy to keep chugging along with their hefty SLRs. Without doubt there are a number of pro users who absolutely need the functionality of an SLR.
Click to expand...
Weird, above you were praising the functionality of mirrorless.
Paul JM said:
But many of us now suspect that the days of an SLR being the everyday go to machine are drifting away into the sunset.
Click to expand...
Many point and shooters who had no real use for a DSLR, yes of course.
 
brightcolours said:
Paul JM said:
Well, then tell me which camera in the Canon line up, or announced as being on the horizon, can compete with the current top level mirror less cameras on the basis of size, form, function.
Click to expand...
Are you really saying "form, function" when talking about mirrorless cameras with their probematic forms (tiny, bad grips) and so-so function (bad AF tracking, so-so lens selection, so-so wide angle edge sharpness and so on)?
Click to expand...
He's saying form and function, but he means "I'll sacrifice everything for smaller camera size".

And nothing wrong with that, everyone has their preferences, but let's call it what it is. Btw, this isn't even the craziest thing I've heard on dpreview. Recently, there was a guy who claimed cellphones have better handling than any camera. I'm not even kidding here.
 
LaszloBencze said:
LaszloBencze said:
Anyone still use a turntable to play records?
Click to expand...
As it happens there has been a huge renaissance in vinyl and turntables are in a state of active growth. And it's not just old farts but young people who are new to LP records. The funny thing is that the format that appears to be dying is the CD which has lost the battle with downloads. The physicality of LP records and (believe it or not) their high resolution attracts buyers.

And, to answer your question, yep I do use a turntable to play records.
Click to expand...
Slightly off topic but that 'huge renaissance in vinyl sales' still only adds up to approximately 1% of the total sales of music.

The point is that without hard data our perception of any situation is often severely distorted by our own particular interests.
 
SystemAgnostic said:
Au contraire, I believe Canon is putting their R&D in exactly the correct direction: improved focus and excellent, sharp and cheap lenses.

There are some small areas of the market where Canon is absent. A truly compact low light camera. A fixed lens camera. A rangefinder style camera. Despite those absences, Canon dominates in market share. Only Nikon is close, and... interesting... Nikon is also absent from those same small market areas.
Click to expand...
These are such tiny market niches that perhaps that explains why, certainly from a business point of view, they are absent?
SystemAgnostic said:
And of course, much of this thread is going to be fierce fighting over sensor ability - dynamic range, high ISO and such. When I look at pictures, I don't notice shortcomings in Canon sensors. In fact, when I look at pictures, I'm more likely to notice color rendering shortcomings in OTHER camera makers before I notice a lack of dynamic range in Canon. Curiously, no one is yelling up and down in these forums about color rendering. Anyway, it may be that Canon is behind in dynamic range. To the extent that dynamic range is one of dozens of aspects which make a good camera, I hope that Canon catches up. I find it simply impossible to believe they won't.
Click to expand...
DR is of course the current fashionable thing for some forum dwellers to fixate on. I am not saying DR is not important but really guys, is there nothing else to talk about?
 
As a what I would like to call more pragmatic photographer I am not so much fixated on on all these discussions about the technical stuff on these forums and more on the output side of the equation. The images. With what camera they were made is for me not that interesting. I know a good camera when I see it's output. There are lots of good cameras nowadays, also form Canon.

The title of the post triggered me, because as an old school photographer I witnessed the digital revolution first hand. In fact I was an early adopter and started using the first digital SLR's next to my film cameras.

Where the origanl post goes wrong is in the comparison between the Kodak case and the current situation Canon (and other manufacturers) is/are in. Kodak was a leading film producer. The lead producer of a medium, not of cameras. When the medium was suddenly changed, Kodak had to change it's core business.

After the introduction of digital Canon was also an early adopter. For them the transition was much easier than for many others because they already had lots of key technology in house, like sensor technology. Since then things moved on evolutionary till this day. No real breaktroughs or rapid changes like Kodak had to deal with.

I really don't see why Canon under the current circumstances (economic crisis, slowing sales, saturating markets) would be the one to go under like Kodak did. This situation is more a shake down where the smaller or less diverse manufacturers will get into trouble.

And to start acting like the 'crazy professor' by introducing all kinds of 'inventions' is historicaly a risky path. Look at Sony. They 'invent' new models at break-neck speed. Does it produce great profits? Not according to their annual figures.

People seem to forget that the photo-industry was in a really bad shape before the digital revolution. Digital photography revived the business and introduced some new players and the big ones adapted and survived. My guess is (just a guess) that history will repeat itself and the big ones will likely stay. Not so sure about the smaller players in the field.
 
At the moment, Canon only falls behind on sensor. I am a very vocal critic of that.

It also used to fall behind in mirrorless, but with the introduction of DPAF, I am not sure that will still be the case. Afterall AF is currently the biggest drawback of mirrorless cameras and Canon basically solved that with a beautiful solution in one beautiful stroke.

The more I think about Canon, the more I think they actually have a long term strategy. They seem to be taking their time to get things right (eg. DPAF, strong lens lineup that can outresolve future high-res sensor). The classic turtle in the race - slow, steady and consistent.

If I am right, they should at least be showing a glimpse of their new sensor tech in the coming Photokina. We'll see.
 
bgbs said:
There is no character difference between pro or amateur. It does not mean that a pro suddenly becomes an objective user of equipment and has better opinions about it. Pro's can troll, be brand loyalists, and everything else that an amateur can be.
Click to expand...
Very true. But most pros will do just about anything to achieve better images, even if it means completely jettisoning an existing camera system. Heck, if I got better pictures walking around with one foot in a bucket, just call me "stumpy!"

When Canon introduced the original incredible 1D camera, it placed them years in advance of Nikon's offerings. I personally know of three different local pros who sold their entire Nikon system just to utilize these marvelous cameras. And in later years, I've seen a few pros switch to Nikon D800 and Nikon speedlights from Canons.

Pros may have a LOT more invested in glass and gear, but most tend to be brutally objective and dead serious about results.
 
The camera market is shrinking. From 2012 to 2013 the total drop of all cameras was 20%. Compacts were hit harder, DSLRs less. People take their profile upgrade shots with smartphones and tablets now and this trend will continue as better and better optics, electronics and software are introduced to the gadgets that people carry around and scratch everywhere.
Canon makes half of its income from office products -growth 5% last year- and they are looking into medical imagery as a possible growth sector. Olympus and Fuji are strong names in fiberoptic endoscopy.

Nikon is a part of the Mitsubishi Group which makes everything from ships to microchips. It is under reorganization facing the shrinkage of the photographic market.
Nikon's other product fields include precision lithography machines used in making microchips and in co-operation with Essilor, eyeglasses.

Canon's net income is nearly ten times bigger than Nikon's.

Of those two, probably both two are survivors.

Will Sony go out of the business? Its money is coming from lucrative insurance business, Sony-Warner and Playstation. They can afford to play around with cameras and consumer electronics even though it might not bring in profits. What about Pentax? Hoya sold Pentax camera dpt. to Ricoh which is the world champion of printers, copies and office software. They have money to burn. Will the multinational Matsushita drop Panasonic/Lumix? Not likely.


But take a good look at Olympus who is restructuring out 2700 jobs and 40% of its plants.
Seven of Olympus top executives have been arrested on corruption charges after the inconsistencies of in reporting and bookkeeping were leaked out. Big amounts of money were paid to criminal organisations. Sony has injected capital into Olympus and is now its biggest shareholder at 12%.
True, Olympus has launched a nice line of mirrorless cameras but economics is not a beauty contest.
If one of the camera makers is going to 'Kodak!', it is most probably Olympus.
 
Last edited:
Deardorff said:
"Deep down I'm starting to believe that they are the Japanese Kodak and they are so sure of their internal research and direction that they don't see the bullet train heading toward them on the same track.?

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/

In many ways I agree with Kirk Tuck on this one. Canon is sitting on their collective azzes and doing little but push gear that is technically inferior to the competition. In real world use it is close but Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and such are taking sales away from Canon and their market is growing every week.

It is only a matter of time before Canon starts going further downhill if they don't wake up.
Click to expand...
Wonderful! Yet another forum poster who knows the camera industry better than the people who sell more professionals their cameras than anybody. Gee, I wonder where he got all of his vast knowledge? Maybe in a box of cracker jacks.

Ever wonder why so many of these threads are started by brand-new user IDs?
 
Then drop Canon and buy into someone else's innovative system.
 
bgbs said:
If a company does not innovate, eventually it will lose momentum to the competition. Those who studied business know that to every business innovation there is an S curve. Every good company that once created an award winning product that made them successful, cannot ride that wave forever, they have to innovate. But if that same company only relies on riding the wave of the innovation that made them successful by only doing incremental upgrades to their innovative product line, eventually the S curve will plateau and then cause downturn. I want to remind everybody, that this has happened to IBM, and it is now happening to a giant like Microsoft.

Nikon and Canon should not be thinking that the only thing they need to do to stay successful is to make their cameras better, faster, and their glass better and faster, because this is not innovation, this is expected. The innovation in camera market seems to be happening among mirror-less and cellphone makers.
Click to expand...
Canon and Nikon have been in business for probably 60 or 70 or 80 years apiece. They know 100 times more about the camera industry than you imagine you know. For you to lecture them on what they need to do to stay in business is rather ludicrous.
 
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