Sony has those other businesses to help them out financially, but no viable company continues to operate a division which loses money, because they are not in business as a hobby. They have to make money for the investors. If a part of their business cannot be made profitable, they will sell it or discontinue it.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
So..., is Canon becoming the Japanese Kodak?
- Thread starter Deardorff
- Start date
Yes, and maybe in 10 or 15 years they'll have a selection of lenses, a breadth of camera bodies with professional reliability and a professional grade support operation to compare with what Canon has today.
Maybe - if they are in business that long. Canon will be.
Last edited:
I'm agreeing with this.
It's so easy to "arm-chair quarterback" with our limited or non-existent knowledge of what's going on behind the scenes in R&D. It would seem that the OP's premise is based on supposition rather than in-depth knowledge of what's in the pipeline.
In regard to the sensor, it is primarily a problem with landscape photography where higher DR and more pixels are an advantage.
For most pro sports shooters at professional sports events (where the largest output is usually a magazine page), the good lighting conditions render DR and pixel count down to non-issues.
Reliability, AF, consistency, and handling are more important (and excellent long lenses).
The major problem with Canon's current sensor technology is that it doesn't satisfy the cousins of the arm-chair quarterbacks - the peepers and/or the techies. For the peepers and techies, ergonomics, reliability, and handling are of little or no interest. What they NEED is more MP. More MP can be beneficial, but during PP, it can be problematic.
Avobanana
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 360
- Reaction score
- 334
I am neutral in this debate and think both sides have their points.
But the above argument is completely flawed. Its like 2 kids argued about the answer to a math problem and one kid shouted "What do you know? My father is a math teacher so I know 100 times more about maths than you!" Its just doesn't stand.
If we want to debate, lets stick to valid points rather than using sweeping statements or ad hominen attack. History is littered with companies that failed even with a long and successful history in their respective segment. Look at Rim, Nokia, Sony (in TV, portable music), Xerox, Pan Am, Atari...man I can go on and on.
Your point about Canon having a stronger lens lineup, support and services is valid, however.
Last edited:
Even 100 year old companies fail. Innovation in the tech sector is key to staying successful, unfortunately not every exec. cares about innovation as others before them. Apparently not every person is Steve Jobs and not every company is Apple, so let's keep that in mind.
The fact is, camera makers that innovate attract a lot of young talent, they know they will not sway canon and Nikon dinosaurs with huge lens collection. But if young people do not continue investing with canon or Nikon but go with other options early on, that does not spell well for the toe big giants.
The fact is, camera makers that innovate attract a lot of young talent, they know they will not sway canon and Nikon dinosaurs with huge lens collection. But if young people do not continue investing with canon or Nikon but go with other options early on, that does not spell well for the toe big giants.
R
rrccad
Guest
funny i see alot of young talent using nikon and canon.
do you have numbers to back that up or are you going by the vocal minority?
G
gbdz
Guest
You are right, of course. But Sony opticals can take a blow and not sink whereas smaller companies cannot. Money has to be made but it is not equally urgent for all players.
Ross the Fidller
Active member
Ross the Fidller
Active member
Maybe because they were told to (with biased advice) or just following the crowd.
--
Ross
brightcolours
Forum Pro
I prefer to see the world with my eyes, rather than have a big black box in the way.
When I pick up the big black box, I want to know how IT sees the world, so that I can tell if it has the same view of it I have.
With an EVF it is " see, check, adjust, shoot, shoot".
With an OVF it is "see, shoot, chimp, adjust, shoot, chimp, shoot, shoot"
In many circumstances ( but not all ) the EVF can be a real advantage.
I shoot both EVF and OVF. In many situations, I prefer the EVF. I like to spend most of my time using my eyes and facing the subject rather than peering into a dark hole. I like to minimise the time spent peering into the camera. EVF allows this.
brightcolours
Forum Pro
Yeah, you see a flat representation of the world according to the current settings and oddities of the camera in an EVF
Nonsense. With an OVF you see the world in a more 3D like manner, without the camera making it flat. You see in the OVF the settings and exposure too. You now have the possibility to have a creative vision.
Like in low light? In dealing with the lag? In using flash (studio) photography? In view finder clutter? Right.
I guess you don't know the meaning of EVF. You "peer" into the camera with an EVF too.
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Sony, Olympus, Panasonic and I think even Fujifilm are all struggling to turn profits. CaNikon has been hemmoraghing volume for the last few years, mostly due to market saturation/maturity, but partially to losing customers to those second tiers of companies who make the kinds of cameras they refuse to. Not to mention, Kodak and Polaroid probably had market research groups too.
I really hate this idea that big companies are omniscient and can't be questioned or ever make bad decisions. If CaNikon are so smart, for example, why have so many people abandoned their products for second tier company offerings? Was that part of their plan? Why is their volume declining year after year? Is that what they wanted it to be? I don't think they do much actual market research at all, given all the gaps in their lineups and opportunities they are missing.
For example, I left Nikon for Sony NEX because the NEX could give me comparable IQ without all the bulk (and a decent bit of value- I bought my C3 kit new for $260 shipped). Nikon CX is not comparable and it's way overpriced... if they made an F-mount mirrorless that were a little smaller, I would have stayed. And if they make it in the future, I will drop NEX in a heartbeat and come back. But Nikon knows better than its customers and big sensors ----> big bodies, and anyone who thinks otherwise can go elsewhere. Real shame.
In the future, I expect cameras will be mirrorless and shutterless with precision to the nano-second and instantaneous focus. The evf and video screens will match the eye's optical resolution with no lag at all. The cameras and attendant lenses will be generally smaller, etc. etc.
But we're not there yet! For a lot of people shooting today, the tried, true, good, old DSLR is still a great choice for shooting pictures. And Kirk Tuck is just one more blogger fishing for clicks.
But we're not there yet! For a lot of people shooting today, the tried, true, good, old DSLR is still a great choice for shooting pictures. And Kirk Tuck is just one more blogger fishing for clicks.
Having photographed professionally since the 1970's and an early user of the Kodak/Nikon DSLR in my work, I thought Kirk Tuck's posting would be of interest. He is an excellent shooter who is respected in the industry.
Still shooting 8x10 film, 120 film and digital with Canon and Phase One. Recently added the Fuji X-Pro1 for what it does well.
You use the tools that work. You watch the industry as it paddles in circles and Canon as it loses in overall image quality to Nikon these days. If Canon do not up the dynamic range of their cameras I'll be moving to Nikon. There is a difference and it can be seen in the image files. The fact clients don't specify what camera to use means nothing. We provide the gear that will produce the quality needed for the job. A lot of choices out there and no rational reason the the largest camera manufacturing company to let the competition get so far ahead.
brightcolours
Forum Pro
Nonsense. High DR at base ISO in RAW does not equal "image quality". Canons are fine in regards to IQ. Fine at low ISO, some better at high ISO (more detail, better colour). Canon lenses often give better IQ too.
That is fine, if you desire low contrast images, use oddly high DR. You can buy a Nikon for that now, no need to wait....
Nonsense, you mean you can pull up shadows up several stops and marvel at the "detail". Well, if that is your hobby, go at it! Will not make for good images, though.
M
meland
Guest
It sounds like you have been round the block quite a bit. Given that and the fact that you seem to have been to and fro equipment wise I'm a little surprised that you don't appear to understand how cyclical these things are. If dynamic range is really such as issue to you perhaps you should do something about it. Threatening to switch on a forum will have sod all influence on Canon and all it is is rather reminiscent of a toddler having a tantrum because his mother won't buy him sweets.
Maybe Canon just has a longer term vision and a view that in the present market it would be foolish to waste large amounts of capital in what appears to be a transition period.
I cannot see viewfinders of any kind being big sellers in the future, I think younger generations are more and more getting used to the holding the camera devise away from their faces and using touch screens for commands, it will not be long until holding a camera up to your face will be seen as quaint and old-fashioned.
G
gbdz
Guest
Keeping a business running means making good enough products at a reasonable price and creating a positive image in marketing where it is much cheaper than in R&D. The correct balance makes the survivor.
G
gbdz
Guest
In the future we can share our hallucinations on a big Dolby xxx.x.x 3D screen and we don't ever have to go outside again.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum