caterpillar wrote:
rrccad wrote:
caterpillar wrote:
rrccad wrote:
caterpillar wrote:
Kreitmann wrote:
After reading about a 7D-like R camera that might be on the future, I realised what I would like to see:
R1: High-End pro, like 1D
R3: High resolution no AA filter, like 5DSR
R5: all round pro/high amateur, like 5D III/IV
R7: APS-C, fast AF, like 7D
That old hierarchial type of segmentation will no longer work. What Sony has set, others are adopting.
that's nice, but it's neither here nor there, Canon marches to it's own drum when it comes to camera lines, and canon had fleshed out a 4 camera ecosystem under the EF mount with no regard to sony.
It can. But it is already changing its beat. That 5dSR is the start of that. Panasonic has the GH series for video. They created the G9 for fast action photo. MFT's problem is it can't break free of the 20mp or 24mp without adding noise or other problems. So, they had to go larger sensor.
Canon can march to its own beat, but to lose the market and profits if it insists on the same drum beat.
not really. Canon never matched Nikon's product releases point to point, and more or less fit in segments in between what Nikon would have. the EOS R is similar. it's not quite the A7 or the N6, and nor is it the A7R or the Z7, but somewhere in between. They will continue to slot cameras in how they see fit, not on because that's what Sony has done.
Simply because they can't at this time. This is what happens when you don't do the R&D for a competitive MILC. And mind you, Nikon is not the one to watch or listen to as to what beat is the most competitive. It's Sony. Canon is too proud to outsource its sensors for their main lines. Nikon has no choice. If Canon didn't do the R&D, Nikon, even if it wants to, does not have the resources to do the proper R&D. The best way to go about this is to outsource. If someone else has the tech, and one has no chance of catching up in time, then it is no shame to outsource the tech. This is what Nikon and Fuji did. But since aps-c is smaller, you can achieve better wonders with it and managing it is a bit easier. Hence, we now have the formidable XT-3.
Again, the basically the same question - on the aps-c line alone, how can Canon match up to a 20-30fps, 4k, etc if its tech is way behind? Are they just going to do the same thing they've been doing for a decade? Build more DSLRs of basically the same kind? Are they going to front the M series with the XT-3 and future Sony A7xxx? It can't even compete with what these 2 have now!
I am not digressing here. The smaller sensor is the gateway to the larger sensor. It is by virtue of lower cost. In 3-5 years, though, expect to see the A7-3 being sold at U$1,200-1,400. We'll have a squeeze in pricing. Smartphones will be encroaching from the bottom price bracket. 35FF from the top. The only way to justify MFT or aps-c at U$1,000-1,500 is if it can do remarkable things. The XT-3 is the start of that. And if any, aps-c may even be the platform where 8k video may roll off. But if Canon can't even cover the entire frame of an aps-c sensor in 4k, how can it even muster 8k? If you think we should leave video out of it, well, that's part of the problem why Canon is in a rut. It didn't value video that much to put in a U$2,000 to as low as U$1,000 hybrid camera. Canon wants you to spend U$3,500 for a decent 4k video camera.
So, will Canon insist on this drum beating when the market sees the charade and such strategy is not in their best interest?
If Canon is to continue its same way of doing things, it will be out of touch with what is happening in the bigger picture of things. That is arrogance. Or simply unrealistic view of reality. But I think it is a bit of both. Like Nikon before, it still thinks it is the leader. Already, the FS is tanking. To me, that is not a surprise. It is bound to happen. And it has already. Let's wait 2 more quarters to see if they manage to slow the bleeding. I think, both Canon and NIkon will just have kept their own fans. Mostly. But the bleeding will still continue. We shall see.
Meantime, it's not as if Sony, Fuji, and Panasonic are just going to stop and wait for these 2. They will proceed and will continue without much thought as to what Canon is going to do. Why? Because they don't have the tech. Late 2019, I expect Sony to release a much improved A9-2. That will be the camera they will push for the 2020 Tokyo Olympics! Will Canon come out with a 1Dx3? but if it does, how can it go 20fps if there is a mirror flapping there? And what if the A9 can do 24fps or even 30fps with a sticky eye-focus/face detection? The only way to go 20fps is to remove that mirror altogether. But will a 35FF MILC for sports be ready by 2019 or 2020?
As you can see, tech, R&D is driving this. Will Canon still continue with the 1Dx-5D-6d-xxD-xxxD-xxxxD, M series, lineup? Will they do the same segmentation with the R lines? But can they do this in time for 2020 Olympics? Do they even have plans to transition their DSLRs to MILC? But if they do, how do they manage the M line with no upgward path to the R line? Will they create another one?
So many questions! And this is because Canon wants to maintain the status quo - to march in the Canon beat. And yet, the other brands have simplified it and made it easier. At least, Sony won't be saddle with such problems.
Canon will research the market, and choose where they put products. Like they always have, and it' really doesn't matter what Sony has done in the past or does now. Sony's still a bit player in all of this regardless of what some may think.
What is there to research? It's been happening the past 5-7 years? The handwriting was on the wall even late as 2016. And by the same token, it does not matter what Canon has done in the past. Canon could have said the same thing to Nikon in the FD to EOS days where they basically and radically changed course and also changed the entire market. And if we go back further, the same thing that Nikon could have said to Leica of their era. The point is - if you don't have the tech, you cannot compete. And if you are too proud to outsource, then do the R&D. Problem with that is 2-fold. 1 - Even if Canon poured in the money, it will still be in catch up mode. It is still 3 years behind, and that is being generous to say at 3 years. 2 - Canon seems not pouring in the cash for R&D in this segment. If any, they seem to be pulling back. And let me not get started at how big the percentage Sony was putting in R&D. That R&D is what made their sensor-processor-software shock the MILC market. And that R&D spending is not slowing down.
If Canon still thinks it is leading, it is mistaken. IF it still thinks that they can get by but what they have been doing the past 10-15 years, then they are out of touch with reality. The only way they will realize this when their bottom line starts bottoming out. And if they don't change their way of doing things, by 2020-2021, even the poor example many using pros shooting sports in sporting events to show that "pros" still use Canon and Nikon, may be the time where Sony finally wrestles that distinction from them. Not that it matters though. It is only for prestige. The pros that truly count, that many ignore are wedding/events shooters. Because they number in the tens of millions all over the world. That is what Sony and Panasonic were targeting and the ones that turn the tide.
TL;DR.
You may think you are toling out the wisdom that even Canon or any manufacturer doesn't have, yet you do, but your responses, are at best skimmed over and not read. Short and sweet versus the written diarrhea is a suggestion for your posts. it doesn't make you sound any more intelligent.
