Would Canon's introduction of a MF size chip qualify as the start of a legend? The Mamiya ZD is pretty much still in limbo, in the states anyway, if you own the dSLR market and are getting close to max. density on a 24x36 sensor, why not take a shot at the next level?
Last night I had a dream of a + shaped sensor, like 2 normal full frame sensors with one rotated 90 degrees and superimposed over the first, with a crop function that let you shoot 4x5 or 4x6 portrait or landscape without rotating the camera to portrait orientation, or centre square crop or smaller crops for high speed, with a thumb toggle to choose which area of the sensor you wanted to use. I have no doubt that this is what Canon will introduce
muffins wrote:
Last night I had a dream of a + shaped sensor, like 2 normal full frame sensors with one rotated 90 degrees and superimposed over the first, with a crop function that let you shoot 4x5 or 4x6 portrait or landscape without rotating the camera to portrait orientation, or centre square crop or smaller crops for high speed, with a thumb toggle to choose which area of the sensor you wanted to use. I have no doubt that this is what Canon will introduce
Not full-frame. The mirror would have to be larger for the vertical and would not fit EF.
Likewise, there is about 0.01 percent chance Canon would introduce medium format sensored cameras, since they'd need a new line of lenses, and they can more easily and with less risk make more profit by improving the EF lens line, especially with high quality corner to corner fixed focal length lenses around 21 to 24 mm for about $1,000 to $1,500 at whatever aperture it takes to compete quality-wise with the Zeiss offerings.
Likewise, there is about 0.01 percent chance Canon would introduce medium format sensored cameras, since they'd need a new line of lenses, and they can more easily and with less risk make more profit by improving the EF lens line, especially with high quality corner to corner fixed focal length lenses around 21 to 24 mm for about $1,000 to $1,500 at whatever aperture it takes to compete quality-wise with the Zeiss offerings.
I don't think it's so close to impossible that Canon would go to medium format, but I do think it's unlikely they could make that great a move without some reliable, indepent source having gotten wind of it.
RDKirk wrote:
I don't think it's so close to impossible that Canon would go to medium format, but I do think it's unlikely they could make that great a move without some reliable, indepent source having gotten wind of it.
I can't read hebrew but I've been following a lot of the issues in this thread.
I'm sure Canon WILL make some entry into the MF market. The DSLR market has matured so market growth in this area is only going to be modest.
Consumer digicams might have a little further to go before the market saturates so I'm sure unlike KODAK who just slid into the "Basket Case Zone" the CANON CEO's will be looking for their next profitable income stream.
A possible type of scenario might be to provide the Sensor and maybe a Lens or two initially and team up with another supplier to manufacture the bodies before eventually doing it on their own.
Hrow wrote:
Whether the comment on the 5D is bashing or not, the reality is that the 5D has not blown crop cameras out of the water. From my conversations with dealers and past polls here, the 20D/30D outsells the 5D by about 50 to 1 (yes, I was surprised too). Given that Canon is out to sell cameras you can bet they have noticed the difference in sales as well and will respond accordingly. If they don't then they won't be around in a few years and the heated discussions on future products will just be a fond memory.
Henry - one thing to keep in mind is that Canon is actually out to sell lenses. Who do you think they make more lens profit on - a 30D owner or a 5D owner?
Canon is not dumb. They are very shrewd in their product positioning, and they understand their market.
"...one thing to keep in mind is that Canon is actually out to sell lenses. Who do you think they make more lens profit on - a 30D owner or a 5D owner?"
Mike is right; no doubt on a per customer basis they make more on a 5D owner. I suspect they still make more overall in the 30D camera/accessories market because of the higher volume. Only Canon knows for sure.
Hogwallow wrote:
Henry - one thing to keep in mind is that Canon is actually out to sell lenses. Who do you think they make more lens profit on - a 30D owner or a 5D owner?
Given that those most attracted to the 5D are photographers used to the film-sized format and thus more likely to have lenses coupled with more new photographers buying the 30D, I'd say the average new 30D owner would buy more lenses. It certainly helps that a 30D is the price of a couple of lenses cheaper than the 5D to begin with.
At best on an individual unit basis there's very little difference. Given the vast difference in unit volume between the two, I'd say that the 30D is by far the lens sales cash-cow for Canon. The introduction of $1000 EF-S lenses says something for the theory.
Kyle Yates wrote:
I am not sure there is any evidence to say that the "market has matured so market growth in this area is only going to be modest." Recent sales figures and ever-rising production quotas (Canon now turn out >150,000/month 350D's alone) suggests otherwise. Their own forecasts suggest very steady growth as the price off consumer P&S top-end merge with DLSR. There are millions of film SLR owners who basically gave up using their cameras when decent P&S (eg. IXUS400) came out. Once DLSR became affordable (and the 350D at $650 is affordable) many millions are ready to switch back to SLR and shell out for a new kit of lenses - especially if they have the odd EF lens already in a cupboard as a starter.
Not at all a good indicator I'm sure but of the 10 friends I have let try my camera 5 have already gone and purchased a 350D or similar price DLSR in the last 6 months. If that were replicated they are looking at more like exponential growth than a static market!
Whether or not Canon continue to put out APS-C sensor models only at the bottom end (and 30D is not the bottom end) the sales of EF-S lenses is huge as the 350D, 20D etc. count for 90% of total sales. That's why it makes sense for them to introduce $1200 EF-S 17-55 glass even at huge startup costs. I am sure they did their market research first on this. This does not even include the users who wnat to upgrade from 350D to 20D/30D at some point and still keep buying EF-S lenses.
RDKirk wrote:
Or maybe not. Canon will have sales goals for each model and may not expect nearly the same profit from the high ranges than the lower ranges (in fact, sales figures they've released for years have confirmed that they've always made most of their money from the cheaper cameras).
It's bad marketing and business for either Nikon or Canon to ignore any part of the total market. Their high-end visibility sells more low-end cameras. Canon's goal will be to have the greater overall share of the entire DSLR market.
What's more, - the 1D owners of today are the 350D owners of yesterday. Not entirely of course, - but still. Read the thread about how people went to be Canon users.
I believe that the low-end is very important. For different reasons, - first off these people still buy accesories like lenses, flash etc. A guy from my church has a 350D with several pretty nice lenses (a wide angel, - I think 10-22, 70-200F2.8 (not IS) and he might have more, - not sure).
Probably more important, - once you buy a camera you are somewhat likely to stick with that, - of course your likelyness will increase with more usable stuff (nice lenses, flash, etc.)
Last, - people influence each other. We are now three people in my church having DSLR. All three of us have Canon. As mentioned one have a 350, another on a 1DmkII and I have the 20D. All of us have a somewhat nice setup of lenses. Mine is a Sigma 24-70, Canon 70-200F4, 135 softfocus, 50 1.8, Sigma 20 1.8.
If someone new wants a DSLR they obviously will ask one or two of us. And what do we tell?
But now, - at least in Denmark where I live the Nikon as well as the 3.rd-tier is somewhat cheaper.
The 350D is approximately 5200 dkr (870 US$), the Nikon 50 is just 3995 (670 US$). That does make a difference when people starts out.
So for me a dirt-cheap 3000D will be a very obvious choice for Canon. It might have just 6 MP, just ISO 1600 etc. And most people buying it might want to change quite soon, - still it will be a very nice card for Canon to play.
I am of course very aware that the people buying a dirt cheap 3000D will also spend less money on lenses! Still I think that most of these people will be loyal too.
Well said. A cheap base-model Canon would be great for all the reasons you stated. The D50 has been a great seller and the Pentax models are also very strong sellers in many markets. They're cheap. Canons 350D requires that you're a little more certain that you want to get into DSLR photography. Canon need an impulse buy body for the masses.
I can not see Canon venturing in the Medium Format territory. I predict something drastic.
New Sensor, New bodies (built in IS like Sony) , New Lens Line-ups with higher res optics. (with built in IS, canon will beable to still charge a mint for quality glass since the quality will be higher) .
Most of us are who Canon markets for. People who need the 'latest and greatest' making them forget their current gear still does a fantastic job and new gear will perhaps marginally improve your output. But who knows
Sometimes people seem to forget Canon is a Japanese company. Consumers in Japan are *far* more loyal to brands than consumers in North America and in Europe. A complete "brand image" is extremely important to a company so that consumers will buy in to the brand and then continue buying the products for years after. Even though some models of camera (say for example perhaps the 5D?) may not be as popular or profitable as others (maybe the 350D?) they would continue to be produced to keep up the image and market coverage. Additionally, Japanese companies tend to be far more forward thinking than North American ones and it's not unusual for many of them to have extremely-long term (50 to 100 year) plans so it's a pretty good assumption that many of Canon's decisions are based on some long term goals rather than purely for short term profit. I know the company I am working for (of which, incidentally, Canon is a customer..) operates this way and since Canon is an older and much larger company I wouldn't be surprised if they do too.
kisielk wrote:
Sometimes people seem to forget Canon is a Japanese company.
Mr Iwashita, Canon's CEO of their imaging division, has said in interviews that Canon is a traditionally consensus-driven company, which would also mean they are more likely to pursue the vision arrived at by consensus than to attempt to react spontaneously to a new camera released by a competitor (especially since pursuing that vision has put them at the top of the heap).
It's very instructive to read the story of the development T-90 in the Canon Museum web site--especially when one realizes that most of that story occurs after the introduction of the autofocusing Maxxum 7000, which had rendered the T-90 obsolete before it even reached the assembly lines. But Canon released it anyway.
