slungu
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Sam Bennett wrote:
How many times are we going to go around and round on this? I see the logic in not having a mirror and acknowledge that Live View allows us to have a system that previously was impossible - this isn't a technical issue. All I'm saying is that for Canon, the business case isn't solid enough to justify a completely new product line. Canon will need to see its entry-level dSLR sales evaporate before it really takes notice and even then its response is not necessarily a mirrorless interchangeable lens system - it may simply be a family of "Super G" cameras with APS-C sensors and a few different zoom options.
Again, it comes back to what market MFT is addressing, and what the majority of those people really want, and I think that it is a mistake to assume that all the people buying MFT see "interchangeable lenses" as being core to that need. That is the fallacy in treating FredMiranda.com as a good data point for market research - like it or not guys, but we're not a good representative of the numbers that Panasonic's going after. As we've seen with the interest in the X1, there are some people who don't really give a hoot about interchangeable lenses, they want just want something with demonstrably higher quality, the DoF (a large part of the "look" of the photo), responsiveness and performance of a dSLR. Canon does not need a new interchangeable lens system to address that market need.
But I think Canon's primary strategy to counter MFT in the near term is going to simply make dSLRs cheaper. The biggest problem with MFT right now is that the cameras are still relatively expensive. As much as people talk about mirrorless designs being cheaper to make since you don't have as many moving parts, Canon and Nikon both manage to make their entry-level offerings cheaper than MFTs, and as we've seen Canon is still very profitable. If Canon sees a lot of pressure from MFT, they'll just make consumers an offer they can't refuse - very cheap dSLRs with better image quality than the smaller, but more expensive MFTs. It then becomes a question of how important smallness is to people since dSLRs still perform better in virtually every regard.
For what its worth, I hope I'm wrong. I think MFT is the best thing to happen to digital cameras in a long time, and competition is a good thing - the more people playing in this market, the better. But Canon is a giant company and they've proven unwilling to do anything that they see as jeopardizing their dSLR profits - the G Series should have gotten a much bigger, less dense sensor years ago, but that would have made dSLRs less attractive. With Canon still very profitable in 2009, things will have to change drastically in 2010 for them to make any moves like this, and I just don't see it happening....Show more →
Well, it depends on how they think about it. With the G-Series, making them too good would be a problem since they would get both less dSLR and lenses sold. With a interchangable system they may sell lenses and bodys and get some part of the dSLR market from other competitors as well, even if they would maybe loos some own dSLR buys. Problem is, if they make the move it is probably only a matter of time until the others follow. They know how to play the game, since they were first to bring dSLR for the masses, so if they think it is going to pay off, they will introduce another line, but they will not risk loosing customers that they can satisfy with what they have to a new line with uncertain future. If there is evidence that a mirrorless, big-sensor camera is likely to be a commercial success, they will bring something to the market, if they think it is a niche product, they will leave this to others ( see fixed focal systems like the Sigma and so on ). For now, the mFT is something of a gadgetery, maybe it will develop over time, but mFT is not what we want - we want a FF mirrorless camera, and bar the M9 there is no such thing on the market right now.
|
But again, what you say may be true but it doesn't mean Canon will be willing to throw out decades of lens designs and alienate millions of current customers to take advantage of mirrorless designs. Again, from a business perspective I don't see why Canon would do it.
The mirror is just a leftover from the film days. It has no real use in the digital era. The MFT idea is a great one and many are buying it. Thus, we are going to go mirrorless as well. Understood? 