ggreene wrote:
I have to agree. Right now Sony has the tech but their bodies are terrible for ergos/build. Even Canikon's ML entries are bad.
Holding an EOS R is almost as bad as an A7III or A9. Grips too small and not deep enough, no decent spacing for buttons,
and poor weather resistance. Your hand position is all scrunched up. 1D series are very neutral for hand position and are
comfortable to hold all day.
DSLR's offer a wide choice for size and build of bodies. Still waiting for ML to show that kind of variety as a system. Hopefully
the Olympics will expand the options. ...Show more →
IMO, putting a MILC into a DSLR body would be a runaway hit. DSLRs have been honed to be excellent ergonomically. If Canon would take the 77D in its current form and make it an MILC, I think it would sell incredibly well. I don't see where this attitude that MILCs can't take the form factor of a DSLR is justified.
PicGuy wrote:
Either innovate and give your users what they want or go out of business. The dedicated camera makers have been behaving like the Titanic heading toward an iceberg. They have decided to keep on the course that leads to a crash instead altering course and avoiding it. IMO, a lot of this attitude is born from arrogance in that they think they know what their user base wants and shouldn't be questioned.
They all should be marrying smartphone tech to dedicated camera tech and offering small, inexpensive cameras that use SIMM cards, the Android OS, computational photography etc. along with the strengths that come from larger sensors and telephoto lenses. Instead we keep getting the same old thing with incremental tweaks while smartphone cameras are advancing at a ferocious pace and gobbling their market from the bottom up. At this pace there won't be much of their user base left in 5-10 years because they will get what they want from a smartphone with no other options available....Show more →
In Canon's case it was more an accumulation of strategic mistakes IMO. Canon decided around 2012 to focus on the video market after the first DSLR with video capabilities - the 5D MkII - was very successful especially for videographers. Doing so, Canon moved resources from camera and sensor development towards video. Problem was that others started vesting into new camera sensor manufacturing lines which provided better performing future sensors which is still the case. Second main error - and here Canon was not alone - was to underestimate the rise of the (FF) MLC market. When Canon started to turn around, others like Fuji and Sony already covered the main market shares for MLC and are years ahead in this technology. At this point it is a steep uphill battle for Canon to get even to an equal level to others in the market which won't be easy. Canon simply did what they are good in: DSLR body technology and lenses. But they overlooked for long that the sensor resolution/DR race is continuing after 24 MP and that a new technology arrived which now is in the beginning to fully replace DSLRs. Cellphone cameras ate the low camera margins which was for long the big buffer for Canon's profitability. With this fading away, it will be interesting where Canon cameras will stand in 5-10 years from now.
There are several factors to consider. Some are specific the overall economy, some to the camera business itself, and some to market positions of specific companies.
As the quote above points out, there are signs of an upcoming economic slowdown, especially affecting some of the markets where things like cameras have their largest markets. That isn't unexpected since (duh...) these things run in cycles and we are well into one of the longest running recoveries. What goes up must come down, and all that.
The camera business itself faces two fundamental challenges. One is the oft-mentioned shift from small, personal, point-and-shoot cameras to the use of smart phone cameras. Those less expensive cameras used to be a huge market for camera companies — it has declined precipitously and even selling components and IP to phone manufacturing companies can't make up for that. The second issue — which seems to escape the notice of a lot of people still — is that the market for "better" (good to excellent quality) cameras has just come through a market explosion as digital supplanted film, with the effect of building a huge market of new buyers and older buyers switching to the new technology. In addition, during that period of rapid development and change, buyers were more likely to replace new equipment on a shorter time line. That market was unsustainable, like virtually any other "boom" market, and things are now settling back towards a state that is more like (though not identical to) the high quality camera market of the 1990s or so: fewer new buyers, slower upgrade cycles, a smaller market. There is no amount of improvement that can alter that, and even the switch to mirrorless has a smaller impact and is less sustainable.
Finally, different companies come into this period with different strengths and weaknesses — and all of them have at least some of each. Some are in a position of existing market domination that is likely to sustain them with sufficient innovation, marketing, and planning — think Canon. Others are in a strong enough growth position that they have a better chance of finding a way into the new type of market — think Sony, perhaps Fujifilm. A few are in precarious situations with smaller market shares and difficulty finding ways to distinguish themselves — think Nikon, Pentax, and perhaps a few others.
Meanwhile... none of this is likely to produce an existential problem for many photographers. We still have excellent gear from a range of competitive manufacturers, and most of those we rely on are going to continue to be here for a long time.
Another major problem is the user base for dedicated cameras is dying off fast. I know very few younger people who have any interest in photography beyond using a smartphone. I try to get young people involved in photography but they see me as a dinosaur using cumbersome, expensive gear when a smartphone is a much better practical choice for them.
I think you have a point in that the camera market from a volume aspect is reverting back to the film era which, IMO, is the enthusiast/professional photographers. The gimmick appeal of digital photography to the masses is over because smartphones have met the needs of "fair weather" photographers. I classify these people as the ones who bought a DSLR/MILC, used it a few times and decided the process of obtaining photos was too inconvenient to continue using the gear. I do think the camera makers can help themselves if they would innovate. They could steal tech from smartphones and use the 1" sensor cameras to make some incredibly small, capable options. Maybe the R&D for this is just too big of a risk.
Smartphones are now coming with multiple cameras which give multiple focal length abilities. They also combine these cameras to enhance the final output of a single photo. A smartphone can give wide angle, standard and telephoto capability and, IMO, this is eating into the lower end ILC market. As the smartphone technology advances it will eat into the low to mid-range segment. Add to this a slew of very high resolution cameras coming to smartphones and the prognosis gets even worse.
PicGuy wrote:
I think you have a point in that the camera market from a volume aspect is reverting back to the film era which, IMO, is the enthusiast/professional photographers.
In my experience it's also making being a pro much harder.
Money is tight these days and very often a picture from a phone 'will do' even if technically it's fairly useless if it's only meant for the web often it doesn't matter.
Of course there are still prestige jobs that require professional quality but the advent of the camera phone has not helped.
The market for 'serious' cameras (i.e any kind of proper kit) has always been fairly limited, there are hundreds of really good quality fairly modestly priced cameras out there now, the money for R&D probably just isn't there with sales declining.
PicGuy wrote:
I think you have a point in that the camera market from a volume aspect is reverting back to the film era which, IMO, is the enthusiast/professional photographers.
Big difference in the film era the low end P&S were going strong. This segment of the digital market is being taken away by smart phones leaving a huge revenue gap for the camera manufactures.
chez wrote:
Big difference in the film era the low end P&S were going strong. This segment of the digital market is being taken away by smart phones leaving a huge revenue gap for the camera manufactures.
I should have specified I was referring mostly to the ILC segment.
PicGuy wrote:
I should have specified I was referring mostly to the ILC segment.
I know you were...but it's a big drain on the camera manufactures losing the revenue from the P&S market. The only way too keep revenue up would be to increase the price of equipment...which hurts both you and me. Now win for either the manufactures nor the consumers.
dhphoto wrote:
Money is tight these days and very often a picture from a phone 'will do' even if technically it's fairly useless if it's only meant for the web often it doesn't matter.
Of course there are still prestige jobs that require professional quality but the advent of the camera phone has not helped.
I think this is a result of the photographs being viewed on small screens. Even then, a 4k TV has a resolution that an 8mp camera can cover. I also think that people are not into post processing images these days (heck, count me as one of them) and a smartphone does an amazing job of PP in an instant.
I do think the camera makers are giving up on a potential market segment that could replace lost sales. They need cameras that function more like cell phones. What I am thinking of is a body like Canon's M100 with a 1" sensor with the size reduced accordingly. Then give it a SIMM slot to connect to the world like a smartphone with the Android OS and a P&S 10X+ zoom lens. Heck, it could even have calling ability. Then use computational means to make it perform near close to a FF sensor.
I think this would create a whole new market segment that would attract current ILC and smartphone users. With this device a person could take it and leave their smartphone home if they so decided. I would buy a camera like this in a minute. If Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji etc. doesn't move in this direction then I think smartphone makers will do it at some point. Then camera makers will be screwed because this type of device will likely take a lot of sales from the APS-C and FF sensor camera market.
I think computational photography is going to bring a in new era in regard to what camera gear we buy. My guess is it will be in the direction of much smaller, lighter, small sensor, inexpensive cameras that give results of what we get today from APS-C and FF bodies with bulky lenses attached. They won't completely replace ILCs but will take a huge bite out of this segment. The big question in my mind is if it will be the current camera makers or the smartphone makers that will own this new market.
chez wrote:
I know you were...but it's a big drain on the camera manufactures losing the revenue from the P&S market. The only way too keep revenue up would be to increase the price of equipment...which hurts both you and me. Now win for either the manufactures nor the consumers.
If there is a market for something then a company will step in to fill it. This is where I think computational photography will step to fill any gaps in the low to mid range segment. Applying it to a 1" sensor P&S camera like a smaller version of Canon's M100 could bring in a whole new era in affordable, highly capable cameras. Seeing what software manipulation gets from a $40 smartphone camera, I can only image what it could get from a 1" sensor P&S with a super zoom lens attached.
sirimiri wrote:
Some people seem to think the answers to all that plague the optical imaging industry's declining sales, are staring them in the face.
To that I would say: if it were that easy, an established player or newcomer would have done so already.
Paradigm shifts aren't simple.
I think the technology used in smartphones are the canary in the coal mine for camera makers. They seem unwilling to analyze the monster that is eating them alive and provide a counter attack. People use smartphones to meet their photography needs for various reasons. Camera makers need to take this into account and modify their products to meet these needs while leveraging the inherent strengths of their current models. The problem with camera makers is they haven't thought outside the box for almost 15 years. Smartphone makers do not have this problem.
PicGuy wrote:
I think this is a result of the photographs being viewed on small screens. Even then, a 4k TV has a resolution that an 8mp camera can cover. I also think that people are not into post processing images these days (heck, count me as one of them) and a smartphone does an amazing job of PP in an instant.
I do think the camera makers are giving up on a potential market segment that could replace lost sales. They need cameras that function more like cell phones. What I am thinking of is a body like Canon's M100 with a 1" sensor with the size reduced accordingly. Then give it a SIMM slot to connect to the world like a smartphone with the Android OS and a P&S 10X+ zoom lens. Heck, it could even have calling ability. Then use computational means to make it perform near close to a FF sensor.
I think this would create a whole new market segment that would attract current ILC and smartphone users. With this device a person could take it and leave their smartphone home if they so decided. I would buy a camera like this in a minute. If Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji etc. doesn't move in this direction then I think smartphone makers will do it at some point. Then camera makers will be screwed because this type of device will likely take a lot of sales from the APS-C and FF sensor camera market.
I think computational photography is going to bring a in new era in regard to what camera gear we buy. My guess is it will be in the direction of much smaller, lighter, small sensor, inexpensive cameras that give results of what we get today from APS-C and FF bodies with bulky lenses attached. They won't completely replace ILCs but will take a huge bite out of this segment. The big question in my mind is if it will be the current camera makers or the smartphone makers that will own this new market....Show more →
So what does this new camera do that today's phone's cannot?
PicGuy wrote:
If there is a market for something then a company will step in to fill it. This is where I think computational photography will step to fill any gaps in the low to mid range segment. Applying it to a 1" sensor P&S camera like a smaller version of Canon's M100 could bring in a whole new era in affordable, highly capable cameras. Seeing what software manipulation gets from a $40 smartphone camera, I can only image what it could get from a 1" sensor P&S with a super zoom lens attached.
We already have this in our phones...why would I want to carry another device just to achieve the same result I get from my phone.
chez wrote:
So what does this new camera do that today's phone's cannot?
Phone cameras use a tiny, cheap sensor and software manipulation allows it to be much more effective than it would be in a low end P&S camera. Replace the sensor with say a 1" size one and the software starts off with a much high level of capability. This would mean performance from a 1" sensor that matches APS-C or even FF. This performance would come from much less expensive hardware just like the best smartphones use a $40 camera and make up the difference with software manipulation. As an example, the Pixel 3 takes a rapid series of photos and stacks them to produce a very noise free image. The results are impressive and it can produce a good photo in very low light conditions.
Imagine if a 1" sensor was used instead of a tiny smartphone sensor. The results could rival or even exceed FF in many instances. This software is being improved at a fast pace and things like pixel shifting could be used to produce very high resolution photos from a 20mp sensor. The capabilities of this software matched with a larger sensor and a decent zoom lens would be incredible..... and affordable because the hardware is inexpensive. Plus, you could make/answer calls with it using a Bluetooth ear piece. Then upload images from wherever you are to wherever you choose via a wireless phone connection. Heck, you could even do some web surfing.
chez wrote:
We already have this in our phones...why would I want to carry another device just to achieve the same result I get from my phone.
Your smartphone can't rival a FF sensor. Think of of the results if the technology of a smartphone were applied to a 1" Sony BSI sensor along with a decent P&S zoom lens. You would get FF performance from a tiny, affordable device that would have the connectivity and feature set of a smartphone. With a device like this you could leave your smartphone at home in many circumstances. Plus, it could easily fit in a pants pocket.
sirimiri wrote:
Then why haven't "all-in-ones" like smartphones obsolesced discreet devices such as interchangeable lens cameras yet?
One, camera makers can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Two, smartphone makers have been preoccupied with competing against each other and not camera makers. The pain they have inflicted on the dedicated camera makers is a result of collateral damage from their competition with each other. Image if one, or several, of them decide to make a camera like I have described (which they can). It would decimate a wide swath of cameras currently sold. IMO, there will come a point when a camera or smartphone company sees this potential market and makers a serious move to occupy it. I think it is inevitable because smartphones and dedicated cameras are on a continual collision path and so far only the smartphone makers remains unscathed from it. Also, I don't see the initial salvo of these cameras being ILCs. Rather they will be a P&S variant with a form factor somewhere between a smartphone and say a Canon M100.
Camera sales only make up about 15% of Canon's overall sales. A drop that big indicates something at the macro level affecting other Canon businesses as they have many. Other large companies are experiencing similar effects. I think it has little to do with camera sales, much less high end ILC camera sales which are just a small percentage of total camera sales.
PicGuy wrote:
The problem with camera makers is they haven't thought outside the box for almost 15 years. Smartphone makers do not have this problem.
The problem with this is we don't know what's going on in Canon's (and others') R&D labs. Unfortunately, there has been little if any public facing information and/or products to undermine this perception. But given a chance to briefly 'peek behind the curtains', Canon is indeed working on non-hardware based photographic solutions.
IMO a huge challenge for Canon and the other camera brands is depth of available resources compared to the likes of Google and Apple. I agree computational photography is where we're heading and hardware could potentially become a less important factor, at least at the level of work done by the general population. I believe a market will remain for ILC systems, but the question is whether it will be a sustainable one for large companies such as Canon, Sony, Panasonic, etc., which may instead decide to focus their energies elsewhere. Or make the huge majority of their revenue in other areas (like Fujifilm) and operate their camera businesses as boutique brands, like Leica, though they will have to convince their users to accept boutique-level pricing. Based on the number of complaints I read regularly about how overpriced current photography equipment is on average, I'm not overly optimistic the majority will buy in to this potential new reality.
