RDKirk wrote:
Canon doesn't "answer" to camera models released by competitors. It just doesn't work that way. They give part of their product philosophy in the Canon Camera Museum website where they detail the development of the T-90, and in one interview an executive talked about their five-year planning method and model structure pyramid concept.
Each manufacturer has a unique view of its market and a unique product philosophy. In a rare case, the product philosophy might even be embodied in a single individual. One such case was Olympus' magnificent OM-1, which was the brainchild of designer Mr Maitani--so much a product of his personal philosophy that "OM" stood for "Olympus-Maitani"--not a common celebration of the individual in Japan.
Canon's view of its market is not the same as Nikon's view, nor is Canon's product philosophy the same as Nikon's. Nikon, for instance, has always been the ultimate PJ camera since their rangefinder days, and their higher-end models will always show a distinct design slant toward PJ-oriented features. ...Show more →
Completely agree. If this was the case we'd see the 5DII having an updated AF system and the 50D having a lower mp count. The same applies to glass as well, each manufacturer focusing on different points in that market. Canon and Nikon each have their own marketing ideologies and strategies and neither of them pander to each other. Now, IF Canon were to revamp the xxD series with FF sensors or release and entirely new line of DSLR's to directly counter Nikon's advance I think we would be witnessing a brand new marketing theme for Canon...we can only hope this is the case but chances are its not.
As much as I am hoping for an "entry level FF" camera with improved AF, Canon's past strategy does not make me very hopeful.
The two "leaks" of the new camera top plate and the 7D logo - disregarding the fact that their legitimacy seems questionable - both show ample evidence that they belong to an APS-C camera. If these shots are indeed genuine, I suggest they belong to a 50D replacement, however that might be named.
Then there's the best buy DB entry for a sub-3K 7D. If it is true, considering the price point I would expect to see either a lower MP FF camera with upgraded AF (as a counterpart to the 5DmkII) or an up-spec'd crop cam. Sadly, I don't believe we'll see either.
My bet is that we will see a 50D successor with the usual evolutionary improvements within the usual price bracket and that will be it on the prosumer side. But then I'll be glad to let Canon surprise me
M Vers wrote:
Completely agree. If this was the case we'd see the 5DII having an updated AF system and the 50D having a lower mp count. The same applies to glass as well, each manufacturer focusing on different points in that market. Canon and Nikon each have their own marketing ideologies and strategies and neither of them pander to each other. Now, IF Canon were to revamp the xxD series with FF sensors or release and entirely new line of DSLR's to directly counter Nikon's advance I think we would be witnessing a brand new marketing theme for Canon...we can only hope this is the case but chances are its not....Show more →
Well, unless they are starting to lose market shares, which is still unclear to me at this point.
This is just a wishful thinking but I'm hoping for a new line of APS-H camera cheaper still than the 5D, perhaps with this 7D, while Canon finally adopt the FF sensor for the 1DmkIV as Nikon D700 counterpart.
Zara wrote:
As much as I am hoping for an "entry level FF" camera with improved AF, Canon's past strategy does not make me very hopeful.
The two "leaks" of the new camera top plate and the 7D logo - disregarding the fact that their legitimacy seems questionable - both show ample evidence that they belong to an APS-C camera. If these shots are indeed genuine, I suggest they belong to a 50D replacement, however that might be named.
Then there's the best buy DB entry for a sub-3K 7D. If it is true, considering the price point I would expect to see either a lower MP FF camera with upgraded AF (as a counterpart to the 5DmkII) or an up-spec'd crop cam. Sadly, I don't believe we'll see either.
My bet is that we will see a 50D successor with the usual evolutionary improvements within the usual price bracket and that will be it on the prosumer side. But then I'll be glad to let Canon surprise me ...Show more →
I agree. If the 7D is released as a crop camera, there will never be a 60D, but the 50D will stay in production for another year.
RDKirk wrote:
Canon doesn't "answer" to camera models released by competitors. It just doesn't work that way. They give part of their product philosophy in the Canon Camera Museum website where they detail the development of the T-90, and in one interview an executive talked about their five-year planning method and model structure pyramid concept.
I'm curious why people feel that Canon -- as a business entity -- needs to "answer" the D700 at all?
All indications point to the fact that the 5D Mark II has outsold the Nikon D700 by a good margin. It took the 5D Mark II nearly a year before supply caught up with demand. In fact, it's still out of stock at many major stores around the world today. On the other hand, the Nikon D700 hasn't really been hard to find since the first month of its release.
And the 5D2's dominance in the market is reflected in its ability to dictate prices. Nearly a year after it's been out, it's still retailing for the full MSRP $2700. The D700 price has plummeted to staggeringly low levels, from $3000 to $2350. Most indirect indicators (i.e. Pbase stats, In-store User Reviews, flickr participation, etc) consistently show the 5D2 enjoying a greater population than the D700 --- despite the fact the D700 had a 3-month head start last year, and despite the scarce availability of the 5D2. By all accounts, the 5D2 was a runaway success.
Canon was able to successfully market a high-end product that didn't encroach on its professional cameras. The separation between the 5-series and 1-series models remain very well defined... much to the chagrin of us Canon photographers.
Nikon, on the other hand, had the D700 completely cannibalize the D3. There's no separation between those two cameras at all. In fact, I'm certain that the D700 leached more potential D3 photographers than it did Canon photographers. It was a desperate maneuver from Nikon --- shooting themselves in the foot just to keep up with Canon. From a business stand point, I don't see why Canon would want an "answer" to the D700 at all. I'm pretty darn sure they prefer how the 5D Mark II has worked out for them.
I don't think Nikon is pleased with what they had to do with the D700. To keep Canon in check, they had to essentially sell a D3 clone at half price ($2350). What they've done is mind boggling, and insane. Nikon customers are ecstatic, but Nikon the Business is definitely not. They've sacrificed any leverage they had when it comes to camera bodies. This is the reason why the prices for Nikkor FX lenses have skyrocketed. A 70-200 f2.8 VR II for $2400 USD? Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 at $1800? The prices of those FX telephoto lenses will make any grown man cry.
stargazer78 wrote:
Nikon, on the other hand, had the D700 completely cannibalize the D3. There's no separation between those two cameras at all. In fact, I'm certain that the D700 leached more potential D3 photographers than it did Canon photographers. It was a desperate maneuver from Nikon --- shooting themselves in the foot just to keep up with Canon. From a business stand point, I don't see why Canon would want an "answer" to the D700 at all. I'm pretty darn sure they prefer how the 5D Mark II has worked out for them.
I don't think Nikon is pleased with what they had to do with the D700. To keep Canon in check, they had to essentially sell a D3 clone at half price ($2350). What they've done is mind boggling, and insane. Nikon customers are ecstatic, but Nikon the Business is definitely not. They've sacrificed any leverage they had when it comes to camera bodies. This is the reason why the prices for Nikkor FX lenses have skyrocketed. A 70-200 f2.8 VR II for $2400 USD? Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 at $1800? The prices of those FX telephoto lenses will make any grown man cry. ...Show more →
Do you think the world will ever see a D700x? It would be yet another risky move for Nikon.
Well, unless they are starting to lose market shares, which is still unclear to me at this point.
That would take a recognition and acknowledgement that their entire view of their market was mistaken. Otherwise, it would accepted as a matter of "we're in the closing phase of our last planning cycle--we will regain market share when we release the products of our current planning cycle."
And that's the thing: We consumers don't know where they are in their planning cycle, except that we can be sure they don't scramble to design their next camera with every Nikon or Sony release.
Whatever we see released is always a result of what they thought several years ago would match their entire line-up with market desires at that future time of release. In other words, Canon predicted several years ago that the cameras they're releasing now would be what the market would want now (and let's remember that their view of their market does not equal Internet forums).
If they are wrong in their estimation of the future desires of the market, it's largely going to take until the next planning cycle to correct it (notwithstanding moderate feature corrections that can be made through firmware these days).
So, it was probably 10 years ago that Canon decided 24x36mm DSLRs would succeed in the upper half of its market by 2005, and probably 5 years ago that Canon decided video would be the important feature by 2009 or 2010.
stargazer78 wrote:
All indications point to the fact that the 5D Mark II has outsold the Nikon D700 by a good margin. It took the 5D Mark II nearly a year before supply caught up with demand. In fact, it's still out of stock at many major stores around the world today. On the other hand, the Nikon D700 hasn't really been hard to find since the first month of its release.
And the 5D2's dominance in the market is reflected in its ability to dictate prices. Nearly a year after it's been out, it's still retailing for the full MSRP $2700. The D700 price has plummeted to staggeringly low levels, from $3000 to $2350. Most indirect indicators (i.e. Pbase stats, In-store User Reviews, flickr participation, etc) consistently show the 5D2 enjoying a greater population than the D700 --- despite the fact the D700 had a 3-month head start last year, and despite the scarce availability of the 5D2. By all accounts, the 5D2 was a runaway success.
Canon was able to successfully market a high-end product that didn't encroach on its professional cameras. The separation between the 5-series and 1-series models remain very well defined... much to the chagrin of us Canon photographers....Show more →
By the same token, sales of the 5D2 has escalated the sales of the original 5D on the used market. There's a market out there for the comparatively inexpensive full frame camera in the $1200-$1500 range. And for every used 5D purchased, that's one camera that Canon makes NO MONEY on. This shouldn't just be about Nikon vs. Canon (though no one in their right mind can say that Canon and Nikon don't compete with each other), but also about looking at what the market wants and trying to fill the gaps.
kakomu wrote:
By the same token, sales of the 5D2 has escalated the sales of the original 5D on the used market. There's a market out there for the comparatively inexpensive full frame camera in the $1200-$1500 range. And for every used 5D purchased, that's one camera that Canon makes NO MONEY on. This shouldn't just be about Nikon vs. Canon (though no one in their right mind can say that Canon and Nikon don't compete with each other), but also about looking at what the market wants and trying to fill the gaps.
You forgot to ask yourself, who buys the used 5D and what does the previous owner buy. Those who buy a 5D usually need to buy some other lenses, because the crop lenses they used won't work: cash for Canon. The previous owners went a step up the line and bought a 5D-II or maybe even a 1Ds3: cash for Canon.
kakomu wrote:
By the same token, sales of the 5D2 has escalated the sales of the original 5D on the used market. There's a market out there for the comparatively inexpensive full frame camera in the $1200-$1500 range. And for every used 5D purchased, that's one camera that Canon makes NO MONEY on. This shouldn't just be about Nikon vs. Canon (though no one in their right mind can say that Canon and Nikon don't compete with each other), but also about looking at what the market wants and trying to fill the gaps.
Exactly; there is a huge market for a less expensive FF camera in my view.
U.C. wrote:
You forgot to ask yourself, who buys the used 5D and what does the previous owner buy. Those who buy a 5D usually need to buy some other lenses, because the crop lenses they used won't work: cash for Canon. The previous owners went a step up the line and bought a 5D-II or maybe even a 1Ds3: cash for Canon.
There are many reasons to buy a 5D and not everyone who buys one is necessarily going to rush out to purchase new lenses for their 5D, or are just upgrading from a crop body. In fact, if they're fine with purchasing a used camera body, they're probably fine with purchasing a used lens.
There's a market out there for the comparatively inexpensive full frame camera in the $1200-$1500 range.
But did (or could) Canon predict in 2003 or 2004 that they could produce a profitable $1200-$1500 24x36mm camera by 2010? We don't know even now if they actually can.
There is always a used market willing to accept older technology--heck, there is a used market for D30s...that doesn't mean it would be profitable for Canon to continue to produce D30s.
kakomu wrote:
There are many reasons to buy a 5D and not everyone who buys one is necessarily going to rush out to purchase new lenses for their 5D, or are just upgrading from a crop body. In fact, if they're fine with purchasing a used camera body, they're probably fine with purchasing a used lens.
But selling a lens, many times means buying a new one.
At the moment I have a 450D, but I'm planning to go FF next year. Problem is, the only lenses I have that fit on a FF are my Sigma 50/1.4, Canon 70-200 f/4L IS and (with some mirror-shaving) a Minolta Rokkor 58 f/1.2. My walkaround lens (Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro) won't work properly on a FF, so I have to buy a new walkaround.
I know that I'm not everyone, but I'm certain that there are a lot more crop-users around with EF-S lenses.
I already had used lenses before I bought my 5D, and I had and still have only one ef-s type lens, Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 EX DC, which gets used on my 40D or 20D. It's not Canon; their 10-22 was too expensive at the time I wanted an ultra-wide. The 5D did not prompt me to buy new lenses, but I did end up making two lens purchases later that would not have been made if I didn't have a 5D (35L, 85L).
I bought a used 5D because the 5D II put the original 5D within my financial reach. I also believe that there is a huge market for a less expensive full-frame camera; however, anything they come out with that's full frame and under the 5D II is probably going to further lower the price of used original 5Ds, making them an even easier purchase and probably cutting somewhat into the new product's sales even as those with more money decide to move to the upgrade. A sub-$1000 full-frame camera would be an amazing, unheard of value to me, and I can see myself ditching my 40D and/or 20D and trading up for that.
