Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 07 Mar 2014 (Friday) 06:23
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is Canon losing the War ?

 
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,039 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Dec 2005
     
Mar 10, 2014 13:22 |  #106

Hogloff wrote in post #16748310 (external link)
Well just buy 10 of everything you need today and you are done.

Plastic and rubber get brittle over time. That wouldn't work.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
skilsaw
Senior Member
302 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2013
     
Mar 10, 2014 13:57 |  #107

cdifoto wrote in post #16740767 (external link)
There is no war.

Vladimir Puttin Troll




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Mar 10, 2014 16:16 |  #108

Hogloff wrote in post #16747661 (external link)
Well as a photographer and not an medical technician...I would be somewhat concerned they are looking at other areas to replace lost revenues from their photography division. They are also looking heavily into video for other revenue, again as a still photographer this worries me.

Overall, losing revenue 2 years in a row does not look very good on a publically traded company.

I wouldn't worry. I was going to the far end of the spectrum to illustrate a point. What I was getting at is that dedicated camera sales - whether we're talking about mirrorless, DSLR, or point & shoot, just went through a boom period and that boom period is ending. The market will continue to shrink as we're at a point of diminishing returns on the top end and a convergence problem is happening on the bottom end. Photography is just going to make up a smaller part of their overall portfolio. It's inevitable unless someone finds a way to put a full frame sensor into a P&S body with a P&S sized lens that will let you have the quality and apertures of DSLR lenses - all for the price of a P&S. That's something that might drive most people to replace perfectly good cameras. But other than that, most people are just going to use what they have now which is good enough. Canon will need to make up that revenue in other ways to keep growing as a company and they are well positioned to do that. The DSLR boom is behind us but just because it is declining doesn't mean they are losing a war or anything. No one is doing well.

But Canon's photography division is still important to them for other reasons. It serves as an advertisement for their entire imaging division. CANON - the people that make the cameras that the famous people use. Of course they can be relied upon for your medical imaging as well. It's branding and name recognition. So I think even if the market drops to a fraction of what it was, we will still have access to great stuff. But upgrades will happen less frequently.


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Mar 10, 2014 16:58 |  #109

The decline will be overcome for a while with some extra sales when people move to mirrorless.

Then the camera vendors need to figure out something else to tempt buyers, and force a restart of sales.

Other markets managed to move from DVD with analog players, to DVD with HDMI connector to BD, to BD with 3D, to 4k. It was easy to get the customers to buy new equipments regularly because the new players could still play the old media. And at the same time, they did manage to trick customers to rebuy the favourite movies again on a newer media with higher quality without forcing customers to have to make the jump.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Mar 12, 2014 00:21 |  #110

pwm2 wrote in post #16748869 (external link)
The decline will be overcome for a while with some extra sales when people move to mirrorless.

Then the camera vendors need to figure out something else to tempt buyers, and force a restart of sales.

Other markets managed to move from DVD with analog players, to DVD with HDMI connector to BD, to BD with 3D, to 4k. It was easy to get the customers to buy new equipments regularly because the new players could still play the old media. And at the same time, they did manage to trick customers to rebuy the favourite movies again on a newer media with higher quality without forcing customers to have to make the jump.

True. But the transition from DVD to Blu ray has been much slower than the transition from VHS to DVD. That's because the improvement from VHS to DVD was considerable. The DVD to Blu Ray less so. The next big move, to 4K will be even less appealing to people - especially if the cost is more. Many now are already perfectly satisfied with their 720p screens and don't plan to move to 1080p. Some will move for something a little more novel such as #D screens, but most won't pay extra or replace an existing 720p that works fine just to have it. Especially if they have to throw out their Blu Ray player for a new 4k player at the same time to actually benefit.

Same thing happened with music as well. Sony and a couple others recently started trying to push some new version of high def audio that's supposed to be 24 bit 192 khz instead of 16 bit 44.1 khz like CD audio, and a whole new class of players to play these files. But that will likely flop because CDA already covers the entire human hearing range and most people aren't even interested in buying the $400 earphones necessary to tell the difference between a 192k and 320k compression and certainly won't be able to tell the difference between a CDA wav file and a "high definition audio". Sure, if the average phone or player would play the file, and the files were the same price, and the earphones didn't cost any more, people would buy it all just the same as what they have now. But most aren't going to get rid of what they have now and replace it.


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,148 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2012
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Mar 12, 2014 00:55 |  #111

kfreels wrote in post #16752265 (external link)
But the transition from DVD to Blu ray has been much slower than the transition from VHS to DVD. That's because the improvement from VHS to DVD was considerable. The DVD to Blu Ray less so. The next big move, to 4K will be even less appealing to people - especially if the cost is more. Many now are already perfectly satisfied with their 720p screens and don't plan to move to 1080p. Some will move for something a little more novel such as #D screens, but most won't pay extra or replace an existing 720p that works fine just to have it. Especially if they have to throw out their Blu Ray player for a new 4k player at the same time to actually benefit.

Same thing happened with music as well. Sony and a couple others recently started trying to push some new version of high def audio that's supposed to be 24 bit 192 khz instead of 16 bit 44.1 khz like CD audio, and a whole new class of players to play these files. But that will likely flop because CDA already covers the entire human hearing range and most people aren't even interested in buying the $400 earphones necessary to tell the difference between a 192k and 320k compression and certainly won't be able to tell the difference between a CDA wav file and a "high definition audio". Sure, if the average phone or player would play the file, and the files were the same price, and the earphones didn't cost any more, people would buy it all just the same as what they have now. But most aren't going to get rid of what they have now and replace it.

Agree, the drive to something new is due to some 'benefit'. In the case of DVD to Blueray, or the drive to 4K, one only needs to recall statements that it took a certain viewing distance and a certain screen diagonal to truly appreciate benefits of 1080p over 720p; so the axiom remains even more true for 4K...yet bigger screens at close viewing distances are needed to truly justify the difference in cost of 4K. 4K in the theater makes sense; less so for 4K in the home. Heck, wives don't even like >42", so why will they appreciate 4K and 80"?!

As for 24-bit CD, the world has largely voted by making CD a less popular format in favor of the convenience of MP3...even though MP3 sound quality is inferior to even the 16-bit CD audio. And, folks use those cr*ppy docking speakers to listen to cr*ppy MP3 even in the home with (at best) muddy or boomy bass, rather than investing in a powerful amp pushing large diameter speaker systems with solid bass. What does this quality-insensitive buying community need with BETTER sound?!

So what drives users to get rid of reflex designs in favor of mirrorless?

  • OK, they might tolerate the sensor noise created from the sensor heat because of always-on sensor use to drive the viewfinder LCD.
  • yeah, mirrorless is somewhat more convenient or compact than dSLR, but not when you mount large bulky zoom lenses to it. (Admittedly though, even I gripe about the size of the current dSLR compared to the compact SLRs from 20-30 years ago --Olympus OM, Pentax Mx, Canon AE, Nikon FM, etc.)
  • ...but what is the reason for needing 'mirrorless', what benefit does the user gain by doing so?


I used to write Marketing stuff for a living, convincing buyers why they NEEDED and WANTED to buy our stuff. I cannot come up with any compelling reasons to give today, for buying mirrorless. Canon tried pushing mirrorless three times already over the past 40 years, and they were not tremendously successful with any of the offerings!

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pwm2
"Sorry for being a noob"
Avatar
8,626 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2007
Location: Sweden
     
Mar 12, 2014 02:02 |  #112

Wilt wrote in post #16752304 (external link)
yeah, mirrorless is somewhat more convenient or compact than dSLR, but not when you mount large bulky zoom lenses to it. (Admittedly though, even I gripe about the size of the current dSLR compared to the compact SLRs from 20-30 years ago --Olympus OM, Pentax Mx, Canon AE, Nikon FM, etc.)

The majority of users will not mount any bulky zoom.

And a large number of users will most probably not buy full-frame mirrorless cameras but maybe Micro 4/3 or similar, in which case mirrorless cuts lots of size for wide lenses and the smaller sensor cuts lots of size for longer lenses.

It's just that a large number of people doesn't put a narrow DoF at the top of their requirements list. And a Micro 4/3 will still manage way better than a phone camera in lowlight situations. Lots of users consider it more important to feel comfortable with their camera.


5DMk2 + BG-E6 | 40D + BG-E2N | 350D + BG-E3 + RC-1 | Elan 7E | Minolta Dimage 7U | (Gear thread)
10-22 | 16-35/2.8 L II | 20-35 | 24-105 L IS | 28-135 IS | 40/2.8 | 50/1.8 II | 70-200/2.8 L IS | 100/2.8 L IS | 100-400 L IS | Sigma 18-200DC
Speedlite 420EZ | Speedlite 580EX | EF 1.4x II | EF 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,039 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Dec 2005
     
Mar 12, 2014 07:33 |  #113

Wilt wrote in post #16752304 (external link)
Agree, the drive to something new is due to some 'benefit'. In the case of DVD to Blueray, or the drive to 4K, one only needs to recall statements that it took a certain viewing distance and a certain screen diagonal to truly appreciate benefits of 1080p over 720p; so the axiom remains even more true for 4K...yet bigger screens at close viewing distances are needed to truly justify the difference in cost of 4K. 4K in the theater makes sense; less so for 4K in the home. Heck, wives don't even like >42", so why will they appreciate 4K and 80"?!

As for 24-bit CD, the world has largely voted by making CD a less popular format in favor of the convenience of MP3...even though MP3 sound quality is inferior to even the 16-bit CD audio. And, folks use those cr*ppy docking speakers to listen to cr*ppy MP3 even in the home with (at best) muddy or boomy bass, rather than investing in a powerful amp pushing large diameter speaker systems with solid bass. What does this quality-insensitive buying community need with BETTER sound?!

So what drives users to get rid of reflex designs in favor of mirrorless?
  • OK, they might tolerate the sensor noise created from the sensor heat because of always-on sensor use to drive the viewfinder LCD.
  • yeah, mirrorless is somewhat more convenient or compact than dSLR, but not when you mount large bulky zoom lenses to it. (Admittedly though, even I gripe about the size of the current dSLR compared to the compact SLRs from 20-30 years ago --Olympus OM, Pentax Mx, Canon AE, Nikon FM, etc.)
  • ...but what is the reason for needing 'mirrorless', what benefit does the user gain by doing so?


I used to write Marketing stuff for a living, convincing buyers why they NEEDED and WANTED to buy our stuff. I cannot come up with any compelling reasons to give today, for buying mirrorless. Canon tried pushing mirrorless three times already over the past 40 years, and they were not tremendously successful with any of the offerings!

Yeah notice it was dSLRs that took over the world after film SLRs took over the world rather than dRangefinders taking over the world after film Rangefinders taking over the world. When we're willing to eschew quality in favor of convenience (and relative silence) we have our smart phones. The better smart phones are VERY good now.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Azathoth
" ...whose name no lips dare speak aloud"
Avatar
1,340 posts
Gallery: 493 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 3066
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Funchal
     
Mar 12, 2014 08:24 |  #114

skilsaw wrote in post #16748424 (external link)
Vladimir Puttin Troll

bw!


500px (external link) | flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,414 posts
Likes: 343
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Mar 12, 2014 08:28 |  #115

cdifoto wrote in post #16752669 (external link)
Yeah notice it was dSLRs that took over the world after film SLRs took over the world rather than dRangefinders taking over the world after film Rangefinders taking over the world. When we're willing to eschew quality in favor of convenience (and relative silence) we have our smart phones. The better smart phones are VERY good now.

History shows we've always traded off quality for convenience. Look at any industry and you'll see this.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
They have pills for that now you know.
Avatar
54,013 posts
Likes: 1554
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Mar 12, 2014 08:55 |  #116

Hogloff wrote in post #16752782 (external link)
History shows we've always traded off quality for convenience. Look at any industry and you'll see this.

I think that's true once the quality hits some perceived level of quality of functionality. It seems to happen anytime new technology is introduced.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,039 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Dec 2005
     
Mar 12, 2014 09:00 |  #117

Hogloff wrote in post #16752782 (external link)
History shows we've always traded off quality for convenience. Look at any industry and you'll see this.

The masses, yes. There are still those of us nutsos who take Bigma to Disne (although ironically Bigma is its own tradeoff of lower quality for convenience).


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,039 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Dec 2005
     
Mar 12, 2014 09:03 |  #118

gjl711 wrote in post #16752842 (external link)
I think that's true once the quality hits some perceived level of quality of functionality. It seems to happen anytime new technology is introduced.

Yes. Cell phones didn't trump P&S until they got as or nearly as good as those P&S. Now that they're "good enough" they're good enough, especially when one considers they no longer need a CD player and batteries and CDs, a camera and batteries and film/memory cards, a calculator, etc in addition to their phone...it IS their phone...and it's always with them. Oh and it's Facebook too! ;)

When I care about IQ or need to shoot something fast moving, I'll reach for that roller case. Until then, for 99% of my personal stuff, that phone is awesome.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidc502
Goldmember
Avatar
3,456 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 31
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Tennessee
     
Mar 12, 2014 10:36 |  #119

kfreels wrote in post #16752265 (external link)
True. But the transition from DVD to Blu ray has been much slower than the transition from VHS to DVD. That's because the improvement from VHS to DVD was considerable. The DVD to Blu Ray less so. The next big move, to 4K will be even less appealing to people - especially if the cost is more. Many now are already perfectly satisfied with their 720p screens and don't plan to move to 1080p. Some will move for something a little more novel such as #D screens, but most won't pay extra or replace an existing 720p that works fine just to have it. Especially if they have to throw out their Blu Ray player for a new 4k player at the same time to actually benefit.

Same thing happened with music as well. Sony and a couple others recently started trying to push some new version of high def audio that's supposed to be 24 bit 192 khz instead of 16 bit 44.1 khz like CD audio, and a whole new class of players to play these files. But that will likely flop because CDA already covers the entire human hearing range and most people aren't even interested in buying the $400 earphones necessary to tell the difference between a 192k and 320k compression and certainly won't be able to tell the difference between a CDA wav file and a "high definition audio". Sure, if the average phone or player would play the file, and the files were the same price, and the earphones didn't cost any more, people would buy it all just the same as what they have now. But most aren't going to get rid of what they have now and replace it.

Agreed...... It's all about keeping consumers buying electronics.. Many of the younger and middle-aged consumers will buy over and over when new stuff comes out.

It keeps our economy going :)

Hence, Canon makes "incremental" changes with new updated bodies, and Canon can count on a certain number of users to flock to those "new" bodies. For example: ISO improvements might not really be perceivable in real life situations, but Canon adding that extra stop to the end of the range, (isn't' useable) but will get those people to open up the wallets.

It's how companies make those extra profits. Canon is quite good at the "rotation" game :)


_
My Gear is ---> Here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,039 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Dec 2005
     
Mar 12, 2014 11:58 |  #120

Stuff breaks and wears out too. People stop "relying" on high mileage stuff so they ditch it and buy new. Look at...ugh...cars.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

41,513 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is Canon losing the War ?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is patriciafarrell
756 guests, 419 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.