Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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 General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
Thread started 20 Apr 2017 (Thursday) 11:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Sony A9: Is Canon doomed ?

 
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,731 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 6974
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Post edited over 1 year ago by mystik610. (2 edits in all)
     
May 03, 2017 10:56 |  #766

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18345272 (external link)
IF Canon is holding back Mirrorless because they fear it will take away from DSLR sales they are being guided very poorly.

Frankly I do not believe a company like Canon could be so completely naive.


The competition is SONY (et all) If Canon sells Mirrorless, they are making sales. It should not matter to Canon which product they sell, it should only matter if they lose market to competitors.

The pitfall of large publicly traded organizations like Canon is that they very often prioritize optimizing earnings in the short-term vs setting the business up to succeed in the long-run. In the short-term, it does not make sense to invest in the R&D, and tie up manufacturing assets to basically sell a mirrorless body to someone who would have bought a DSLR if it were the only option available. Particularly when the market for cameras is declining overall and Canon has other business units that have more potential upside.

This sort of mentality is what has buried companies like blackberry, blockbuster, Microsoft etc though. Not saying that canon is headed that route, but I can understand the short-term reluctance to release competitive mirrorless cameras even if it will hurt them in the long-run.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,837 posts
Likes: 248
Joined Oct 2014
Post edited over 1 year ago by idkdc. (3 edits in all)
     
May 03, 2017 11:20 |  #767

mystik610 wrote in post #18345288 (external link)
The pitfall of large publicly traded organizations like Canon is that they very often prioritize optimizing earnings in the short-term vs setting the business up to succeed in the long-run. In the short-term, it does not make sense to invest in the R&D, and tie up manufacturing assets to basically sell a mirrorless body to someone who would have bought a DSLR if it were the only option available. Particularly when the market for cameras is declining overall and Canon has other business units that have more potential upside.

This sort of mentality is what has buried companies like blackberry, blockbuster, Microsoft etc though. Not saying that canon is headed that route, but I can understand the short-term reluctance to release competitive mirrorless cameras even if it will hurt them in the long-run.

Ok, I'm sorry, but Sony is the epitome of large, publicly traded company with big company syndrome.

Toyota and Apple are examples of large, publicly traded companies. They don't seem to be doing so poorly, last I checked, doomsayers be damned.


1DXII(2) | 5D4 | D850 | 8-800mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,442 posts
Likes: 349
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
May 03, 2017 11:35 |  #768

Canon has for years stratified their cameras by artificially restricting features so as to not eat into the sales of their top end cameras. Been going on for years. Do we really think they'd be OK to release a mirrorless camera that sells for less than their top end DSLR's...yet can compete with those cameras. Hasn't happened in the last 40 years...why would they do it now?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,731 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 6974
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
May 03, 2017 11:38 |  #769

idkdc wrote in post #18345312 (external link)
Ok, I'm sorry, but Sony is the epitome of large, publicly traded company with big company syndrome.

Short term reluctance to release? That makes several assumptions as an outsider. They will release when they feel that they're ready, not when you say they should. They're in this for the long haul.

The difference is that Sony does had not been as successful as Canon in selling DSLR's, and as such, is not as invested in maintaining the status quo. As such the motivation to spend the money innovate is different for Sony. In shrinking market for cameras overall mirrorless cameras are a growth opportunity for Sony as they are capturing consumer they otherwise wouldn't have. For companies like Canon, they are simply segmenting their existing customer base...it's a wash in terms of growth overall, but comes with significant costs in terms of R&D, manufacturing etc etc.

Again...same type scenario that has played out in the tech space over and over where the market leader lacks the incentive to innovate, whereas the smaller player had all the incentive the world the invest in using innovation to push the market forward in their favor.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idkdc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,837 posts
Likes: 248
Joined Oct 2014
     
May 03, 2017 12:57 |  #770

mystik610 wrote in post #18345325 (external link)
The difference is that Sony does had not been as successful as Canon in selling DSLR's, and as such, is not as invested in maintaining the status quo. As such the motivation to spend the money innovate is different for Sony. In shrinking market for cameras overall mirrorless cameras are a growth opportunity for Sony as they are capturing consumer they otherwise wouldn't have. For companies like Canon, they are simply segmenting their existing customer base...it's a wash in terms of growth overall, but comes with significant costs in terms of R&D, manufacturing etc etc.

Again...same type scenario that has played out in the tech space over and over where the market leader lacks the incentive to innovate, whereas the smaller player had all the incentive the world the invest in using innovation to push the market forward in their favor.

You seem to know as little about economics as you do about Canon USM lenses and DPAF. Being first to market with anything is not an automatic indicator of success. You make the assumption that because Sony is first with mirrorless, that Canon will quell and fall to them.

https://www.caycon.com …of-first-mover-advantage/ (external link)
- Google was the 124th mover
- Sony was first with the Walkman
- iPhone was late to the smartphone game, Apple bided their time learning from competitors' mistakes & R&D expenditures; exact same with iPad and Apple watch

"When it comes to bringing new products to market, companies with a deep understanding of their customers’ needs and wants are more likely to succeed than those rushing to market with an untested product."


1DXII(2) | 5D4 | D850 | 8-800mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,442 posts
Likes: 349
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
May 03, 2017 13:01 |  #771

The back and forth of all this is really amusing to watch. Almost better than watching the Blues & Predators smack it out on the ice.

Is...is not...IS...IS NOT.

And the beat goes on.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,731 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 6974
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Post edited over 1 year ago by mystik610. (3 edits in all)
     
May 03, 2017 13:17 |  #772

idkdc wrote in post #18345377 (external link)
You seem to know as little about economics as you do about Canon USM lenses and DPAF. Being first to market with anything is not an automatic indicator of success. You make the assumption that because Sony is first with mirrorless, that Canon will quell and fall to them.

https://www.caycon.com …of-first-mover-advantage/ (external link)
- Google was the 124th mover
- Sony was first with the Walkman
- iPhone was late to the smartphone game, Apple bided their time learning from competitors' mistakes & R&D expenditures; exact same with iPad and Apple watch

"When it comes to bringing new products to market, companies with a deep understanding of their customers’ needs and wants are more likely to succeed than those rushing to market with an untested product."

My career is in corporate finance and strategy so I know a little bit about what I'm talking about. I'm making no claims to what will happen in the future ...only saying that I understand why Canon would not have the motivation to innovate....the economic incentive has not been there for them. At least not until recently, where we're seeing mirrorless sales grow at a steady rate while DSLR sales continue to decline. It's a fair assumption that mirrorless cameras are growing at the expense of DSLR sales. I think we're reached the inflection point where it makes business sense for Canon to release a FF camera and that we will see one soon.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀII - RX1ʀII - α7ʀIII
Zeiss Loxia 21 - Canon 24-70 2.8LII - Sony/Zeiss 35 f1.4 ZA - Sony 50 1.8 - Sony 85GM - Sigma 135 f1.8 ART

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
alex66
Member
220 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Feb 2006
     
May 03, 2017 13:23 |  #773

idkdc wrote in post #18345377 (external link)
You seem to know as little about economics as you do about Canon USM lenses and DPAF. Being first to market with anything is not an automatic indicator of success. You make the assumption that because Sony is first with mirrorless, that Canon will quell and fall to them.

https://www.caycon.com …of-first-mover-advantage/ (external link)
- Google was the 124th mover
- Sony was first with the Walkman
- iPhone was late to the smartphone game, Apple bided their time learning from competitors' mistakes & R&D expenditures; exact same with iPad and Apple watch

"When it comes to bringing new products to market, companies with a deep understanding of their customers’ needs and wants are more likely to succeed than those rushing to market with an untested product."

II think in many ways that is right, with Apple at least during the Job's era they had a policy of not bringing things to market until they were right and worked well. I don't know why anyone would consider Canon to be doomed, they have shown they can make a decent mirror free camera in the M5, Im sure they can quickly create a better version if needed. Pentax are still here though now under Ricoh and Nikon seem to have taken more of a sales hit too, I would expect either of these two to be in trouble long before Canon are. Minolta were as I remember first with an AF system Canon bided their time and came out with a far better way to crack the egg. I do think Sony have a relatively solid place in cameras, they have a long history in video and can more or less do every thing for the camera in house, Canon are the only other that can do the whole body sensor thing in house.


Stuff
Feed Your Head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,719 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 389
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
May 03, 2017 15:32 |  #774

idkdc wrote in post #18345377 (external link)
You seem to know as little about economics as you do about Canon USM lenses and DPAF. Being first to market with anything is not an automatic indicator of success. You make the assumption that because Sony is first with mirrorless, that Canon will quell and fall to them.

https://www.caycon.com …of-first-mover-advantage/ (external link)
- Google was the 124th mover
- Sony was first with the Walkman
- iPhone was late to the smartphone game, Apple bided their time learning from competitors' mistakes & R&D expenditures; exact same with iPad and Apple watch

"When it comes to bringing new products to market, companies with a deep understanding of their customers’ needs and wants are more likely to succeed than those rushing to market with an untested product."

More directly to the point, Canon was three years late with an autofocusing camera--Minolta was first. During those three years, Canon determined that its then-current FD mechanical mount would not be satisfactory for such a major innovation (and probably saw more innovations coming down the line), so they took that time to develop the all-new EF electrical mount.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DagoImaging
Goldmember
Avatar
1,773 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 979
Joined Nov 2012
     
May 03, 2017 18:29 |  #775

While they are both Japanese comapanies, they operate totally different and have different views on a product life-cycle.

Sony is always pushing the envelope, wanting to be the leader in the fields they currently are not, and are willing to take chances. This latest chance is paying off.

Canon is very conservative and cautious in products and their release cycle. They've led in camera's so long they do not feel the need to rush. Although they do have concern w/ Sony's growth in the segment.

Both are my customer and I work w/ their Camera engineering departments, as well as others. Most Japanese companies feel like the other when I'm there. Not these two, completely different.


Sony a6300/ 16-70/4 / 70-200/4 G / Sony HVL-60M

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
scorpio_e
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,384 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 246
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Pa
     
May 04, 2017 12:09 |  #776

DaviSto wrote in post #18333105 (external link)
Yep ... got to be right ... FUBAR ... all hope is gone ... throw out that toxic Canon kit ... breath in great sweet gulps of that fresh Sony air. The photographic revolution has come and all in its path will be swept away.

... or maybe not.

*LOL*


www.steelcityphotograp​hy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,037 posts
Gallery: 370 photos
Likes: 1557
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
May 04, 2017 20:34 |  #777

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18344128 (external link)
It seems like you think of the introduction of mirrorless systems as a harbinger of DSLRs becoming obsolete. I do not think this needs to be the case.

Canon can develop and release a superior mirrorless system that will serve those who prefer a smaller form factor, quiet shutters, and electronic viewfinders. And they can continue to make excellent DSLRs for those like myself, who prefer large camera bodies and optical viewfinders.

I'm thinking it will go like Rangefinders.. There will still be a few DSLRs out there.. but they'll be expensive boutique items

I personally think Canon is safer than Nikon at the moment..


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Phoenixkh
a mere speck
6,649 posts
Gallery: 61 photos
Likes: 1223
Joined May 2011
Location: Gainesville, Florida
     
May 05, 2017 08:42 |  #778

johnf3f wrote in post #18342040 (external link)
Yup IS on the 16-35 F4 L IS baffled me too, it also baffles me on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS.

If I want blurry shots and poor AF then I can buy a cheap camera and turn the stabiliser on - but why on earth would anyone do that? I like sharp shots - so it has to be a camera with great AF and IS/VR/OS/IBIS etc in the off position - or better still not fitted in the first place:-)

Only speaking from my experiences.

LOL John. I enjoy your missionary work for turning IS off. I've been experimenting, as you know. I haven't come to any firm conclusions yet but am currently shooting all my birding with the IS off. Things seem to be going well, but I haven't been out for a few weeks now, so the experiment has been interrupted.


Kim (the male variety) Canon 1DX2 | 1D IV | 16-35 f/4 IS | 24-105 f/4 IS | 100L IS macro | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | 100-400Lii | 50 f/1.8 STM | Canon 1.4X III
RRS tripod and monopod | 580EXII | Cinch 1 & Loop 3 Special Edition | Editing Encouraged

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,719 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 389
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
May 05, 2017 08:52 |  #779

johnf3f wrote in post #18342040 (external link)
Yup IS on the 16-35 F4 L IS baffled me too, it also baffles me on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS.

If I want blurry shots and poor AF then I can buy a cheap camera and turn the stabiliser on - but why on earth would anyone do that? I like sharp shots - so it has to be a camera with great AF and IS/VR/OS/IBIS etc in the off position - or better still not fitted in the first place:-)

Only speaking from my experiences.

I use the heck out of IS on the 16-35 F4 L IS doing video.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,303 posts
Likes: 404
Joined Oct 2008
Location: *** vanished ***
Post edited over 1 year ago by CheshireCat. (2 edits in all)
     
May 05, 2017 09:04 |  #780

johnf3f wrote in post #18342040 (external link)
If I want blurry shots and poor AF then I can buy a cheap camera and turn the stabiliser on - but why on earth would anyone do that? I like sharp shots - so it has to be a camera with great AF and IS/VR/OS/IBIS etc in the off position - or better still not fitted in the first place:-)

I only had problems with IS on the 70-200 (all versions) when rushing to take the shot without waiting about 1 second for the IS to "warm up" with the shutter button half-pressed.

I haven't had any problem with new teles in Mode-3, but maybe my technique has improved because of the above.

Never had any problem with the EF 400/5.6 on the A7R2 with IBIS. But, yes, stabilization works better on the latest Canon super-[expensive]-teles.

That said, between the two possibilities:
1) IS is just an expensive marketing gimmick that makes AF poor and produces blurry shots.
2) IS is a useful technology that needs to be understood and used properly.
... I think number 2 is the most likely.


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

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

87,964 views & 706 likes for this thread
Sony A9: Is Canon doomed ?
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
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?
Register to forums
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 Mimick
820 guests, 320 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.