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.
Ltdave wrote in post #19483736 when i went in the Air Force and worked in the photo shop, i took the Nikon kit bag they gave me and slid it back across the counter and said "ill use my Canon gear, thank you. i have everything ill need" (24f2, 35f2, 50f1.8, 85f1.8 and 200f2.8, AE-1 with the TWO FPS winder lol, and an F1-n)
What I want to know is how you got to be an Air Force photographer. When I tried (maybe within five years of you), the photojournalist field was locked up tight with people who were going to die in it. The closest I could get to photography was in intelligence, and that was either in long-roll processing or imagery analysis. I didn't want to babysit a Kodak Versamat, so I went into imagery analysis.
That loaded me with a list of security clearances as long as my arm. After the first year, when I went to Personnel to see if I could cross-train into photojournalism, the guy looked my clearances and laughed in my face. "Ain't no way you're getting out of intel."
TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography
RDKirk wrote in post #19483685 We're not talking about cell phones, we're talking about mirrorless professional cameras and which manufacturers of such cameras are likely to survive.
Smartphones and digital cameras are related. I am providing a backgrounder that the way business is done prior to 2010 is now obsolete.
Sony creates half of the image sensors for the ~1.2 billion smartphones that ships worldwide last year. This is compared to 8 million digital cameras shipped that same year of which I would not be surprised they also make nearly half as well.
The larger revenue generated from smartphone business funds Sony's R&D efforts for better image sensors at a faster pace than any of their rivals.
Example: Sony makes $0.01/smartphone(?) from 1/2 of the ~1.2 billion units while it makes $1.00/digital camera(?) from 1/3rd of the 8 million units then Sony would have made at least $6 million and $2.64 million respectively that could go to R&D. Assuming Canon's over 48% market share results in $3.84 million of R&D money who do you think would have more advanced tech by sheer R&D spending alone?
This was why Samsung started their own mirrorless system some years back as another application of their smartphone/surveillance camera image sensor's R&D money. It failed probably due to branding (Samsung ≠ digital cameras) and its new mount... they should have bought our an existing system like Sony did with Minolta as they already have an established user base.
This technology applies to and scales up to image sensors of mirrorless professional cameras and medium format cameras like those of Hassleblad or Fuji.
This is why Sony, who was a distant 3rd/4th in dSLRs in 2006, was able to improve their image sensor tech at a vastly faster rate than any digital camera brand to become 2nd to Canon in terms of digital camera market size.
iPhone came out in 2007 & Android in 2008. Half these smartphones have a Sony image sensor. For low-end Android phones that sells for <$200 it becomes part of their marketing to list the part # of the Sony image sensor.
2010 was the all time high of a little under 121.5 million digital cameras shipped that year. A dozen years later it dropped to a little over 8 million. This was just last year.
Smartphones killed off the consumer point & shoot, dSLR and mirrorless markets. That's why the Rebel and Kiss brands were retired and consolidated under the Rxx, Rxxx & Rxxxx naming scheme used elsewhere in the world.
Need visualization of how big Sony is in image sensor technology? Look at the video below of how many digital cameras vs smartphones are shipped annually over time between year 2007-today.
In that discussion, a manufacturer that makes its own sensors (as well as all its other critical components) is in a stronger position than one that does not.
That only works if the economies of scale are there.
Like way back in 2010 when the industry was at its all time high at nearly 121.5 million digital cameras. That many digital cameras shipped allowed for a larger R&D budget for future image sensors.
At a little over 8 million digital cameras in 2022 they're going back to year 1999 levels.
Other than Canon & Sony who probably make up ~80% of all that 8 million digital cameras shipped last year who else does not outsource their image sensors to Sony?
I have yet to hear any CIPA member outsource their image sensors to Canon for their mirrorless.
nrowensby wrote in post #19483711 Canon color science... It's the thing I miss the most from switching to Sony. Canon photos just look better SOOC... even as far back as the 20D where I started with Canon, the color science makes a difference.
Perhaps that is one of the competitive advantages of Canon other than their system and branding.
For me I hate Sony's menu system and for baby hands-only body ergonomics.
RDKirk wrote in post #19483715 larger company than Nikon, perhaps not as large as Sony but certainly capable of self-sustenance and continued competiveness.
Nikon opened their Z mount to competitors. Just like Fuji.
That's a sign that they are willing to sacrifice lens licensing fees or keeping the system proprietary to themselves to hopefully grow the sales of their mirrorless bodies in the hopes that maybe 1 day these owners will go 1st party for a quality of life improvement.
Sign of the economic realities of the time when digital cameras all time high shipments was 121,463,234 in 2010 vs 8,011,598 last year. That's a drop to 6.5959%.
Canon being over 48% of all digital cameras shipped last year has no interest in letting 3rd parties make any money from RF mount. They need all that revenue so it can satisfy your point of view that digital camera brands need to make their own image sensors to stay competitive.
Image sensors from Sony can be modified in software to record video & images differently from their other rivals. Another differentiator of these brands are the lenses and accessories for their systems.
To put it in film terms you can use Kodak Tri-X into a Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Leica, etc but because of the body, lenses and other accessories it will record the image differently.
Ltdave wrote in post #19483736 i only read through to about 3/4 of the way on page 2 so maybe this has all been hashed out already.
i started photography 'seriously' in 6th grade yearbook in 1976. the advisor had a Canon EXauto which while it has a bizarre lens system (i actually bought a body and 3 lenses for nostalgia) that she let me use and take home and play with. i didnt know much about photography except to focus before shooting. i had all of the film (black and white TriX or PlusX) processed at Kmart...
when i was in HS, i needed a one semester class and they had a photography class. it was set up to use kodak instamatics in 126 film because a) nearly everyone had a camera, b) 126 film in BW was cheap to buy and this a VERY BASIC class mostly on composition and how to process and print. the HS had a defunct newspaper and i knew all of the administrators and my parents were very involved in the school and they let me borrow the schools Canon FTb and a selection of lenses. i was soon making images that were more interesting to me and better exposed. this was in 11th grade...
i wanted camera of my own and i haunted the LCS and pestered the owner (my family knew from someplace) and i had all of the glossy sales brochures from Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and Nikon. i poured over them and wore the ink off in spots and had different specs all circled and annotated when my parents suggested i talk to our neighbor who was the photo editor of the local Gannett newspaper (also USAToday) who had been doing the job for about 30 years at this point. he said, the newspaper issues him Nikon gear but if were up to him, he'd use Canon because the glass is better (early FD lenses) and things arent nearly as expensive. he also had access to Speed Graphic medium/large format and a Hasselblad 500 through the paper. so for my graduation present (a school year early so i could use it my senior year) my parents bought me a Canon AE-1 with the 50 f1.8 lens...
i used it in college on the newspaper, during a stint with that same Gannett newspaper and worked in a photo shop. the owners were known to spend big and to get "the best available" regardless of cost and i was quite the asset because i was able to talk to customers about Canon that they had no knowledge and had no interest in.
when i went in the Air Force and worked in the photo shop, i took the Nikon kit bag they gave me and slid it back across the counter and said "ill use my Canon gear, thank you. i have everything ill need" (24f2, 35f2, 50f1.8, 85f1.8 and 200f2.8, AE-1 with the TWO FPS winder lol, and an F1-n)
digital? i started with an Olympus 4mp point and shoot and used it for a long time. then moved to a T1i, T2i, 7D, 5D3 and now a 5D4. i have 5 lenses (all L but my 50 f1.4) and ill probably NEVER own a Nikon...
long story short, i like Canon. never been let down. never felt under served by their sensors or glass. im married to the brand
Good story!
Still waiting for the wisdom they promised would be worth getting old for.
Correction, they need the revenue to continue making R mount bodies and RF lenses, along with all the sensor designs they are working on for not just the digital camera markets. Once the RF lineup is mature, I think Canon will back off on 3rd party lenses. They cannot allow this right now, because Sigma, for sure, would beat them to the punch with some very nice unique RF lenses at lower prices.
Past Equipment | My Personal GalleryMy Business Gallery "Man only has 5 senses, and sometimes not even that, so if they define the world, the universe, the dimensions of existence, and spirituality with just these limited senses, their view of what-is and what-can-be is very myopic indeed and they are doomed, now and forever."
crashwins wrote in post #19175919 the well-documented sensor differences, ISO capability, DR, etc etc.
It's interesting. I started with Canon 10-ish years ago with the 6D and, like many, switched to Nikon because of all the hype and advertising. I then used Sony as a dual system. I do lifestyle and portraiture and have good side-hustle doing. But I look back on many of the Canon shots I took and there's is something ineffably -- I can't put it another way -- "clean" about those photos. I do remember if the lighting wasn't as controlled, I'd have some trouble with color and WB adjust (more so than my Nikons), but I'm not a wedding guy -- it's always controlled...
So with Covid, work being basically dead in the water, I'm actually considering grabbing a Canon for fun and an ART 50 (I "normal" lenses for portrait work). Maybe even the 6D...
Many of my so-called heroes in the business use Canon and this has always intrigued me
Are there really that much of a DR or ISO difference between Nikon (ie. Sony) sensors and Canon these days? It seems like those old tired arguments about this have long since dried up. It could be just that the active membership of POTN has dried up instead, so I am curious. I figured things started to equalize starting about 2016 and later with the 5D4 and R bodies, etc.
Past Equipment | My Personal GalleryMy Business Gallery "Man only has 5 senses, and sometimes not even that, so if they define the world, the universe, the dimensions of existence, and spirituality with just these limited senses, their view of what-is and what-can-be is very myopic indeed and they are doomed, now and forever."
TeamSpeed wrote in post #19483860 Correction, they need the revenue to continue making R mount bodies and RF lenses, along with all the sensor designs they are working on for not just the digital camera markets. Once the RF lineup is mature, I think Canon will back off on 3rd party lenses. They cannot allow this right now, because Sigma, for sure, would beat them to the punch with some very nice unique RF lenses at lower prices.
From 1987-2010 Canon tolerated 3rd parties as it fit its business model and business environment. 2010-today they are in a shrinking market. So the permissivness for unlicensed setup is not there anymore.
I have not looked at Canon's annual worldwide shipping numbers from 1999-2021 but so long as they keep to a steady 2.9 million units while all others shrink then I'm ok with.
This is similar to how the iPad gained market share while not materially increasing shipped units as the tablet market shrank at the expense of Android. iPad still brings in the market but Android got decimated .
Are there really that much of a DR or ISO difference between Nikon (ie. Sony) sensors and Canon these days? It seems like those old tired arguments about this have long since dried up. It could be just that the active membership of POTN has dried up instead, so I am curious. I figured things started to equalize starting about 2016 and later with the 5D4 and R bodies, etc.
Arguments about EF bodies are immaterial anymore. It's ann abandoned system.
Best to look at how RF vs FE and Z bodies perform.
No canon didn’t tolerate it, they most likely legally could do nothing. This time around they filed a patent on the RF mount, and now they have an easy time scaring off third parties.
Past Equipment | My Personal GalleryMy Business Gallery "Man only has 5 senses, and sometimes not even that, so if they define the world, the universe, the dimensions of existence, and spirituality with just these limited senses, their view of what-is and what-can-be is very myopic indeed and they are doomed, now and forever."
dolina wrote in post #19483865 Arguments about EF bodies are immaterial anymore. It's ann abandoned system.
Best to look at how RF vs FE and Z bodies perform.
Well that is the subject of this thread before it was hijacked with phones and tablet talk. You have your own dedicated thread for that already.
Also I never constrained my question to DSLR or mirrorless, I constrained my comment to a timeframe, like the last seven years or so. Also several of the sensors in the R bodies have come from, or derived from, those in the DSLR line up.
My original question stands. Please let others chime in at this point.
Past Equipment | My Personal GalleryMy Business Gallery "Man only has 5 senses, and sometimes not even that, so if they define the world, the universe, the dimensions of existence, and spirituality with just these limited senses, their view of what-is and what-can-be is very myopic indeed and they are doomed, now and forever."
TeamSpeed wrote in post #19483866 No canon didn’t tolerate it, they most likely legally could do nothing. This time around they filed a patent on the RF mount, and now they have an easy time scaring off third parties.
So not all the EF system is patented? I think they tolerated it to gain market. IIRC Canon wasn't the largest film SLR company at the time.
Sony did something different by making it explicit that FE system can be licensed for free.
Nikon Z & Fuji X has a more selective license agreement that probably has royalty fees attached to them.
Canon RF does not need 3rd party support. They may even see it as cannibalizing their business.
I think I pointed it out that odds are Canon & Sony will make up >80% of the digital camera market.
Sony probably has ~50% of all image sensors of all digital camera brands. They're the Intel of digital cameras as almost all of them buy their image senors.
Canon is the Apple of digital cameras as they design their own image sensor.
I do not mind what image sensor comes from whom. So long as they produce the results I paid for.
TeamSpeed wrote in post #19483860 Correction, they need the revenue to continue making R mount bodies and RF lenses, along with all the sensor designs they are working on for not just the digital camera markets. Once the RF lineup is mature, I think Canon will back off on 3rd party lenses. They cannot allow this right now, because Sigma, for sure, would beat them to the punch with some very nice unique RF lenses at lower prices.
It's not as though Canon (or Nikon) had ever licensed any 3rd party manufacturers before.
But before now, it was possible to reverse engineer their products without encroaching on their copyrights and patents. Sigma has stated they are already producing all they can sell, which may be a "sour grapes" stance of not having cracked the nut of reverse engineering a compatible RF lens.
I suspect that the tight relationship today between camera and lens through firmware makes it extremely difficult to produce 100% compatible lenses without infringing copyrights and patents.
I think that's probably why Nikon--which doesn't have Canon's manufacturing capacity--has licensed Tamron. I suspect Canon is confident that between their EF lenses and their production capacity, they don't need to do that.
TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography
TeamSpeed wrote in post #19483866 No canon didn’t tolerate it, they most likely legally could do nothing. This time around they filed a patent on the RF mount, and now they have an easy time scaring off third parties.
I'm pretty sure Canon filed all the patents possible on the EF mount. I suspect the basic steel ring itself is not subject to patent.
TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography
TeamSpeed wrote in post #19483868 Well that is the subject of this thread before it was hijacked with phones and tablet talk. You have your own dedicated thread for that already.
Also I never constrained my question to DSLR or mirrorless, I constrained my comment to a timeframe, like the last seven years or so. Also several of the sensors in the R bodies have come from, or derived from, those in the DSLR line up.
My original question stands. Please let others chime in at this point.
It was never hijacked.
I pointed to where Sony gets their R&D money from. I provided numbers to give perspective to what degree that is.
Many are making prognostications based on anecdotes.
Many here are unaware why Sony has improved image sensors at a pace that no one else in the digital camera market can match.
So that my point of view cannot be rebuked I provide citations. Even then it is still disputed.
RF image sensors are based on the R&D money made from EF system sales. While Sony comes from >90% smartphone camera sales & <10% FE system sales.
That same Sony R&D money benefits any and almost any digital camera brand I have listed previously that uses Sony's image sensor part.
It has been published many times that Sony's part is used elsewhere. I have yet to read any mention of a Canon part used in other brands.
12,073 views & 57 likes for this thread, 46 members have posted to it and it is followed by 28 members. Serious Q: Why would someone choose Canon over Nikon knowing...
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.
Latest registered member is griggt 1349 guests, 124 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018
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.
