12 ms·

Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

52 points by fezz 7y ago

mtgx 7y ago
This failure was a decade, if not longer, in the making, pretty much since smartphones started replacing DSLRs for travel photos for at least some people. But I'm sure Canon's leaders laughed it off until now.
- fetus8 7y ago
  While smartphones have decimated the smaller portable camera markets, there is still a large market for larger sensor cameras (APS-C, Full Frame, Medium Format, Etc.) Canon specifically has fallen drastically behind their competition in those spaces, allowing Sony to decimate them when it comes to features/performance and cost. Canon's current line up of cameras are missing features that their competitors have had for years. It's kind of shocking how they seem to consistently miss the mark on so many things. Their build quality and reliability is still top notch though. I think ultimately the professional market looking for larger sensor cameras has gone to other brands due to this, which is probably hurting them a lot more than expected.
  - vladsanchez 7y ago
    Yes, I'm trolling and I'm glad I see this day. I was an early Minolta adopter and always complained about Canon's and Nikon's arrogance, abusive pricing and limited/incompetent feature set. The day of reckoning is here!
  - rbritton 7y ago
    Canon's professional line has been lacking for years in the high ISO sensor performance. Their saving grace has been their lenses, which are still magnitudes better than the competition. That said, third party lensmakers like Sigma and Tamron have really been getting better in recent years, and the premium for Canon glass isn't always justifiable.
    - fetus8 7y ago
      High ISO performance, and their auto-focusing systems are put to shame by just about every one else on the market. While their lens quality and EF mount have probably been their saving grace, I personally don't find their lenses to be worth the cost. I left the Canon ecosystem for Fujifilm's X-Series cameras, and cannot believe the IQ their lenses have, across the board, and they're priced very competitively. I'm just a hobbyist at the end of the day, but when I can get an incredible portrait lens on the second hand market for $650, that rivals L-series glass, it's really really hard to justify that Canon premium.
      - la_barba 7y ago
        How are they put to shame by everyone else on AF? Could you be more specific?
    - la_barba 7y ago
      Can you specify what you mean by high ISO performance? Do you mean read-noise or do you mean DR or something else? Canon is very competitive in read-noise and DR. Yes AFAIK they don't have dual-gain in their professional series, but the difference is not "magnitudes better" FWICT. Read Noise: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II_14,Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV_14,Nikon%20D5_14,Nikon%20D850_14,Sony%20ILCE-7RM3_14,Sony%20ILCE-9_14 http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Canon%20EOS... DR: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D850,Sony%20ILCE-7RM3,Sony%20ILCE-9 http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20...
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - rfwhyte 7y ago
    I think more than anything its that Cannon has really missed the boat when it comes to the transition from still images to video. A decade or two ago, the vast majority of consumers only wanted a camera to shot photographs with, but now most consumers are also at least partially interested in shooting video, with many being primarily interested in video. Other companies have adapted to these changing consumer preferences (Panasonic and Sony especially) while Cannon has lagged behind in terms of rolling out more video focused features like 4K, IBIS, 10 bit color etc. in all but their top of the line models.
    - leguminous 7y ago
      My guess is that Canon is afraid of cannibalizing sales of their cinema cameras, like the C300. Panasonic and Sony don't seem as worried about cannibalizing theirs, which might be a better strategy in the long run. Fuji and Nikon don't sell cinema cameras, so they have no incentive not to move fast on adding video features to their (previously) still cameras.
  - saiya-jin 7y ago
    Exactly. If you want full frame zoomable quality and don't mind the bulk and weight (I don't even on hikes with >1500m altitude difference), there ain't nothing in phones for next decade that can match it. Photos on best phone sensors look OKish under ideal conditions, and if you don't need any zoom (subpar additional cameras on recent phones are pretty bad so far). Add any zoom, less than ideal light, faster moving objects and even phone sensors rated in DxO Mark over 100 are simply not good enough (I have one of those). Forget night at all. Yes its enough to clearly see where you are and what you do, but that's about it and any photo aesthetics are often simply not there. Phones of course have huge advantage of almost always being there, but that's another topic. Some of us want to capture important things in life in ways that will stand the test of time better.
  - criddell 7y ago
    > there is still a large market for larger sensor cameras It's large, but shrinking according to: https://petapixel.com/2019/07/08/canon-increased-market-share-in-2018-but-camera-market-continues-to-bleed/ https://petapixel.com/2019/07/08/canon-increased-market-shar...
    - robocat 7y ago
      "[In 2018] total sales volume for digital cameras dropped by a whopping 22%. The story is perhaps rosiest for Canon, whose 40.5% market share represents an increase of 3.9% over 2017. Meanwhile, its closest competitors both saw market share drop, with Nikon logging 19.1% (a decrease of 2.7%) and Sony at 17.7% (a drop of 0.7%)" from your link. "So far, 2019 is continuing that trend" (downwards).
      - criddell 7y ago
        I wouldn't be surprised to see some consolidation. Nikon, Fuji, and Olympus all seem like they could be purchased by one of their bigger rivals.
- vladsanchez 7y ago
  Yes, I'm trolling and I'm glad I see this day. I was an early Minolta adopter and always complained about Canon's and Nikon's arrogance, abusive pricing and limited/incompetent feature set. The day of reckoning is here!
- jasode 7y ago
  >since smartphones started replacing DSLRs Smartphones reduced the market for ~$500 digital point-&-shoots. However, for the more expensive prosumer and professional cameras like the $1999 Canon EOS R mentioned in the article, Canon is competing with other high-end cameras like Sony Alpha mirrorless. https://www.google.com/search?q=sony+mirrorless+outsells+canon https://www.google.com/search?q=sony+mirrorless+outsells+can...
woodgrainz 7y ago
For those wanting to see more about Canon's stock: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CAJ?p=CAJ&.tsrc=fin-srch https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CAJ?p=CAJ&.tsrc=fin-srch
post_break 7y ago
Canon ignored m43, put out some crappy mirrorless cameras, sony ate their lunch. I'm not surprised in the least by this.
prolepunk 7y ago
I'm a bit interested in making DSLR videos. May I present some anecdotal evidence. I bought a Canon consumer camcorder (Vixia HF R800) for about $200 last year and it was dismal: - Tiny sensor -- Terrible performance indoor - Lacks viewfinder -- terrible performance outdoor - No 4K, 1080p max - Abysmal bitrate 25Mbps for 60FPS 1080p - Connecting power supply when recording introduces 60Hz hum on line in audio. - Electronics and firmware haven't really been updated since 2014 This seemed like a great little camera, but it let me down on every front. I ended up upgrading to Panasonic GH4 that cost 5x more, and I'm actually happy with it. Given how poorly EOS R and EOS RP were reviewed about 6 months ago, I'm not surprised.
- detaro 7y ago
  That's probably more related to you paying 5x more, and not the brand...
  - prolepunk 7y ago
    Yes, but I feel cheated that Canon put their name on such a terrible product. I would be fine with no-name Chinese camera for the same amount of money, which by the way would have 4K and a hotshoe mount.
    - FireBeyond 7y ago
      Panasonic makes a roughly $200ish camera, too, and it's also... "not great". 4x optical zoom, 720p, 230k display.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
zazaraka 7y ago
The lack of vision at DSLR companies is mind boggling. Why can't I do light editing and post to Instagram directly from the camera? Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable? I get it that pros don't need these features, but how hard are they to implement? The camera is already $1000+ dollars, how much more could adding a touch screen, a SIM card and a beefier CPU cost, when you have $100 phones with these features? A lot of influencers would buy these cameras if they had a simple auto-mode (which disables most buttons and hides advanced menus) and upload to instagram feature. The workflow for using a DSLR to post to instagram is terrible, SD-cards, WiFi adapters, laptops, ... Not to mention that you need a lot of technical knowledge to hook everything up. No wonder few bother with the pain. It's ridiculous that the most expensive cameras in the world can't connect to the number one place in the world where pictures are posted.
- fetus8 7y ago
  Most DSLR/Mirrorless cameras have functionality to send photos directly to an iOS or Android device. They've had features like that going back a couple of years tbh. annd pretty much every camera has an Auto-mode...
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  > Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? You can on some cameras (e.g. Canon 80D), but it’s somewhat cumbersome and eats batteries at a fantastic rate because the camera hosts its own WiFi access point.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - AWildC182 7y ago
    Z6/7 does this with ease. Also, it has a touchscreen and can edit files on the camera but I don't know of anyone who bothers.
    - petepete 7y ago
UI_at_80x24 7y ago
I used to work for Canon in a different division. It was an interesting company to work for, fantastic human-perks i.e. 2 weeks paid time off (not counted against vacation) if you got married, 1 week of paid time off if you moved. (not counted against vacation) You got your birthday off (paid and not counted against vacation). Upper (middle?) management were all dinosaurs, and stuck in their ways. The entire 'digital revolution' caught them unaware and unprepared. And most importantly IMHO, they didn't eat their own dogfood. The only saving grace for the printer/copier division was HP's controller boards and drivers. This was a situation where you knew you were on a sinking ship. Some R&D and advancements were INCREDIBLE, some of the behind the scenes tech was very compelling but I don't think management could get out of the way.
- dheera 7y ago
  We live is a world with a distorted notion of success. About 1/2 the people I know who take photography seriously use Canon cameras. I'm also a happy Canon customer. How is this a sinking ship?
  - kenhwang 7y ago
    Can the people who take photography seriously sustain Canon's camera business on their own? That's the main problem.
    - dheera 7y ago
      This might be one of the failure modes of the current incarnation of capitalism. My Canon cameras last me forever and that's why I like them. I consider them a blazing technical and scientific success. If under the current mode of capitalism they want to "succeed" financially they might need to make crappier cameras on purpose so that people replace them every year. Crocs are also amazing. I bought a pair and never needed to buy another pair. Bad for their balance sheet, but they are an amazing success in terms of sustainability and not creating trash.
      - deleted 7y ago
hestipod 7y ago
I am probably a minority but I hate live viewfinders as looking at a tiny screen, despite the benefits live exposure composition offers, gives me eyestrain and headaches. I much prefer an optical viewfinder so for this reason I really hope the mirrorless hype isn't going to displace DLSRs entirely and Canon keeps making them. Bit of a moot point for me at present as all I have is an old Lumix LX1 with manual settings that still takes good photos at 14 years old (just super limited due to sensor size and a 400 max ISO) and had to sell the DSLR for financial reasons. Still have a dream to get back into photography if things ever look up enough I can justify spending on a hobby. I really enjoyed it. I would love to do some astrophotography especially. Even an original 6D (superb low light clarity) and the right lens would probably suit me for life with no compromises to my interests as long as I could keep it serviced and alive. Tried shooting the Milky Way recently with the LX1 but the low light ability won't allow it. Bright side is maybe even if mirrorless is the future, it would make DLSRs more affordable used as people sell off the "deprecated" tech.
- throwanem 7y ago
  Now's a pretty good time to be looking at your local camera store's stock of used bodies, because mirrorless is already displacing them among pros and hobbyists who prioritize gear acquisition over technique^W^W^W^W^Whave already made the switch. It'll be a year or two, I expect, before we see D850s and equivalently high-end Canon bodies start hitting the used market in numbers, but aside from that, things are already pretty flush. (That said, check the shutter count, and the rated shutter life of the model, before you buy a used body! That's the primary wearing item in any DSLR, and the cost of replacement means you're pretty much better off just replacing the whole body instead. You shouldn't expect to pay as much for a used body with a high shutter count as you do for a low one, and if someone tries to get you to, you're likely better off shopping somewhere else.)
- mdorazio 7y ago
  Personally, I have the exact opposite opinion on optical viewfinders. Optical is eyestraining, non-ergonomic, physically limiting (can't use an optical viewfinder when you're shooting at foot or waist level without contorting yourself into weird positions), and modern shooting modes often require a lot more setup and selection than is comfortable to use without a full-size screen and looking at the controls you're hitting.
goldcd 7y ago
I listened to an interesting podcast on Kodak - https://www.spectacularfailures.org/episode/2019/07/15/kodak-misses-its-moment https://www.spectacularfailures.org/episode/2019/07/15/kodak... My previous perception which I think is common, is that due to the amount they made from non-digital, they ignored digital until it was too late. My revised perception after listening is that Kodak was right there at the cutting edge (and has the cameras and patents to prove it). Problem was how the company was structured. Pretty much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law They had a 'chemical' photography division that did amazingly as they opened up photography to consumers. They created a digital division as they saw the way the market was heading. Problem was the fighting between the two divisions.
- hestipod 7y ago
  I thought about going back to film in order to get back into the hobby "cheaply", but quickly learned it was not going to be cheap at all and not worth the drawbacks even then. Prices are on the rise in all regards. Cameras and glass are "vintage" rather than just old, and priced accordingly. Film and processing costs are stupid high now, not on every corner like before, and not to mention the inability to process, learn, and deal with things easily at home like with digital. It's obviously supply and demand, but it's strange to have witnessed the extreme flip flop that occurred in the industry. As far as I know only Nikon (one model) and Leica (one model) are making non medium format film cameras anymore and they are both very expensive. I wonder what the next big leap/flip flop will be.
  - throwanem 7y ago
    If you want to get back into the hobby cheaply, go for one of the prosumer kits, like the Nikon 3xxx/5xxx/7xxx series, or whatever in the Canon line is comparable. (I'm heavily invested in the Nikon F system, and as a hobbyist can't justify investing in Canon as well, so I don't really know anything about their lines.) Film has become extremely niche in the last decade, even among the niche that is interchangeable-lens-camera hobby photography. As you've seen, that makes it expensive. That said, if you're looking to get back to film specifically as opposed to photography in general, you can find good used midrange 35mm bodies without too much trouble. You'll still pay through the nose for film and developing services, and probably also for glass since that holds its value in a way 35mm SLR bodies don't, but you can at least avoid the $2600 bite of a brand-new F6.
tristor 7y ago
This isn't a surprise. Canon has lagged behind Sony on the sensor side of things for ages. Nikon was also lagging, but decided to do the right thing which was buy its sensors from Sony. For full-frame DSLR camera bodies, Nikon is far superior to Canon currently and has been for a long time. Canon has primarily survived off brand loyalty with professional photographers driven by the extremely high quality lenses they produce. This too has been challenged lately by Sony and their partnership with Zeiss, meaning Sony lenses for mirrorless are on par or in excess of the quality level you can get from Canon lenses and Zeiss is financially able to offer similarly high quality lenses to the wider market, cannibalizing first-party sales. Nikon has historically had worse lenses than Canon and this hasn't changed significantly, but they've made huge leaps in R&D for large telephotos with usable fresnel lenses at 300mm and 500mm focal length. Canon had some opportunities to right the ship, but their management seems incompetent. It's sad to me that they're in this situation because I respect what they've done for photography for decades. I don't see this improving though.
- la_barba 7y ago
  While it may appear so from a retail consumer standpoint, I don't think Canon is lagging behind in tech from an IP and R&D standpoint. The thing is they make the sensor themselves, and the fabs and tooling is super super expensive. Canons MO is to extract as much profit as possible from a pre-existing process before moving over to something new. They already have BSI tech.. they already have the means to create a 100MP sensor as well as compete on AF (for video I think dualpixel AF is already ahead of the competition). Canon has diversified product lines and doesn't want to upset its Cinema EOS lineup too much by offering "too many" features. Sony, being the newcomer has sunk a ginormous amount of capital into fabs and tooling to differentiate itself in a saturated market and it has worked for the amateur and enthusiast crowd. They have a few weaknesses, specifically ergonomics, color science, the smaller E mount diameter, and a less rugged body for professional use (compared to 1DX or D5). It will be interesting to see how they tackle the new challenger.. >but they've made huge leaps in R&D for large telephotos with usable fresnel lenses at 300mm and 500mm focal length. Canon already has this tech, as they showed in their 400 DO II, which is a freakishly awesome lens. >his too has been challenged lately by Sony and their partnership with Zeiss Hmm, have there been any sony-zeiss lenses since Sony started their GM lineup?
apthnz 7y ago
I initially read this as "cannon rush" and was wondering how StarCraft related to camera profits
- huseyinkeles 7y ago
  oh, I thought the same!! took me a few seconds to realize it's not about the Protoss cheese :D
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 7y ago
They deserve every lost profit -- the way they have missed opportunity after opportunity on the video and photo market (late to 4K, late to mirrorless, lackluster features, fear of cannibalising their 6K+ models, and so on).
reustle 7y ago
Maybe they could actually have a chance if they took note of what the users really wanted. Magic Lantern was one of the main reasons many friends of mine got a Canon, and the only reason it could exist is because some old source code leaked. Why not provide an open interface for that kind of stuff? Or at least provide similar features.
- la_barba 7y ago
  Because they want you to buy their expensive, professional EOS Cinema products for video use which have all the features you need.
jaggednad 7y ago
I read the headline as “cannon rush” at first lol
michaeldorian 7y ago
Sony is out innovating them on every level. Faster releases, better features etc. Honestly as an enthusiast they deserve to tank. They’ve done nothing exciting in the space.
- throwaway9d0291 7y ago
  I own an A7RIII (and preordered an A7RIV) but I actually think Fuji is the most innovative right now. In terms of image quality, my A7RIII blows my Fuji X-T3 out of the water but in _every other way_ the X-T3 is better. The ergonomics are fantastic (I love manual dials for all the settings), it has the kind of video you'd have to buy a Panasonic GH-5 for in the past, the out of camera JPEGs are much more pleasing to the eye (though I mostly shoot raw), the menu system is far more sane and it comes with features like focus stacking. Plus, Fuji routinely adds new features to old cameras with software updates, while Sony for the most part tends to forget about a camera as soon as the new one is released.

52 points by fezz 7y ago

mtgx 7y ago

This failure was a decade, if not longer, in the making, pretty much since smartphones started replacing DSLRs for travel photos for at least some people. But I'm sure Canon's leaders laughed it off until now.

fetus8 7y ago
While smartphones have decimated the smaller portable camera markets, there is still a large market for larger sensor cameras (APS-C, Full Frame, Medium Format, Etc.) Canon specifically has fallen drastically behind their competition in those spaces, allowing Sony to decimate them when it comes to features/performance and cost. Canon's current line up of cameras are missing features that their competitors have had for years. It's kind of shocking how they seem to consistently miss the mark on so many things. Their build quality and reliability is still top notch though. I think ultimately the professional market looking for larger sensor cameras has gone to other brands due to this, which is probably hurting them a lot more than expected.
- vladsanchez 7y ago
  Yes, I'm trolling and I'm glad I see this day. I was an early Minolta adopter and always complained about Canon's and Nikon's arrogance, abusive pricing and limited/incompetent feature set. The day of reckoning is here!
- rbritton 7y ago
  Canon's professional line has been lacking for years in the high ISO sensor performance. Their saving grace has been their lenses, which are still magnitudes better than the competition. That said, third party lensmakers like Sigma and Tamron have really been getting better in recent years, and the premium for Canon glass isn't always justifiable.
  - fetus8 7y ago
    High ISO performance, and their auto-focusing systems are put to shame by just about every one else on the market. While their lens quality and EF mount have probably been their saving grace, I personally don't find their lenses to be worth the cost. I left the Canon ecosystem for Fujifilm's X-Series cameras, and cannot believe the IQ their lenses have, across the board, and they're priced very competitively. I'm just a hobbyist at the end of the day, but when I can get an incredible portrait lens on the second hand market for $650, that rivals L-series glass, it's really really hard to justify that Canon premium.
    - la_barba 7y ago
      How are they put to shame by everyone else on AF? Could you be more specific?
  - la_barba 7y ago
    Can you specify what you mean by high ISO performance? Do you mean read-noise or do you mean DR or something else? Canon is very competitive in read-noise and DR. Yes AFAIK they don't have dual-gain in their professional series, but the difference is not "magnitudes better" FWICT. Read Noise: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II_14,Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV_14,Nikon%20D5_14,Nikon%20D850_14,Sony%20ILCE-7RM3_14,Sony%20ILCE-9_14 http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm#Canon%20EOS... DR: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D850,Sony%20ILCE-7RM3,Sony%20ILCE-9 http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- rfwhyte 7y ago
  I think more than anything its that Cannon has really missed the boat when it comes to the transition from still images to video. A decade or two ago, the vast majority of consumers only wanted a camera to shot photographs with, but now most consumers are also at least partially interested in shooting video, with many being primarily interested in video. Other companies have adapted to these changing consumer preferences (Panasonic and Sony especially) while Cannon has lagged behind in terms of rolling out more video focused features like 4K, IBIS, 10 bit color etc. in all but their top of the line models.
  - leguminous 7y ago
    My guess is that Canon is afraid of cannibalizing sales of their cinema cameras, like the C300. Panasonic and Sony don't seem as worried about cannibalizing theirs, which might be a better strategy in the long run. Fuji and Nikon don't sell cinema cameras, so they have no incentive not to move fast on adding video features to their (previously) still cameras.
- saiya-jin 7y ago
  Exactly. If you want full frame zoomable quality and don't mind the bulk and weight (I don't even on hikes with >1500m altitude difference), there ain't nothing in phones for next decade that can match it. Photos on best phone sensors look OKish under ideal conditions, and if you don't need any zoom (subpar additional cameras on recent phones are pretty bad so far). Add any zoom, less than ideal light, faster moving objects and even phone sensors rated in DxO Mark over 100 are simply not good enough (I have one of those). Forget night at all. Yes its enough to clearly see where you are and what you do, but that's about it and any photo aesthetics are often simply not there. Phones of course have huge advantage of almost always being there, but that's another topic. Some of us want to capture important things in life in ways that will stand the test of time better.
- criddell 7y ago
  > there is still a large market for larger sensor cameras It's large, but shrinking according to: https://petapixel.com/2019/07/08/canon-increased-market-share-in-2018-but-camera-market-continues-to-bleed/ https://petapixel.com/2019/07/08/canon-increased-market-shar...
  - robocat 7y ago
    "[In 2018] total sales volume for digital cameras dropped by a whopping 22%. The story is perhaps rosiest for Canon, whose 40.5% market share represents an increase of 3.9% over 2017. Meanwhile, its closest competitors both saw market share drop, with Nikon logging 19.1% (a decrease of 2.7%) and Sony at 17.7% (a drop of 0.7%)" from your link. "So far, 2019 is continuing that trend" (downwards).
    - criddell 7y ago
      I wouldn't be surprised to see some consolidation. Nikon, Fuji, and Olympus all seem like they could be purchased by one of their bigger rivals.
vladsanchez 7y ago
Yes, I'm trolling and I'm glad I see this day. I was an early Minolta adopter and always complained about Canon's and Nikon's arrogance, abusive pricing and limited/incompetent feature set. The day of reckoning is here!
jasode 7y ago
>since smartphones started replacing DSLRs Smartphones reduced the market for ~$500 digital point-&-shoots. However, for the more expensive prosumer and professional cameras like the $1999 Canon EOS R mentioned in the article, Canon is competing with other high-end cameras like Sony Alpha mirrorless. https://www.google.com/search?q=sony+mirrorless+outsells+canon https://www.google.com/search?q=sony+mirrorless+outsells+can...

woodgrainz 7y ago

For those wanting to see more about Canon's stock: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CAJ?p=CAJ&.tsrc=fin-srch https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CAJ?p=CAJ&.tsrc=fin-srch

post_break 7y ago

Canon ignored m43, put out some crappy mirrorless cameras, sony ate their lunch. I'm not surprised in the least by this.

prolepunk 7y ago

I'm a bit interested in making DSLR videos. May I present some anecdotal evidence. I bought a Canon consumer camcorder (Vixia HF R800) for about $200 last year and it was dismal: - Tiny sensor -- Terrible performance indoor - Lacks viewfinder -- terrible performance outdoor - No 4K, 1080p max - Abysmal bitrate 25Mbps for 60FPS 1080p - Connecting power supply when recording introduces 60Hz hum on line in audio. - Electronics and firmware haven't really been updated since 2014 This seemed like a great little camera, but it let me down on every front. I ended up upgrading to Panasonic GH4 that cost 5x more, and I'm actually happy with it. Given how poorly EOS R and EOS RP were reviewed about 6 months ago, I'm not surprised.

detaro 7y ago
That's probably more related to you paying 5x more, and not the brand...
- prolepunk 7y ago
  Yes, but I feel cheated that Canon put their name on such a terrible product. I would be fine with no-name Chinese camera for the same amount of money, which by the way would have 4K and a hotshoe mount.
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    Panasonic makes a roughly $200ish camera, too, and it's also... "not great". 4x optical zoom, 720p, 230k display.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

zazaraka 7y ago

The lack of vision at DSLR companies is mind boggling. Why can't I do light editing and post to Instagram directly from the camera? Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable? I get it that pros don't need these features, but how hard are they to implement? The camera is already $1000+ dollars, how much more could adding a touch screen, a SIM card and a beefier CPU cost, when you have $100 phones with these features? A lot of influencers would buy these cameras if they had a simple auto-mode (which disables most buttons and hides advanced menus) and upload to instagram feature. The workflow for using a DSLR to post to instagram is terrible, SD-cards, WiFi adapters, laptops, ... Not to mention that you need a lot of technical knowledge to hook everything up. No wonder few bother with the pain. It's ridiculous that the most expensive cameras in the world can't connect to the number one place in the world where pictures are posted.

fetus8 7y ago
Most DSLR/Mirrorless cameras have functionality to send photos directly to an iOS or Android device. They've had features like that going back a couple of years tbh. annd pretty much every camera has an Auto-mode...
AlexandrB 7y ago
> Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? You can on some cameras (e.g. Canon 80D), but it’s somewhat cumbersome and eats batteries at a fantastic rate because the camera hosts its own WiFi access point.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- AWildC182 7y ago
  Z6/7 does this with ease. Also, it has a touchscreen and can edit files on the camera but I don't know of anyone who bothers.
  - petepete 7y ago

UI_at_80x24 7y ago

I used to work for Canon in a different division. It was an interesting company to work for, fantastic human-perks i.e. 2 weeks paid time off (not counted against vacation) if you got married, 1 week of paid time off if you moved. (not counted against vacation) You got your birthday off (paid and not counted against vacation). Upper (middle?) management were all dinosaurs, and stuck in their ways. The entire 'digital revolution' caught them unaware and unprepared. And most importantly IMHO, they didn't eat their own dogfood. The only saving grace for the printer/copier division was HP's controller boards and drivers. This was a situation where you knew you were on a sinking ship. Some R&D and advancements were INCREDIBLE, some of the behind the scenes tech was very compelling but I don't think management could get out of the way.

dheera 7y ago
We live is a world with a distorted notion of success. About 1/2 the people I know who take photography seriously use Canon cameras. I'm also a happy Canon customer. How is this a sinking ship?
- kenhwang 7y ago
  Can the people who take photography seriously sustain Canon's camera business on their own? That's the main problem.
  - dheera 7y ago
    This might be one of the failure modes of the current incarnation of capitalism. My Canon cameras last me forever and that's why I like them. I consider them a blazing technical and scientific success. If under the current mode of capitalism they want to "succeed" financially they might need to make crappier cameras on purpose so that people replace them every year. Crocs are also amazing. I bought a pair and never needed to buy another pair. Bad for their balance sheet, but they are an amazing success in terms of sustainability and not creating trash.
    - deleted 7y ago

hestipod 7y ago

I am probably a minority but I hate live viewfinders as looking at a tiny screen, despite the benefits live exposure composition offers, gives me eyestrain and headaches. I much prefer an optical viewfinder so for this reason I really hope the mirrorless hype isn't going to displace DLSRs entirely and Canon keeps making them. Bit of a moot point for me at present as all I have is an old Lumix LX1 with manual settings that still takes good photos at 14 years old (just super limited due to sensor size and a 400 max ISO) and had to sell the DSLR for financial reasons. Still have a dream to get back into photography if things ever look up enough I can justify spending on a hobby. I really enjoyed it. I would love to do some astrophotography especially. Even an original 6D (superb low light clarity) and the right lens would probably suit me for life with no compromises to my interests as long as I could keep it serviced and alive. Tried shooting the Milky Way recently with the LX1 but the low light ability won't allow it. Bright side is maybe even if mirrorless is the future, it would make DLSRs more affordable used as people sell off the "deprecated" tech.

throwanem 7y ago
Now's a pretty good time to be looking at your local camera store's stock of used bodies, because mirrorless is already displacing them among pros and hobbyists who prioritize gear acquisition over technique^W^W^W^W^Whave already made the switch. It'll be a year or two, I expect, before we see D850s and equivalently high-end Canon bodies start hitting the used market in numbers, but aside from that, things are already pretty flush. (That said, check the shutter count, and the rated shutter life of the model, before you buy a used body! That's the primary wearing item in any DSLR, and the cost of replacement means you're pretty much better off just replacing the whole body instead. You shouldn't expect to pay as much for a used body with a high shutter count as you do for a low one, and if someone tries to get you to, you're likely better off shopping somewhere else.)
mdorazio 7y ago
Personally, I have the exact opposite opinion on optical viewfinders. Optical is eyestraining, non-ergonomic, physically limiting (can't use an optical viewfinder when you're shooting at foot or waist level without contorting yourself into weird positions), and modern shooting modes often require a lot more setup and selection than is comfortable to use without a full-size screen and looking at the controls you're hitting.

goldcd 7y ago

I listened to an interesting podcast on Kodak - https://www.spectacularfailures.org/episode/2019/07/15/kodak-misses-its-moment https://www.spectacularfailures.org/episode/2019/07/15/kodak... My previous perception which I think is common, is that due to the amount they made from non-digital, they ignored digital until it was too late. My revised perception after listening is that Kodak was right there at the cutting edge (and has the cameras and patents to prove it). Problem was how the company was structured. Pretty much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law They had a 'chemical' photography division that did amazingly as they opened up photography to consumers. They created a digital division as they saw the way the market was heading. Problem was the fighting between the two divisions.

hestipod 7y ago
I thought about going back to film in order to get back into the hobby "cheaply", but quickly learned it was not going to be cheap at all and not worth the drawbacks even then. Prices are on the rise in all regards. Cameras and glass are "vintage" rather than just old, and priced accordingly. Film and processing costs are stupid high now, not on every corner like before, and not to mention the inability to process, learn, and deal with things easily at home like with digital. It's obviously supply and demand, but it's strange to have witnessed the extreme flip flop that occurred in the industry. As far as I know only Nikon (one model) and Leica (one model) are making non medium format film cameras anymore and they are both very expensive. I wonder what the next big leap/flip flop will be.
- throwanem 7y ago
  If you want to get back into the hobby cheaply, go for one of the prosumer kits, like the Nikon 3xxx/5xxx/7xxx series, or whatever in the Canon line is comparable. (I'm heavily invested in the Nikon F system, and as a hobbyist can't justify investing in Canon as well, so I don't really know anything about their lines.) Film has become extremely niche in the last decade, even among the niche that is interchangeable-lens-camera hobby photography. As you've seen, that makes it expensive. That said, if you're looking to get back to film specifically as opposed to photography in general, you can find good used midrange 35mm bodies without too much trouble. You'll still pay through the nose for film and developing services, and probably also for glass since that holds its value in a way 35mm SLR bodies don't, but you can at least avoid the $2600 bite of a brand-new F6.

tristor 7y ago

This isn't a surprise. Canon has lagged behind Sony on the sensor side of things for ages. Nikon was also lagging, but decided to do the right thing which was buy its sensors from Sony. For full-frame DSLR camera bodies, Nikon is far superior to Canon currently and has been for a long time. Canon has primarily survived off brand loyalty with professional photographers driven by the extremely high quality lenses they produce. This too has been challenged lately by Sony and their partnership with Zeiss, meaning Sony lenses for mirrorless are on par or in excess of the quality level you can get from Canon lenses and Zeiss is financially able to offer similarly high quality lenses to the wider market, cannibalizing first-party sales. Nikon has historically had worse lenses than Canon and this hasn't changed significantly, but they've made huge leaps in R&D for large telephotos with usable fresnel lenses at 300mm and 500mm focal length. Canon had some opportunities to right the ship, but their management seems incompetent. It's sad to me that they're in this situation because I respect what they've done for photography for decades. I don't see this improving though.

la_barba 7y ago
While it may appear so from a retail consumer standpoint, I don't think Canon is lagging behind in tech from an IP and R&D standpoint. The thing is they make the sensor themselves, and the fabs and tooling is super super expensive. Canons MO is to extract as much profit as possible from a pre-existing process before moving over to something new. They already have BSI tech.. they already have the means to create a 100MP sensor as well as compete on AF (for video I think dualpixel AF is already ahead of the competition). Canon has diversified product lines and doesn't want to upset its Cinema EOS lineup too much by offering "too many" features. Sony, being the newcomer has sunk a ginormous amount of capital into fabs and tooling to differentiate itself in a saturated market and it has worked for the amateur and enthusiast crowd. They have a few weaknesses, specifically ergonomics, color science, the smaller E mount diameter, and a less rugged body for professional use (compared to 1DX or D5). It will be interesting to see how they tackle the new challenger.. >but they've made huge leaps in R&D for large telephotos with usable fresnel lenses at 300mm and 500mm focal length. Canon already has this tech, as they showed in their 400 DO II, which is a freakishly awesome lens. >his too has been challenged lately by Sony and their partnership with Zeiss Hmm, have there been any sony-zeiss lenses since Sony started their GM lineup?

apthnz 7y ago

I initially read this as "cannon rush" and was wondering how StarCraft related to camera profits

huseyinkeles 7y ago
oh, I thought the same!! took me a few seconds to realize it's not about the Protoss cheese :D

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

coldtea 7y ago

They deserve every lost profit -- the way they have missed opportunity after opportunity on the video and photo market (late to 4K, late to mirrorless, lackluster features, fear of cannibalising their 6K+ models, and so on).

reustle 7y ago

Maybe they could actually have a chance if they took note of what the users really wanted. Magic Lantern was one of the main reasons many friends of mine got a Canon, and the only reason it could exist is because some old source code leaked. Why not provide an open interface for that kind of stuff? Or at least provide similar features.

la_barba 7y ago
Because they want you to buy their expensive, professional EOS Cinema products for video use which have all the features you need.

jaggednad 7y ago

I read the headline as “cannon rush” at first lol

michaeldorian 7y ago

Sony is out innovating them on every level. Faster releases, better features etc. Honestly as an enthusiast they deserve to tank. They’ve done nothing exciting in the space.

throwaway9d0291 7y ago
I own an A7RIII (and preordered an A7RIV) but I actually think Fuji is the most innovative right now. In terms of image quality, my A7RIII blows my Fuji X-T3 out of the water but in _every other way_ the X-T3 is better. The ergonomics are fantastic (I love manual dials for all the settings), it has the kind of video you'd have to buy a Panasonic GH-5 for in the past, the out of camera JPEGs are much more pleasing to the eye (though I mostly shoot raw), the menu system is far more sane and it comes with features like focus stacking. Plus, Fuji routinely adds new features to old cameras with software updates, while Sony for the most part tends to forget about a camera as soon as the new one is released.