3 ms·

>Not a fun time to be a camera company. It's not a fun time to be acting like an incumbent. Canon and Nikon are too stuck to their old systems to innovate. Son

by pedrocr 13y ago

>Not a fun time to be a camera company. It's not a fun time to be acting like an incumbent. Canon and Nikon are too stuck to their old systems to innovate. Sony, Olympus, Samsung, Fuji and Panasonic will eat their lunch, and if they don't watch out Sony will eat their high-end as well. The Alpha 99 is a serious contender already.

bborud 13y ago
What keeps Canon and Nikon in business is that the ecosystem is more worth than the camera itself. If you buy a Nikon or a Canon there is a high probability that if someone makes some cool gear, it will work with these cameras. The camera is the least important component since it is nigh on impossible to find a terrible SLR. And you if you are serious about photography, you will end up spending more money on lenses than on cameras.
- pedrocr 13y ago
  That's what's amazing with mirrorless. Before it used to be pretty impossible to do an EOS to alpha adapter (for example). Once you remove the mirror that becomes much easier because of all the extra space. So even the argument that you should value being able to get something exotic that only Canon/Nikon carry will fade (their tilt-shifts are the only really good example I know of).
  - bborud 13y ago
    Perhaps. But just look at the Petzval lens that just got funded on kickstarter. They will make it for Nikon and Canon. At least initially. Imagine the extra risk and extra cost of researching, designing, manufacturing, stocking and selling that lens for half a dozen different camera systems. If you were making a lens, would you prefer to make one or two versions or 6-7 versions?
    - pedrocr 13y ago
      That's fine, and you'll be able to mount it to a NEX/m43 mirrorless camera with full digital link using an adapter (it already exists). We're close to being able to open this market wide open and be able to mount any lens on any body. That's not good news for Canon/Nikon that often rely on making gear that's good enough that people with an investment in the system won't make the switch.
- ChuckMcM 13y ago
  In technology circles a company that is only surviving because the ecosystem is holding them up is already dead. I watched Sun put DEC there, and it pained me to see Sun get put into the same place by folks like Dell and HP.
  - bborud 13y ago
    Well, for photography it has been like this since before the digital cameras. Even in the 80s I chose my film-based SLR not based on camera features, but on the lenses that were available for it.
snowwrestler 13y ago
Of the companies you mention, only Olympus can make OK lenses, which are the most important part of a camera system. Canon and Nikon will be just fine, aside from the overall shrinking of the DSLR market.
- pedrocr 13y ago
  I don't know where you get that idea. Both Fuji and Sony (with and without Zeiss) make great lenses. Panasonic also has at least 1 or 2 gems in the m43 system. Canon and Nikon make some good stuff but they also make some pretty pedestrian lenses. These days with automated design, lens are much less of a black art and it's much harder to have an edge. From what I read Sigma has been churning out some really good ones lately for example.
  - snowwrestler 13y ago
    Zeiss makes great lenses, but they are also available for Nikon and Canon. Canon and Nikon do make some mediocre lenses but they are all cheapies for cheap bodies. The top end is what will keep them in business. The electronics companies are in a terrible position. The only people who will buy their bodies and lenses are cost-conscious hobbyists--a group that is rapidly shrinking. You're never going to show up at an NFL game or press conference and see a bunch of Sony and Samsung systems.
    - pedrocr 13y ago
      >Zeiss makes great lenses, but they are also available for Nikon and Canon. That's not true. Zeiss for Nikon/Canon is a manual-focus only line. They make totally different autofocus lenses that are only available in alpha mount. And Sony also makes their own high-end lenses that are not Zeiss (their G line of Minolta heritage). >Canon and Nikon do make some mediocre lenses but they are all cheapies for cheap bodies. The top end is what will keep them in business. The only top-end that I know of that's really unique to them is tilt-shift lenses, and mirrorless can even take care of those by allowing for tilt-shift mounts for normal lenses in the mirror box space. For any other specialty lenses (telefocus mostly) mirrorless will allow for fully featured adapters. >The electronics companies are in a terrible position. The only people who will buy their bodies and lenses are cost-conscious hobbyists--a group that is rapidly shrinking. Industry statistics say otherwise. Mirrorless is the only growing category and Canon and Nikon are basically not in that market as both EOS-M and the Nikon 1 system have been flops. Nikon is especially in a tight spot because they depend on Sony for sensors. >You're never going to show up at an NFL game or press conference and see a bunch of Sony and Samsung systems. I wouldn't be so sure. Sony in particular has the ingredients to make that happen (good telephotos and fast bodies).

by pedrocr 13y ago

bborud 13y ago

What keeps Canon and Nikon in business is that the ecosystem is more worth than the camera itself. If you buy a Nikon or a Canon there is a high probability that if someone makes some cool gear, it will work with these cameras. The camera is the least important component since it is nigh on impossible to find a terrible SLR. And you if you are serious about photography, you will end up spending more money on lenses than on cameras.

pedrocr 13y ago
That's what's amazing with mirrorless. Before it used to be pretty impossible to do an EOS to alpha adapter (for example). Once you remove the mirror that becomes much easier because of all the extra space. So even the argument that you should value being able to get something exotic that only Canon/Nikon carry will fade (their tilt-shifts are the only really good example I know of).
- bborud 13y ago
  Perhaps. But just look at the Petzval lens that just got funded on kickstarter. They will make it for Nikon and Canon. At least initially. Imagine the extra risk and extra cost of researching, designing, manufacturing, stocking and selling that lens for half a dozen different camera systems. If you were making a lens, would you prefer to make one or two versions or 6-7 versions?
  - pedrocr 13y ago
    That's fine, and you'll be able to mount it to a NEX/m43 mirrorless camera with full digital link using an adapter (it already exists). We're close to being able to open this market wide open and be able to mount any lens on any body. That's not good news for Canon/Nikon that often rely on making gear that's good enough that people with an investment in the system won't make the switch.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
In technology circles a company that is only surviving because the ecosystem is holding them up is already dead. I watched Sun put DEC there, and it pained me to see Sun get put into the same place by folks like Dell and HP.
- bborud 13y ago
  Well, for photography it has been like this since before the digital cameras. Even in the 80s I chose my film-based SLR not based on camera features, but on the lenses that were available for it.

snowwrestler 13y ago

Of the companies you mention, only Olympus can make OK lenses, which are the most important part of a camera system. Canon and Nikon will be just fine, aside from the overall shrinking of the DSLR market.

pedrocr 13y ago
I don't know where you get that idea. Both Fuji and Sony (with and without Zeiss) make great lenses. Panasonic also has at least 1 or 2 gems in the m43 system. Canon and Nikon make some good stuff but they also make some pretty pedestrian lenses. These days with automated design, lens are much less of a black art and it's much harder to have an edge. From what I read Sigma has been churning out some really good ones lately for example.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  Zeiss makes great lenses, but they are also available for Nikon and Canon. Canon and Nikon do make some mediocre lenses but they are all cheapies for cheap bodies. The top end is what will keep them in business. The electronics companies are in a terrible position. The only people who will buy their bodies and lenses are cost-conscious hobbyists--a group that is rapidly shrinking. You're never going to show up at an NFL game or press conference and see a bunch of Sony and Samsung systems.
  - pedrocr 13y ago
    >Zeiss makes great lenses, but they are also available for Nikon and Canon. That's not true. Zeiss for Nikon/Canon is a manual-focus only line. They make totally different autofocus lenses that are only available in alpha mount. And Sony also makes their own high-end lenses that are not Zeiss (their G line of Minolta heritage). >Canon and Nikon do make some mediocre lenses but they are all cheapies for cheap bodies. The top end is what will keep them in business. The only top-end that I know of that's really unique to them is tilt-shift lenses, and mirrorless can even take care of those by allowing for tilt-shift mounts for normal lenses in the mirror box space. For any other specialty lenses (telefocus mostly) mirrorless will allow for fully featured adapters. >The electronics companies are in a terrible position. The only people who will buy their bodies and lenses are cost-conscious hobbyists--a group that is rapidly shrinking. Industry statistics say otherwise. Mirrorless is the only growing category and Canon and Nikon are basically not in that market as both EOS-M and the Nikon 1 system have been flops. Nikon is especially in a tight spot because they depend on Sony for sensors. >You're never going to show up at an NFL game or press conference and see a bunch of Sony and Samsung systems. I wouldn't be so sure. Sony in particular has the ingredients to make that happen (good telephotos and fast bodies).