Canon in financial trouble?

<p>Bob, technically zoom lenses have already been wrapped around inside a small body. Many years ago I had a Minolta "<strong>Dimage X</strong>". The camera was very small with a 3-1 optical zoom. (Do a Google search on Dimage X and check out the top right image to see the diagram of the camera.) I don't see why it would be too difficult to do this with a smart phone. The patents might be getting real valuable. </p>

<p><strong>Juergen: </strong>Go <a href="/photodb/member-photos?user_id=2173712">here </a>and look at the images. Then tell us what's wrong with the Eye-Cue.</p>

<p>Want to sell more cameras, drop the price of DSLR bodies to make it more affordable for people to get into the hobby, the more people getting into the hobby will mean more sales. How many of you got into photography, caught the bug, then upgraded and upgraded again. You catch the bug and start collecting lenses. Make it affordable for the average guy to get into the hobby using higher end gear, being able to take photos that a cell phone can't. Maybe it's time to recreate the market.</p>

<p>I recall parents at the local high school marveling at the live view screen of a Canon DSLR zoomed in on a low lit stage, the image of the kids looking so sharp and clear on that screen. They weren't getting these shots with their iPhones and point and shoots. They wanted a camera like this. Get the price down to where it is affordable for the average guy.</p>

<p>It's an expensive hobby, make it affordable, you have to get people hooked on it to get them to start buying your gear. Create your market, make a superior product that the masses can afford.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>If someone can get a decent sized sensor and a zoom lens into a smartphone (and they will), things will get even worse for camera makers.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>Unless that 'someone' is the camera makers themselves (as Sony is trying to do). If the camera within a phone moves from an afterthought to a more central feature, there may be a place for the traditional camera makers, with their expertise, and brand names, in the phone market. In the future there may be an iPhone with a Nikon camera module inside, and Google Nexus phone with a Canon camera module inside (or vice versa :)).</p>

<p>Not sure that smartphones have it in them to impact meaningfully on DSLRs - they do indeed hit the "good enough for the majority" space, but that's long been occupied by P&S cameras, and they <em>are </em>at risk.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If someone can get a decent sized sensor and a zoom lens into a smartphone (and they will), things will get even worse for camera makers. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, I'd really see this as a risk to bridge cameras; less so to DSLRs. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Juergen: Go here and look at the images. Then tell us what's wrong with the Eye-Cue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>'Nuff said really, Les...</em></p>

<p>But to head off the inevitible low ISO DR come-back (which as we all know, is <em>all</em> that matters): <a href="http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/canon_eos_70d_02_2_DxO.jpg"><strong>this</strong></a> is a 100 ISO 70D file from the internet, which I've quickly converted and processed without any localised adjustment NR shenanigans, that looked like <a href="http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/canon_eos_70d_02_DxO.jpg"><strong>this</strong></a> initially.</p>

<p>How much more shadow recovery could anyone legitimately want?</p>

<p>100% crops <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/70D_dxo_1.jpg"><strong>here</strong></a> and <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/70D_dxo_2.jpg"><strong>here</strong></a> - the Sony "miracle" sensors are really not much better at all: maybe a <em>little </em>cleaner, but only by a "who <em>really</em> cares?" amount. And these are 100% crops, remember.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So, all of you defending Canon - you would NOT buy the next Canon body with improved DR, no banding when shadows are being pushed and higher MPs for landscapes because you are happy with the gear you currently have - right?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A completely irrelevant, embarrassingly transparent "straw man" argument: it's ridiculous to suggest that anyone wouldn't want these - and just for the avoidance of <em>any </em>doubt, nobody ever has said that they wouldn't <em>want </em>these improvements.</p>

<p>Not ever.</p>

<p>But the point is that the vast majority of photographers don't <em>need </em>them for the vast majority of the work they do.</p>

<p>The fact that some people dwell on these (in truth) relatively insignificant issues to a completely OCD extent is the <em>real </em>problem. I'll go as far as to speculate that <em>you </em>don't "need" these improvements, Juergen: if you did, "heavily invested" or not, surely you'd have jumped ship before now?</p>

<p>But you're still here. So "<em>need</em>"? I doubt it. Besides, it's surprisingly easy to address these perceived shortcomings anyway in conversion/post processing: I know this to be a fact, <em>because I've done it.</em></p>

<p>I've already demonstrated up the page that the 70D is eminently capable of heavy shadow wrangling at low ISO without banding or noise problems, but I've long been able to drag several stops out of the shadows on my 7D files too: <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows.jpg"><strong>this</strong></a> to <strong><a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/shadows_recovered.jpg">thi</a>s</strong>, for example.</p>

<p>Or <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195_minus_3_ev.jpg"><strong>this</strong></a> to <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/IMG_2195-plus_4_ev.jpg"><strong>this</strong></a> - deliberately underexposed by three stops, and recovered by four stops.</p>

<p>Maybe you should look at improving your own conversion and processing skills before railing incessantly at Canon for letting you down. I'll even help you out: Canon's own DPP is <em>extremely </em>good at low ISO shadow pushing without generating banding, if that's really such an issue for you...</p>

<p>Oh - and none of this is about <em>defending</em> Canon. It's onlyabout <em>not having a particular problem with Canon </em>(at least on this topic) - a different thing altogether: but your attempt to personalise this position (and thereby to imply that it's driven by fanboyism) is just another tediously transparent bit of flamebait.</p>

IMHO the pace of introduction of new models is too high to be sustainable. How often does Ford or Mercedes or Toyota introduce a new model? You should be able to cover the development cost of your current models before introducing a new one or you won't stay in business long,

<i> Want to sell more cameras, drop the price of DSLR bodies to make it more affordable for people to get into the hobby,

the more people getting into the hobby will mean more sales.</i><p>

I think you're overestimating the profit margins companies have on their SLRs. Cutting profit per camera in half isn't

going to cut the retail price of the camera by 50%. And lowering the price by 10% isn't going to double sales.

Many people use photos as a record of where they went, whom they were with, and what they ate while they were

there.and they want to share those images immediately with their friends. Mobile phones fulfill this need well enough. The

images aren't as sharp or detailed as they could be, but that doesn't seem to bother most folks.

 

Pros and photography enthusiasts will continue to buy cameras, as will some older consumers who prefer to shoot with a

camera than with a phone. But the vast majority of the consumer market has embraced the phone camera.