david_smith110

<p>Two minutes well spent. This pretty much sums up my feelings on the social media phenomenon.</p> <p>

<blockquote> <p>I doubt very few folk could really tell the difference on a print/screen between them...</p> </blockquote> <p>That is true for just about everything but DOF. I do get a noticeably shallower DOF field at a given aperture with my a7 then I do with my NEX 7. Of course, it isn't so noticeable when I use a speedbooster on the NEX, but FF effects the bokeh just that little bit more. If this is important to you, as it is for me, then it can be a factor. But for most other factors you are entirely right.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Mirrorless is not all about size, it's about the EVF and the many advantages it can bring.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is very true. Although keeping a long flange/focal distance does away with <em>some</em> of those advantages. </p> <p>I think it would be a mistake for Canon to just 'go mirrorless' on its existing line of DSLR's. Taking the mirror out and not reducing the mounts flange/focal distance would leave a lot of wasted space. Well, maybe you could store a sandwich in there for those really long shoots. That would be handy.</p> <p>The best move for Canon would probably be to come out with one or two serious EOS bodies that have the mirror box removed and an EVF installed while also coming out with or planning to come out with a serious new mirrorless line built around a new mount with new lenses. The EOS Mirrorless cameras would then ease the transition of current EOS users who want EVF and provide them with a camera ready to go which is optimized for their stable of lenses. No adapters needed, just plug and play, and all the existing Canon user base can step up and give it a try.</p> <p>But this shouldn't be their <em>only</em> path to mirrorless Canon cameras. Also build from the ground up a new, forward looking camera that will become the flagship line for the next two to three decades. Design a fresh new line of lenses with all the modern coatings, glass technology and super small and quite AF motors built in from the ground up. THIS camera will then attract back to Canon those who want a solid mirrorless camera and aren't tied to your EOS system. But just as importantly it provides a stepping stone for your EOS users who tried your EVF equipped EOS bodies and liked what they saw. Now those people can make the decision to go full on optimized mirrorless and stay with Canons quality and service if they so choose.</p> <blockquote> <p>Full frame mirrorless cams like the A7 still need big lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is not quite accurate. Let me change it up a bit.</p> <blockquote> <p>Full frame cameras, like any mirrorless or DSLR model, still need <em>big, fast zooms.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>There is nothing special about an a7 that <em>requires</em> it to have big <em>lenses</em>. There are tons of options of small lenses to mount up to any camera out there, a7 included. For instance, my a7 with adapter and Canon FL 55/1.2 handles like a <em>dream</em>. If you want native lenses, mount up an FE 55/1.8 or Loxia. Very small lenses on a very small camera.</p> <p>But when you want to mount up 2.8 zoom lenses....then yes, you start running into some size issues. Again though, this is something all cameras face. I have seen the setup my ex brother in law uses to shoot Moto GP races for Honda motorcycles. HUGE fast zooms on his DSLR body. Looks ridiculous, I mean absolutely ridiculous and there is nothing balanced about it. He has to walk around with a mono pod to actually use it.</p> <p>So horses for courses, as always.</p>

<p>Eric, no doubt Sigma, Tamron and the like have been coming up with some phenomenal lenses recently. Definitely stealing thunder from the big names. It just takes third party makers time to make the decision to support a format and then design lenses and bring them to market. So these wunderbare lenses wont be available for a while.</p> <p>My point was simply <em>if</em> Canon goes whole ham on this and suddenly wants to be <em>THE</em> mirrorless camera maker (sigh...<em>if</em> only) and <em>if</em> they were to put all those years of lens making experience behind them and <em>if</em> they take a page from Tamron then surely they could design some sweet mirrorless optics which still have excellent performance and hopefully be smaller then what Sony has been capable of. </p> <p>Wait...that's way to many ifs. Yep, big ole' lenses in store for the new Canon. Yay. (and there was much rejoicing...)</p> <p>It seems like maybe this would be a good time for somebody like Tamron to bring back the Adaptall idea. In other words, make a series of prime lenses for all mirrorless cameras and then just have slim electronic adapters available for each mirrorless maker. That way you could invest in a whole line of lenses and take them with you when you change cameras. You only need to purchase a new adapter for whichever camera you use to keep the correct flange distance, have the correct AF programed in, and use software correction to optimize if for that particular system.</p> <p>Your welcome Tamron. Just mail me a check.</p>

<p>Nope, not a concrete date since it is a rumor site and nothing is released from Fuji yet. But the X-Pro 2 should be a reality soon. The "reliable" specs are listed in the link.</p> <p>http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/fuji-x-pro-2-will-be-announced-on-january-15th/</p> <p>There was a bit of a rumor kicking around that Fuji is looking at a FF camera as well. I would just be tickled pink if they jumped into those waters. But the X-Pro 2 should remain an apsc and be able to use all those juicy Fujinon lenses. It will be interesting to see what they do with the view finder on this one. Keep that hybrid thing or outgun the X-T1 with an even better EVF. The sensor is still in question to. The guys over at Camera Store TV made a good point in their X-T10 review. They pointed out the 16mp X trans sensor is getting a little long in the tooth, though still competitive. It was their opinion that the X-T10 would most likely be the last camera to have that particular sensor, so hopefully this new flagship will have a few more MP, or some type of upgrade. </p> <p>I cant tell you how many times I have almost ditched my a7 for an X-T1. Depending on what Canon does with their 'serious' mirrorless line Fuji just may get some money from me in the future. </p> <p>Anybody out there seriously considering an X-Pro 2? (Depending on specs of course).</p>

<p>Some really good responses so far.</p> <p>Personally I have very high hopes for this camera. Almost to the point that I'm pretty sure I will be disappointed. My main concern is due to how Canon has approached the entire mirrorless segment so far. It seems at no point in the M journey was their heart ever really in it.</p> <p>I wanted to like the M even with the, in my opinion, lackluster body design. But the camera always seemed way to expensive for what you were getting. There were just to many good options from other companies that were as good or better then the M. And as for lens support...Sony got hammered by everyone about taking forever to bring out lenses. But the M is now on its 4th iteration and has all of 5 lenses available. Some mediocre (seeming) zooms and a little prime that has the systems fastest speed, f/2. Even Sony was better then this.</p> <p>For all the talk that comes up concerning Sony being a company of engineers and not photographers, I kinda have to start pointing that finger at Canon now. The M series would have been much more endearing to me (and many others I'm sure) as well as being a much bigger success if Canon had just brought out one simple product for it. That being a smart EOS M/FD adapter, with built in software correction for all the old FD lenses. If Canon really was a company of 'photographers' (really, whatever that means) then they would be more in tune with an important dynamic of mirrorless cameras and the reason that many people purchase one. That is of course the use of legacy glass.</p> <p>With that one simple adapter Canon could have opened the M line up to some of the best manual focus glass ever made and even trumped FD use on Fujis and Sonys by having the built in correction. In one swoop they would have increased the usefulness of the M a hundredfold, showed that they are on top current photography trends and gained the hearts of many, many photographers.</p> <p>But as I said earlier, it just seems as if their heart isn't in it. According to the current rumors Canon is now doubling down and will release an enthusiast apsc model to be followed up by a FF version. But can the M mount even take a FF sensor? I am asking honestly because I don't know. My fears are that Canon is being pushed into this in an attempt to steal back some of the thunder lost to competing products. But it might be in grudging kinda 'ah, we don't really want to do this but we will' scenario. If Canon still wants DSLR's to be the big thing then this very important camera from them may be gimped from the get go.</p> <p>I want this to be a serious attempt from Canon to make the best mirrorless camera on the market. I want them to fill it up with Canon goodness. I don't want half measure and mindset that sees mirrorless as just something to prop up their DSLR's. This camera needs to stand on its own and not be anchored down by the last three decades of Canons success. The time and technology is right for Canon to make a clean break and start thinking of ways to succeed in the future, with new and advanced technology.</p> <p>They did it once before. They saw the writing on the wall in the 80's and they ditched the FD mount that was used by a lot of professionals back then. The clean slate design of the EOS mount was brilliant at the time and led to the 30 years of success they have enjoyed. I don't believe they would have had as much success with EOS if they had taken the FD system into account when designing the new mount.</p> <p>The same needs to be done here. Even if they don't see this mirrorless camera as a possible replacement for EOS (which they sorta should be doing) then at least design it without tying it to EOS in ways that may hold it down in the future. EOS lenses are not designed or optimized to be used on mirrorless cameras. The new mount and new lenses need to be a fresh design and move forward from there. Sure, have an adapter to use the old EOS lenses, just as Sony has done. But then go to the next step and design a new set of lenses as small and fast as possible. Canon has decades of lens making experience and if anyone can show Sony how to make a fast zoom in a smaller package then it will be Canon. Yes, physics dictate how big a lens has to be at a certain speed, up to a point. But if anyone can push ahead with out of the box thinking in lens design its Canon.</p> <p>I really have high hopes for this camera. But I just keep looking back at the M. If they follow this philosophy and over-price while under-delivering while also misreading current photography trends I don't know how it will succeed. Please Canon, no half measures. Take this camera seriously.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Eric, I very much appreciate the more moderate tone of this response. But we will have to disagree once more on the redefining part. Pnet has their definition of which cameras are ok to discuss in their mirrorless forum. My definition of which cameras fall into what the market has come to recognize as the recent and relatively new market segment called mirrorless has, for the scope of the discussion we are having, nothing to do with the aforementioned Pnet list. Pnet groups cameras together their way for their reasons. This does not dictate what others or the market consider mirrorless, only what the moderators of this forum will allow to be discussed here on their server, in this forum.</p> <p>But honestly, please don't get me started on the way the forums are set up. I love pnet but sometimes its a head scratcher. Why do we have a Minox specific forum, but not a Macro forum? We have an Olympus and M4/3's, which could go in mirrorless I suppose. We have Modern Film cameras and Classic Manual cameras...is there a modern film camera anymore? And then the Deals and Discounts forum has no postings in it what so ever.</p> <p>Who knows. Anyway, I appreciate the back and forth as well. You are quite knowledgeable on the subject at hand and I do learn some interesting stuff from your point of view.</p>

<p>Eric, please don't put words in my mouth. At no point did I redefine what pnet describes as a mirrorless camera. I'm describing the type of mirrorless camera as the group of cameras have come to be know <em>in the market over the last few years</em>, especially in regards to SLR/DSLR style cameras with interchangeable lenses and preferably an EVF. These 'mirrorless' cameras are essentially DSLR's that have had the mirror removed. I am not or was not lumping in every camera type made without a mirror. The scope of my response was how the market views these cameras, not how pnet classified them. But the cameras I was discussing are indeed mirrorless and that discussion belongs in <em>this</em> forum.</p> <p>Cell phone cameras have been out a long time, nobody called them mirrorless. Rangefinders have been out for how many decades, yet nobody referred to them as the mirrorless market segment. The same with Camera Obscuras, pinholes, compacts and any other camera with no mirror that has ever been made. Going into this type of hyperbole is just typical of your attack writing style, so I should be used to it by now.</p> <p>And you know the great thing about posting on a forum Eric? This wild speculation as you call it? I don't need to go research hard numbers to post a link for discussion. Its called having an opinion. I find interesting articles out there in the wild and then post them here for discussion. You are more then free to voice your opinion as well but the manner you deliver it is just as important as the information you provide. You can see from the post above yours where I actually agree with some of what you said. And yet you follow up with a brow beating post accusing me of redefining what the Powers That Be at pnet call a mirrorless?</p> <p>Please Eric, calm down man. Its gonna be ok. People can have different opinions then you, no matter how much you don't believe they are right. But please try to respectfully deliver dissent and (credit to you here) your knowledge on the subject.</p>

<p>Wow Carl, do you contribute anything of consequence to these discussion other than taking pop shots? I think I must dub thee...</p> <p>

<p>Eric, that's an awesomely conceived and well written reply. I don't agree with all of it but some points you bring up do make sense. In your last paragraph though you say that for every DSLR sold is not a mirrorless sold. Sorry, but I cant tell if you were expounding on your ideas or you thought that is what I meant.</p> <p>My point is that for every mirrorless sold it is almost definitely a DSLR <em>not</em> sold. Because those are direct competitors and consumers who are looking to spend 500 or 3500 have great choices in each category. And it is a little suspicious that Canon is now looking to bring out a FF mirrorless camera soon, if the reports are to be believed. I honestly believe they are feeling the heat and are now realizing that mirrorless <em>isn't</em> going to go away, it <em>is</em> taking dollars away from them and if they want that money they need to step up and play serious hardball.</p> <p>Anyway, that's neither here nor there. But I do mirror your thinking from the response above I gave to Robin. I have grave doubts this 'shrinking island' as you call it will in any way be able to sustain the growth and diversity of products we currently enjoy. Photography is like any other market. If you saturate that market with product (photos) they loose their value. The picture market today is saturated to the point that it is just assumed to be a free for all. How long can pros last in an environment like that?</p>

<p>Alan, only you can answer that for sure. But I have heard many people say that the images from an a7Rii can be comparable to MF. I recommend using a site like flickr to see what images others are creating with the a7RII and see if they are up to snuff for you. However, there should be adapters for the Sony to allow you to use your Mamiya lenses. They would essentially be 'cropped', but the benefit would be only the sweet spot of the lens would be used.</p> <p>I don't know if that would really net you a weight savings though. There are some fine native lenses out for the Sony system if you would rather go that route. If manual focus doesn't bother you then Voigtlander will have three wide angle lenses available in e mount soon in 10, 12 and 15mm variants I believe.</p> <p>Hope this helps.</p>

<p>Well, one can hope. Follow the link thru to the Canon Rumors site and supposedly and enthusiast apsc model will come out first. I hope Canon is now truly putting time and resources into this.</p> <p>http://petapixel.com/2015/10/28/canon-reportedly-working-on-a-full-frame-mirrorless-eos-m-camera/</p> <p>If they do deliver on this what would specs would you like to see in the camera? Should it be designed to forge a new path for Canon or should it just be tied to the EOS system of lenses as a supporting player? Curious to hear your ideas.</p>

<p>Eric, I guess we can just agree to disagree. Except for that part we agree on, people not valuing photos that is. :)</p> <p>By nature the Mirrorless camera is a 'mirrorless' DSLR, something that I think is easily forgotten in all these discussions. That is what the name means in a nutshell. So the two different but also similar cameras sit in the same market niches alongside each other. Except for the fact that ones uses a mirror box and OVF while the other has no mirror and uses an EVF they are the same camera. They compete in these niches at all pricepoints, from entry level to top of the line uber expensive models.</p> <p>It is therefor not hard to imagine that for every Mirrorless camera sold a DSLR didn't get sold. Much more so then any other competing market segment. True, some very low end mirrorless may take a sale away from compacts, but phones are much more responsible for that. And anyway, a cheap entry leverl DSLR can take sales away from compacts as well, so until there are hard numbers it is hard to use that dynamic.</p> <p>For every mirrorless camera sold there wasn't a cellphone <em>not</em> sold. There wasn't a wet plate camera not sold. It is much more likely that is a consumer wants more then a cell phone or compact then his options are DSLR and MC. Which remember, are essentially the same thing. So because of this closeness and competition for the most part if one of them was sold that was a lost opportunity for the other kind.</p> <p>What got me about this article was that somewhere in Canons 21% drop in projected profits was the belief that somewhere in there they lost a DSLR sale because the consumer wanted mirrorless and when this consumer looked to Canons mirrorless offerings....well, the consumer went somewhere else. If by now Canon had more serious mirrorless cameras to choose from then these lost DSLR sales to another company could instead be a gained mirrorless sale for Canon.</p> <p>It doesn't matter what you sell them Canon, just don't sell them a Sony. Or Fuji, or Olympus, etc.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>Blackburied?</p> </blockquote> <p>Lol, nice. :)</p> <blockquote> <p>Others may choose 4x5 film camera, what's the worry about people who do not use Sony mirrorless cameras?</p> </blockquote> <p>Because 35mm FF isn't directly competing with 4x5 film? I dunno.</p>

<p>I wasn't aware of those other two Charles, although the name Bailey sounds familiar. Thanks for mentioning them.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I think the boom times for digital cameras are coming to an end.</p> </blockquote> <p>Robin, I really think you are onto something here. Its not just the boomtimes coming to an end but rather photography as we know it will change dramatically in the middle part of this century. The economic systems pro photogrphers currently work under will no longer be able to function as technology pushes ahead and the world is inundated with billions and billions of photos that are 'good enough'.</p> <p>Take this article for instance.<br /> http://petapixel.com/2015/10/27/hull-property-group-stole-my-photo/</p> <p>Things like this are happening all over. There is an overwhelming belief that images just don't need to be paid for. Also witness the recent Pulitzer prize winning photog who was asked to have a photo used by CBS (if I remember correctly) with no pay, just credits. More and more news agencies know they can rely on citizen photographers with the ever present cell phone to capture and provide 'usable' images. Several news agencies are handing out iphones and selfie sticks to journalist in the field. These changes are happening now.</p> <p>But what about the belief that all photographers hold true, that there will always be a market for high quality, artistic images shot by an experience photographer. People will always be willing to pay for that right? I hope this is the case, but consider the relentless drive of technology. What happens when products like the Lily Drone intersect with a future 16K video standard, and companies can just hire drone operators to fly around and video whatever function they need and pull 30, 40, or 50mp stills from this footage? And with future software you can have as shallow or as deep a depth of field as you need. What happens to the lone wolf pro photog with thousands of dollars in bodies and lenses around his neck in this environment?</p> <p>The Lytro camera gives a vision of this. Even more so is the new Light L16. I am fascinated by this new camera, and if I can find room in the budget I will try to own one next year, probably before I upgrade my a7. I am just blown away by the potential this camera has to revolutionize the photo industry. A small, compact form factor capable of multiple focal lengths, high quality images and after the shot control of the depth of field. If these guys can deliver on this it will be amazing. And if they don't deliver, somebody else will.</p> <p>I know I say I have a firm belief that mirrorless will replace DSLR's. But if I am completely honest I really don't know if they will get the chance to do this long term. How long will these big camera companies be able to sell top end DSLR's and MC's at these prices before the market just wont sustain them any longer? When will that critical threshold of decreasing enthusiast/pro userbase fall below what is sustainable to justify the R&D money to stay competitive?</p>

<blockquote> <p>also, as far as that Reuters article, it's a bit silly.</p> </blockquote> <p>Reuters- A respected international news agency employing thousands of journalists, with a division specialized in providing and reporting on market data. From the wiki...</p> <blockquote> <p>Over the years Reuter's agency has built a reputation in Europe and the rest of the world as the first to report news <a title="Scoop (term)" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoop_(term)">scoops</a> from abroad. Reuters was the first to report <a title="Abraham Lincoln" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln">Abraham Lincoln</a>'s assassination, for instance. Almost every major news outlet in the world currently subscribes to Reuters. Reuters operates in more than 200 cities in 94 countries in about 20 languages.</p> </blockquote> <p>You call their accurate reporting silly, but choose to site DPreview and Thom Holgan in your response.</p> <p><strong>DPReview</strong>- A very large bridge under which lives many, <em>many</em> trolls. Although they do provide lots of in depth camera reviews.<br> <strong>Thom Holgan</strong>- A competent photographer and a dude with a website who pontificates on the industry.</p> <p>And yet when I post an article about 10 sports photogs using mirrorless both the website and the professionalism of the photographers are called into question, while being accused of being on a crusade and spreading half truths. You yourself said the website was propaganda Eric.</p> <p>Careful, your bias is starting to show. :)</p>

<blockquote> <p>the only reason i commented was because of the headline which identifies mirrorless as a cause for the drop in DSLR sales, which appears to be entirely misleading, if not an outright falsehood</p> </blockquote> <p><em>Canon going out of business! Reuters blames Mirrorless cameras! </em>Misleading, and a falsehood.</p> <p><em>Canon profits way down because of freaking awesome new A7RII! </em> Misleading, and a falsehood.</p> <p><em>Canon profits down 21%, Reuters partially blames mirrorless. </em>Not misleading, exactly what was in the article. I don't know how you think this is proclaiming a drop in DSLR sales, it simply states a drop in profits. When you read the linked article, there are many factors that contributed to this, of which <em>mirrorless sales from other manufacturers was one. </em></p>

<blockquote> <p>why do any of us feel invested in mirrored vs. mirrorless? The installed base of lenses will ensure that Canon and Nikon keep selling bodies compatible with their existing mounts. Why do we really care what's happening under the surface as long as it works?</p> </blockquote> <p>That's a good question Peter. People feel invested in either one for a myriad of reasons. To a large degree more of this type of discussion happens in forums then out in the real world. The internet psychology of comments, likes and anonymity are a breeding ground for a 'mine is better then yours' mentality.</p> <p>But there can be real logic behind these decisions. For myself I have chosen mirrorless because it is perfectly suited for my photography. I am also a firm believer that this type of camera will eventually supplant others types, most notably DSLR's, when people look for a 'serious' or professional camera. Its a ways off but it is my belief it will happen. I personally get very excited over this new tech and what it allows us to do now and even more so what it will bring in the future.</p> <p>My issue comes from how the two biggest camera makers have chosen to respond to this new technology. And again this is just a personal thing. I love the Canon camera company. I love their cameras and the service behind them. Unfortunately Sony cameras are serving me better in regards to what I shoot. So I am patiently waiting for Canon to get serious about mirrorless and come out with a 'pro' model that can compete with the a7's of the world and come away equal or better. Because frankly, in my heart of hearts, I know they can do it better.</p> <p>Here's the thing....Sony is on a mission. Just a couple of years ago or so Sony was selling off assets and restructuring and earnings were down and things in general were a mess. Forums were full of questions like "Should I buy a Sony camera? Will they even be here in a couple of years"? But the company restructured itself and geared up to support the 'three pillars' that would become its new core business...Digital Imaging, Mobile, and Games.</p> <p>Their restructuring seems to be a huge success. They are the premier chip maker in the world, now buying out Toshibas sensor business. They are serious about the digital imaging market and more importantly they are <em>hungry</em> to succeed. This is personified with smart innovation, quickly bringing that innovation to market, and pushing the boundaries of the possible. Just two years ago their wasn't a FF Mirrorless market. Sony invented it.</p> <p>This is all well and good but my issue is Canon, whom I love, is going to get themselves Kodaked if they don't wake up and respond to this. Or Blackberried, or IBM'd or whatever you want to call it.</p> <p>Yes, the DSLR still reigns supreme for the moment. But the EOS mount is almost 30 years old, the mirrorbox assembly is ancient tech. If they sit on this and they don't respond to the changing photography gestalt....well, history is full of companies who thought they were safe at the top. The market is saturated with Pro photographers who are invested in Canon and Nikon gear, and for good reason....for most pro's its the one and only choice. But as time goes by and the DSLR doesn't evolve while mirrorless does, and those older pros are replaced by a new generation of younger photographers, your Canon will suddenly become your fathers Oldsmobile.</p> <p>This isn't guaranteed, but it <em>can</em> happen. All the pieces are currently in place. While I can recognize the huge established base of lenses and bodies and pros that are Canon and Nikon I cant continue to put faith in them if they choose not to invest in their future simply to protect the aging tech. No company ever survives that.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Update...deal seems to be gone.</p>

<p>I laughed so hard during the ergonomic part of the review. The size of the hands grabbing the A7....lol. And adding in a Morgan Freeman voice is always a win in my book. This has some of the feel of Kai's videos over at DigitalRev but is done sooooooo much better. Highly recommended, I really was laughing out loud. :)</p> <p>

<p>From my original post...</p> <blockquote> <p>The <strong>consumer shift to smartphones for casual photo taking</strong> has pummelled demand for compact cameras, while the growing popularity of lighter mirrorless cameras has taken away market share from higher margin single-lens reflex cameras.</p> </blockquote>

<p>His answer? Sometimes, sorta, depends on what you need. An interesting video where he describes a recent trip thru Mongolio in some very harsh weather extremes. Turns out there were a lot of mirrorless cameras taken on the trip. Of three A7RII used one was fine, Matts had some issues, and one got jammed with dust. Possibly from the third party lens, maybe not.</p> <p>As I said an interesting video with some nice photography scattered thru it. I completely agree with the two card slot thing. I really wish Sony would step up the game here and put in an extra slot. With all the tech that are able to cram in there they really cant add just one more?</p> <p>

<p>http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/sebastian-vettel-is-the-first-leica-sl-owner/-</p> <p>Geeze it still looks big. </p>

<p>Interesting. From the article...</p> <blockquote> <p>The consumer shift to smartphones for casual photo taking has pummelled demand for compact cameras, while the growing popularity of lighter mirrorless cameras has taken away market share from higher margin single-lens reflex cameras.</p> </blockquote> <p>http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/27/canon-results-idUSL4N0SM25K20141027</p> <p>Canon is in the middle of changing a lot of its business, so shifts like this are expected. But it does seem a little steep.</p> <p> </p>