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.
Most of the stuff you wrote can be done with modern cameras.
Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji et al have mobile apps with a variety of functionality depending on model. But all basically allow you to connect via bluetooth to GPS tag pictures and download them via Wifi to your phone, where you can 'directly post them to Instagram'. You can charge most modern cameras (Canon EOS R, Sony A7(R)III, Nikon Z6/Z7, Fuji XT-3(0) etc) with USB-C.
Canon and Nikon have great touch screen support, Fuji so-so, Sony horrible.
I am not saying everything is perfect. But it seems you haven't done research on modern cameras.
Trying to put a whole phone stack in there isn't the core competency of any of those manufacturers (except barely Sony, though a different division). It's not just "slap a SIM and a beefier CPU" in there. Camera CPUs are highly specialised. So you'd have to essentially put another phone in there. That adds BOM cost plus reasearch and development of folks without core competency. Issues with software updates, compatibility, let alone battery life. All so you can edit a picture on a tiny 3" screen to post a 4megapixel version of a 24-45Megapixel original image directly to instagram?
Zeiss is coming out with a phone just with everything you've described. They're late. It will be huge. It will be incredibly expensive. Not sure I'd want to go that route.
> Why can't download the photos directly to a phone?
I have Canon and Leica cameras, mid and high end, that do this.
> Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable?
There are cameras that will.
> how much more could adding a touch screen
Notably Sony stands alone in being the only major manufacturer _without_ touch.
> a simple auto-mode (which disables most buttons and hides advanced menus)
Not sure about other manufacturers, but this would be Canon's "creative" mode, available on (at least) entry levels) to the $3,000 body only 5D IV.
> and upload to instagram feature
> 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.
Agreed. And it's Instagram's fault. You can't upload to IG from your computer (without your browser pretending to be mobile). APIs for third party app-based uploads are near non-existent, and the people who _do_ try to maintain plugins to export to IG from Lightroom, etc., are constantly playing cat and mouse.
Not sure how this correlates to a "lack of vision from DSLR companies" - IG is actively hostile to uploading to IG from anywhere but its own apps.
It's a huge investment in software and hardware for an almost non-existent user base. Most current DSLRs already have Wifi or a Wifi option; those that don't can be fitted with a Wifi SD card. It turns out that hardly anyone actually uses that feature, because Wifi transfer rates are generally a more problematic bottleneck than the inconvenience of pulling the SD card and putting it into a card reader. The main users of Wifi tethering appear to be sports and news photographers, who do sometimes need to upload a photo right now.
Adding what amounts to an entire smartphone to every DSLR is simply madness - the kind of person who spends >$1000 on a bulky and complex camera is almost certainly the kind of person who has an Adobe Creative Cloud account; they're not going to post-process an image on the back of their camera through choice.
Using a relatively crappy camera on a phone, they were able to get great results merely because they can program it.
As a simple example: I want to reduce high ISO noise by taking N photos and taking the median. This is an established technique in photo editing. Why do I have to manually tell the camera to take those N photos (and make sure autofocus and autoexposure is not enabled), and then transfer N images, and then load a program to do the median calculation for me? Why can't I create a plugin/app for my camera where I just input the number of photos and it does it all for me?
I think any camera manufacturer that makes an API available for their cameras could see a serious boost. People no longer have to rely on the company deciding what cool features to add.
There's really not been any serious innovation in DSLRs in over a decade. Pentax occasionally comes up with something neat, but that's about it.
> 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.
It’s amazing how many replies are poo-pooing your thoughts yet the financial reports demonstrate they are wrong.
I have a good expensive DSLR that I haven’t touched in more than a year. Why? Cause the workflow stinks compared to my phones camera.
- I have to remove the SD card
- I have to bring out my computer and pop in the card
- I have to sync it into Lightroom, which keeps all the photos in a totally different bin than all my smartphone pictures.
- once I’m done dinking with the photos, I have to export the ones I like and import them back into the Photos app, which ensures it shows up on my TV
- I’ve got to post it to FB/instagram.
- I’ve got to nuke the card to free up the space
- put it back into the camera
That is just enough of a hurdle that it keeps me from lugging the damn thing with me on trips.
Seriously. I’d love to use my DSLR more. It takes way better pictures. It just doesn’t integrate worth a damn into my computing infrastructure anymore.
I think there is a untapped market for some higher end camera with interchangeable lenses that can seamlessly integrate with a modern workflow.
You forgot one qualifier, the most expensive -professional- cameras. Different professionals have different needs. Every camera is designed with a usecase in mind. Off the top of my head professionals photographers need:
* rugged tank-like construction - 1D, 5D series mag-alloy bodies check, weather sealing - check
* reliable AF - check
* awesome battery life - check
* professional support services that can service/repair/loan products with a super-fast turnaround time for when you have a gig.. - check
* high quality optics - Canon L glass, check
* high res sensor for billboards - 5DSR check
* huge library of lenses - check, check and check
In all of those things Canon and Nikon (and even Sony to some extent) excel. I don't think the features you want are useless or provide no value, but you have to look at the bigger picture and take the entire market into consideration. People are using smartphones not just because DSLRs don't have certain features, its that they don't want to carry yet another device when their smartphone does an adequate job.
"Why can't I do light editing and post to Instagram directly from the camera?"
Because the computing resource, battery power, and physical volume spent on hardware Instagram integration detracts from what can be devoted to making the camera as good as possible at being a camera. You'd have to cram a smartphone in there, and everyone already has smartphones anyway.
And you can do light editing in-camera, if you want.
"Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable?"
You can. Modern bodies have touchscreens, too.
And I don't want Nikon and Canon worrying about marketing to influencers, because influencers are a terrible market! I want them worrying about making and selling excellent cameras for the use of people who do need more than a phone camera or maybe a cheap camcorder can provide.
There is lack of vision/innovation in the actual photo-taking too.
All high-end phones take tens or sometimes hundreds of raw frames for every photograph, and then combine them to reduce noise and get more dynamic range than the tiny lens and sensor would otherwise provide. The combining process involves using a gyro to remove camera shake and optical-flow to undo the effect of anything moving in the scene.
As far as I know, no DSLR camera does this. You need to be able to take ~100 frames at 120fps or more, and either store it as RAW (ie. 10's of gigabytes of data), or process it realtime. Phones process it realtime on the GPU or with dedicated silicon.
An artmaking tool like the DSLR will still outlive Instagram. There will be a reaction against oversharing, ad-adjacency and other social media that leads to its demise, but nobody will oppose the mechanical, mirror viewfinder for any political reason.
When was the last time you bought a DSLR? My 2 year old low end camera (Canon T7i) has touch, HDR and send to phone. I shoot and send the photo to my camera then upload to Instagram all the time. Photos no longer collect dust on SD cards.
I agree, they aren’t innovating fast enough.
I would love getting rid of the mini USB charger. Why can’t cameras use micro usb like every other non-Apple usb accessory? Different power specs?
The HDR feature is so aggressive that it’s not really usable compared to my phone’s HDR. There should be a slider to pick how much HDR you want for each picture.
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.
If people just want auto upload to instagram, they'll use a phone. The advantage of a proper mirrorless/DSLR is the insane power you get with RAW file editing in post.
I would like that "simple auto-mode" to be enabled with the power switch. When I turn the camera on, I might not have time to mess with settings.
That mode should turn off bit by bit as I make manual adjustments. If I adjust ISO and exposure, then the camera is left with aperture and shutter speed under auto control. If I turn the focus ring, then the camera stops doing autofocus.
Another department I doubt these traditional Japanese companies can catch up on is computational photography. I can take 5s handheld night time photos with adequate quality on a bunch of phones these days. There's still no way of getting anything useful out of DSLRs longer than 1/15s without tripods.
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.
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?
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.
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?
I think what has really hurt Canon is their failure so far in the mirrorless segment. As others have said, for quite a while they've relied in large part on high quality glass and people's glass investments within the EF ecosystem to drive people to that and retain them within it. It's worked well - they are "good enough" on the sensor side and have also won (or at least not lost) on things which professionals care about quite a lot like reliability.
But mirrorless eroded a lot of that advantage - they were late to the trend, then came with a substandard offering (EOS M series) and then tried to catch up with the EOS R but leveraging existing glass investments to drive adoption is much harder because people see part of the point of mirrorless as moving to a new mount which allows for smaller lenses (at least at shorter focal lengths).
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
You don't have to use the tiny screen. Mirrorless cameras generally come with a large display. I almost always use the display on my Olympus because it's easier and I don't look like I have a machine on my face (this was also an important advantage of old view cameras with the focus screen on top, like the Hasselblad 500). If you want, you can attach a much larger screen to your mirrorless camera, they just use HDMI output so get as big a display as you want.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
[+] [-] zazaraka|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ulfw|6 years ago|reply
I am not saying everything is perfect. But it seems you haven't done research on modern cameras.
Trying to put a whole phone stack in there isn't the core competency of any of those manufacturers (except barely Sony, though a different division). It's not just "slap a SIM and a beefier CPU" in there. Camera CPUs are highly specialised. So you'd have to essentially put another phone in there. That adds BOM cost plus reasearch and development of folks without core competency. Issues with software updates, compatibility, let alone battery life. All so you can edit a picture on a tiny 3" screen to post a 4megapixel version of a 24-45Megapixel original image directly to instagram?
Zeiss is coming out with a phone just with everything you've described. They're late. It will be huge. It will be incredibly expensive. Not sure I'd want to go that route.
[+] [-] FireBeyond|6 years ago|reply
I have Canon and Leica cameras, mid and high end, that do this.
> Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable?
There are cameras that will.
> how much more could adding a touch screen
Notably Sony stands alone in being the only major manufacturer _without_ touch.
> a simple auto-mode (which disables most buttons and hides advanced menus)
Not sure about other manufacturers, but this would be Canon's "creative" mode, available on (at least) entry levels) to the $3,000 body only 5D IV.
> and upload to instagram feature
> 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.
Agreed. And it's Instagram's fault. You can't upload to IG from your computer (without your browser pretending to be mobile). APIs for third party app-based uploads are near non-existent, and the people who _do_ try to maintain plugins to export to IG from Lightroom, etc., are constantly playing cat and mouse.
Not sure how this correlates to a "lack of vision from DSLR companies" - IG is actively hostile to uploading to IG from anywhere but its own apps.
[+] [-] jdietrich|6 years ago|reply
Adding what amounts to an entire smartphone to every DSLR is simply madness - the kind of person who spends >$1000 on a bulky and complex camera is almost certainly the kind of person who has an Adobe Creative Cloud account; they're not going to post-process an image on the back of their camera through choice.
[+] [-] BeetleB|6 years ago|reply
https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/04/experimental-nighttime-pho...
Using a relatively crappy camera on a phone, they were able to get great results merely because they can program it.
As a simple example: I want to reduce high ISO noise by taking N photos and taking the median. This is an established technique in photo editing. Why do I have to manually tell the camera to take those N photos (and make sure autofocus and autoexposure is not enabled), and then transfer N images, and then load a program to do the median calculation for me? Why can't I create a plugin/app for my camera where I just input the number of photos and it does it all for me?
I think any camera manufacturer that makes an API available for their cameras could see a serious boost. People no longer have to rely on the company deciding what cool features to add.
There's really not been any serious innovation in DSLRs in over a decade. Pentax occasionally comes up with something neat, but that's about it.
[+] [-] AlexandrB|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] spookthesunset|6 years ago|reply
I have a good expensive DSLR that I haven’t touched in more than a year. Why? Cause the workflow stinks compared to my phones camera.
- I have to remove the SD card - I have to bring out my computer and pop in the card - I have to sync it into Lightroom, which keeps all the photos in a totally different bin than all my smartphone pictures. - once I’m done dinking with the photos, I have to export the ones I like and import them back into the Photos app, which ensures it shows up on my TV - I’ve got to post it to FB/instagram. - I’ve got to nuke the card to free up the space - put it back into the camera
That is just enough of a hurdle that it keeps me from lugging the damn thing with me on trips.
Seriously. I’d love to use my DSLR more. It takes way better pictures. It just doesn’t integrate worth a damn into my computing infrastructure anymore.
I think there is a untapped market for some higher end camera with interchangeable lenses that can seamlessly integrate with a modern workflow.
[+] [-] la_barba|6 years ago|reply
* rugged tank-like construction - 1D, 5D series mag-alloy bodies check, weather sealing - check
* reliable AF - check
* awesome battery life - check
* professional support services that can service/repair/loan products with a super-fast turnaround time for when you have a gig.. - check
* high quality optics - Canon L glass, check
* high res sensor for billboards - 5DSR check
* huge library of lenses - check, check and check
In all of those things Canon and Nikon (and even Sony to some extent) excel. I don't think the features you want are useless or provide no value, but you have to look at the bigger picture and take the entire market into consideration. People are using smartphones not just because DSLRs don't have certain features, its that they don't want to carry yet another device when their smartphone does an adequate job.
[+] [-] throwanem|6 years ago|reply
Because the computing resource, battery power, and physical volume spent on hardware Instagram integration detracts from what can be devoted to making the camera as good as possible at being a camera. You'd have to cram a smartphone in there, and everyone already has smartphones anyway.
And you can do light editing in-camera, if you want.
"Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable?"
You can. Modern bodies have touchscreens, too.
And I don't want Nikon and Canon worrying about marketing to influencers, because influencers are a terrible market! I want them worrying about making and selling excellent cameras for the use of people who do need more than a phone camera or maybe a cheap camcorder can provide.
[+] [-] londons_explore|6 years ago|reply
All high-end phones take tens or sometimes hundreds of raw frames for every photograph, and then combine them to reduce noise and get more dynamic range than the tiny lens and sensor would otherwise provide. The combining process involves using a gyro to remove camera shake and optical-flow to undo the effect of anything moving in the scene.
As far as I know, no DSLR camera does this. You need to be able to take ~100 frames at 120fps or more, and either store it as RAW (ie. 10's of gigabytes of data), or process it realtime. Phones process it realtime on the GPU or with dedicated silicon.
[+] [-] doctorpangloss|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jinushaun|6 years ago|reply
I agree, they aren’t innovating fast enough.
I would love getting rid of the mini USB charger. Why can’t cameras use micro usb like every other non-Apple usb accessory? Different power specs?
The HDR feature is so aggressive that it’s not really usable compared to my phone’s HDR. There should be a slider to pick how much HDR you want for each picture.
[+] [-] fetus8|6 years ago|reply
annd pretty much every camera has an Auto-mode...
[+] [-] AWildC182|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] souprock|6 years ago|reply
That mode should turn off bit by bit as I make manual adjustments. If I adjust ISO and exposure, then the camera is left with aperture and shutter speed under auto control. If I turn the focus ring, then the camera stops doing autofocus.
[+] [-] xster|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] UI_at_80x24|6 years ago|reply
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|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tristor|6 years ago|reply
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|6 years ago|reply
>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?
[+] [-] tomatocracy|6 years ago|reply
But mirrorless eroded a lot of that advantage - they were late to the trend, then came with a substandard offering (EOS M series) and then tried to catch up with the EOS R but leveraging existing glass investments to drive adoption is much harder because people see part of the point of mirrorless as moving to a new mount which allows for smaller lenses (at least at shorter focal lengths).
[+] [-] goldcd|6 years ago|reply
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
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|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hestipod|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mdorazio|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwanem|6 years ago|reply
(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.)
[+] [-] mktmkr|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apthnz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] huseyinkeles|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] post_break|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaeldorian|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway9d0291|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] reustle|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] la_barba|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woodgrainz|6 years ago|reply
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CAJ?p=CAJ&.tsrc=fin-srch
[+] [-] jaggednad|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtgx|6 years ago|reply
But I'm sure Canon's leaders laughed it off until now.
[+] [-] fetus8|6 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jasode|6 years ago|reply
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+can...
[+] [-] vladsanchez|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prolepunk|6 years ago|reply
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|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]