Canon USA: The R3 line will continue

[Dragon]

I don't know about voice The circles I run in are all younger shooters. I clearly don't know about wildlife photography shown by my ignorance here. But when the wildlife shooters here tell me about what they see in and what's important to them I simply take note. Are they the "voice" of wildlife shooters?

There are a lot of things that the younger generation is doing with respective to the field that I don't agree with. A lot of the growth in the field today is driven by superficial content. I absolutely can't stand TikTok. Funny thing is to them I'm the old guy and I'm constantly debating with them about not going down this path. But my personal feelings aside I'm formulating my opinion of what I expect to happen in reality due to the overwhelming majority of the people I interact with focusing on these things.

Like 80% of the young people that I work with want to essentially work from home and make "content". It's a lifestyle they've been flooded with on social media. Going to work in an office to them is for suckers. They all want to essentially travel and make content for a living.

There are literally studys/polls showing that one of the most desired jobs among the youth is to be a YouTuber. I thing that terrible for our country but I can't deny that it is true.

If what you say is true for the general population, we are in trouble. YouTubers make nothing you can eat or actually use. Some of them (and only some) provide useful information, but that does not put food on the table and if they all become YouTubers, they will soon be hungry. If the economy really does take a dump, YouTube will be a ghost of the past in a very short time.

 

[CJaurelius]

This reminds me of that petapixel article that was published after the R1 announcement about the flagship as a sort of ambasidor to the whole brand, and the excitement it generates therein: https://petapixel.com/2024/07/24/ca...ships-but-the-flagships-sell-everything-else/

This is the point I've been trying to make. The R1 is a great sports camera, but it is not a great flagship camera that shows off that Canon has the latest tech.

In the 20 odd years I have been in this business, Canon has always moved rather ponderously, making very conservative choices, and they have been the dominant player in the industry since before picked up my first Rebel. They always had the best technology, imo, and when they didn't they had the best service. When Sony entered the market by buying Minolta's entire portfolio, I thought to myself "this should be interesting" because they were the only corporation with enough resources to compete with Canon's sheer size, and iirc the only other camera company making chips in house.

Yes and considering they are over 40% of the CMOS market whereas Canon is 1% this provide them a lot of latitued on that front.

Now I was never a fan of Sony cameras for the same old reason that I don't like their color, and I don't like their raw files. It was always my opinion that for pros, if not Canon, Nikon. But Sony was great at figuring out the holes in the market, and they threw enormous resources in their attempt to dethrone Canon for the number 1 spot. It is a real testament to Nikon that they have managed to weather this storm while being significantly smaller than both Canon and Sony, and after some initial missteps, the Z8 and Z9 are really very nice cameras and I love the color out of them, and frankly I would much rather see Nikon than Sony cameras when I am working as a digital tech.

I think Nikon is poised to grow. I think the Z6III with it's partialy stacked sensor delivers a lot at the $2,500 price point. I've mentioned this here before but in the younger content crowd Nikon has a lot of energy. They have a super think adapter that lets you use Sony glass with full features. I wouldn't be suprised if they take some market share from Sony.

All that to say, is Canon still exciting? They never really were able to follow up on the huge impact that was the release of the 5Dii, it even took them by surprise. Sony swooped in there, and they have been beating Canon on the AF and technology front for some time, although I would still make the tired argument that their color is not as good as Canon or Nikon, especially above 400 iso.

I think this was the issue with the R1. Again its a great sports camera for Canon shooters. What it didn't do however is get the market excited. It didn't help that since Canon waited so long there were so many rumors of what the R1 would be.

One last thought before I finish up this rambling mess is that what is happening with Canon right now reminds me what Profoto has been doing for a while , which is go after the mass market and wedding photographers chasing revenue while more or less abandoning the pro studio and catalog market. B1s, B10s, and A1s abound, whereas they have discontinued the B4 packs, the only real upgrade in the Pro11 from the Pro10 pack was TTL and they still upped the price to $18k, and how long can that last with Godox shipping nearly identical products at a fraction of the price? I am in Profoto not because it is the best product (that would be Broncolor) but because it is ubiquitous.

This is a good point. I have always wanted profoto A10 as just a luxury product to have. I recently watched an Fstoppers video where they compared it to among other things the Godox V1 which from a light output they liked better. I then borrowed the V1 from a friend and honestly it had most of the premium look I was going for.

But it seems that Sony has done a better job of being everywhere, and if Canon isn't exciting anymore, I wonder what that means for the future of the market? But that is the cycle isn't it? When Canon introduced the EOS mount so many of the big press agencies ditched Nikon, so the smaller markets bought those used, then recently they all switched to Sony, and there are tons of 5Diiis and ivs around, so who knows what's next. Now put that 24mp sensor in a compact neoretro Canonet and I will be happy for a few more years.

I believe the future of the market is to get more and more niche. I do think Canon has the oppotunity to do something cool with a retro body similar to the Fuji X100VI.

 

[CJaurelius]

If what you say is true for the general population, we are in trouble. YouTubers make nothing you can eat or actually use. Some of them (and only some) provide useful information, but that does not put food on the table and if they all become YouTubers, they will soon be hungry. If the economy really does take a dump, YouTube will be a ghost of the past in a very short time.

This is my argument to them. I'm a former militlary guy that went into corporate and eventually lucked into a stay at home job. They all want stay at home jobs out the gate. I ask them what will they do in the future? What will be their transferable skills? It seem like suicide to spend your entire life only developing skills in a field that doesn't produce any tangible products.

From their perspective, they only see the consumption of contnet increasing. Last week a friend did a PAID shoot for a 40 year old woman who's a realtor. These weren't corporate pics for a website but rather semi hot pictures for her to put on her Instagram. So you have a 40 year old trying to get clients on Instagram basically through nothing else but her image.

I can assure that I would rather be completely wrong about where the industry is headed. I'm not formulating my opinion out personal desire for sure.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/mor...eing-youtubers-than-astronauts-lego-says.html

This is from 2019 so I can only imagine its worse. We are so screwed:

Children’s top career aspirations in the US and UK​

1. Vlogger/YouTuber
2. Teacher
3. Professional athlete
4. Musician
5. Astronaut

Children’s top career aspirations in China​

1. Astronaut
2. Teacher
3. Musician
4. Professional athlete
5. Vlogger/YouTube

 

[Dragon]

This is my argument to them. I'm a former militlary guy that went into corporate and eventually lucked into a stay at home job. They all want stay at home jobs out the gate. I ask them what will they do in the future? What will be their transferable skills? It seem like suicide to spend your entire life only developing skills in a field that doesn't produce any tangible products.

From their perspective, they only see the consumption of contnet increasing. Last week a friend did a PAID shoot for a 40 year old woman who's a realtor. These weren't corporate pics for a website but rather semi hot pictures for her to put on her Instagram. So you have a 40 year old trying to get clients on Instagram basically through nothing else but her image.

I can assure that I would rather be completely wrong about where the industry is headed. I'm not formulating my opinion out personal desire for sure.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/mor...eing-youtubers-than-astronauts-lego-says.html

This is from 2019 so I can only imagine its worse. We are so screwed:

Interestingly, the Chinese response isn't really better. None of those professions puts food on the table or builds roads or houses or cars. Astronaut doesn't exist with without a huge subsidy. Teacher is good, but still needs someone to feed them. Musician, Athlete, and Vlogger are all basically entertainment, nice to have in a wealthy society, but all will starve without that wealth to support them. Sadly, the world really needs a good healthy depression for the the youth generation to wake up to reality. Today's youth have been coddled and spoiled beyond belief and with the one child rule, it is even worse in China. I suspect you would get very different answers from the kids in Ethiopia, Tanzania, or Bolivia. I can remember the time when if you wanted something as a kid, you had to earn it. You begged Dad to borrow the (push) lawnmower so you could make some quarters by mowing the neighbors lawns. Now if kids don't get a (free to them) thousand dollar phone while in grammar school they are somehow being discriminated against. The path is not sustainable and there will be a reset. It will not be fun for that generation.

 

[Quack]

Because the resolution came out around that many years ago. We know how old the mustang body style is because we know when it was first introduced. Typically new equipment takes advantage of new and often faster technology. How many new computers come out using processors from a decade ago? How many phone, tablets, etc. do the same? Why should we not expect new cameras to follow these same technological patterns?

When technology matures, then things slow down or even stop. My last two computers have essentially the same processor and specs as the last two before that - in other words, at least 12 year old technology. The only change is larger hard drives. And my current computer does the job perfectly. I don't need to spend more money on anything faster.

When it comes to megapixels, more megapixels does not equate with a better camera. It's really that simple. More megapixels means less in terms of other specs. It's always a trade off.

 

[scyrene]

Yet. And then there is the cropability factor that needs to be considered as well. I prefer to shoot tight on the subject when possible, but shoot wide and crop if action is erratic. Low MP prevents the latter in many situations and always comes at a cost to overall picture quality.

Cropping is a legitimate reason to want a higher megapixel count. It's why I got a 5Ds to succeed my 5D3. But are people cropping ever more at the rate that processors get faster? I think its importance is exaggerated. And the better provision of telephoto zooms offers a similar utility.

 

[scyrene]

I don't know about voice The circles I run in are all younger shooters. I clearly don't know about wildlife photography shown by my ignorance here. But when the wildlife shooters here tell me about what they see in and what's important to them I simply take note. Are they the "voice" of wildlife shooters?

There are a lot of things that the younger generation is doing with respective to the field that I don't agree with. A lot of the growth in the field today is driven by superficial content. I absolutely can't stand TikTok. Funny thing is to them I'm the old guy and I'm constantly debating with them about not going down this path. But my personal feelings aside I'm formulating my opinion of what I expect to happen in reality due to the overwhelming majority of the people I interact with focusing on these things.

Like 80% of the young people that I work with want to essentially work from home and make "content". It's a lifestyle they've been flooded with on social media. Going to work in an office to them is for suckers. They all want to essentially travel and make content for a living.

There are literally studys/polls showing that one of the most desired jobs among the youth is to be a YouTuber. I thing that terrible for our country but I can't deny that it is true.

I might respectfully suggest you have a very partial view of things and are overconfidently extrapolating.

I have only skimmed your many, many contributions because frankly they are too long, but your thesis seems to be: the future is young people making video, Canon isn't catering to that, so they're facing possibly catastrophic decline. It seems neither logical nor based in reality, since a) video is well catered for by Canon (some complain the focus on it too much), b) the cameras we're discussing are surely not on the radar of the vast majority of video content creators, nor would they be appropriate for that use, and c) this market it probably not as big as you imagine.

As to your issue with Canon calling a sports/action-oriented model its flagship - that's what they have done for a few release cycles. Why are you so irked they've stuck with that? Oh wait, because this time they got it wrong, the market is radically changing right now. Even if that were true, they can always correct their course with the R1 mark II. If that comes out with a much higher MP count, we might infer things have changed.

 

[scyrene]

Interestingly, the Chinese response isn't really better. None of those professions puts food on the table or builds roads or houses or cars. Astronaut doesn't exist with without a huge subsidy. Teacher is good, but still needs someone to feed them. Musician, Athlete, and Vlogger are all basically entertainment, nice to have in a wealthy society, but all will starve without that wealth to support them. Sadly, the world really needs a good healthy depression for the the youth generation to wake up to reality. Today's youth have been coddled and spoiled beyond belief and with the one child rule, it is even worse in China. I suspect you would get very different answers from the kids in Ethiopia, Tanzania, or Bolivia. I can remember the time when if you wanted something as a kid, you had to earn it. You begged Dad to borrow the (push) lawnmower so you could make some quarters by mowing the neighbors lawns. Now if kids don't get a (free to them) thousand dollar phone while in grammar school they are somehow being discriminated against. The path is not sustainable and there will be a reset. It will not be fun for that generation.

I think it best to keep the discussion on cameras, but people have said similar things for thousands of years. Anyway, I wouldn't trust these "polls". Regardless, most people don't get to do the job they dream of, and few people dream of the humdrum stuff that keeps the wheels turning. Kids would say they want to be football players or pop stars, but they mostly became nurses and cleaners and office workers.

As it happens, I don't think we value primary roles enough. But agriculture only enploys a tiny percentage of the population in modern societies, and that is broadly a good thing. Mechanisation took over.

PS if I were to be cheeky, I would remind you that "that generation" is going to have to pick up the pieces of the greed and short-sightedness of their recent ancestors, however coddled you think they are. But let's not pick fights

 

[neuroanatomist]

When it comes to megapixels, more megapixels does not equate with a better camera. It's really that simple. More megapixels means less in terms of other specs. It's always a trade off.

That’s just what old, hidebound Canon users tell themselves so they can sleep at night. Switch to Sony where the grass is greener and you never, ever have to compromise.

 

[OldDudePhotog]

When technology matures, then things slow down or even stop. My last two computers have essentially the same processor and specs as the last two before that - in other words, at least 12 year old technology. The only change is larger hard drives. And my current computer does the job perfectly. I don't need to spend more money on anything faster.

When it comes to megapixels, more megapixels does not equate with a better camera. It's really that simple. More megapixels means less in terms of other specs. It's always a trade off.

Congratulations on using machines that possibly have vulnerabilities from outdated hardware, and just because you choose to use ancient technology (in the world of computing) does not mean that everyone else can or wants to do the same. I disagree that more megapixles does not equate to a better camera, that one factor alone does not prove your point. There does not always have to be a trade-off and even if there is, as long as the trade-off is bearable then it is palatable to those that would prefer it. I would have gladly given up some fps or some readout speed of the sensor for a higher resolution. But that is just me.

 

[CJaurelius]

The path is not sustainable and there will be a reset. It will not be fun for that generation.

"Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times"

We've had good times for a while now.

 

[CJaurelius]

I might respectfully suggest you have a very partial view of things and are overconfidently extrapolating.

I'm keenly aware that I'm shooting from the hip and making broad assumptions on things without concrete data. I'm on an internet forum for cameras not preparing a dissertation. I'm sure this crowd would be a blast at dinner parties.

If my overconfident extrapolationg resulted in me thinking Canon will remain the market share leader for generations to come I'm sure it would go largely unnoticed. Also I have to say from a view perspecive I'm the one here interacting with people with a different view.

I have only skimmed your many, many contributions because frankly they are too long, but your thesis seems to be: the future is young people making video, Canon isn't catering to that, so they're facing possibly catastrophic decline.

Close, you can take out the "catastrophic decline". That part is created in the minds of some of the people here. For some reason they see it as "catastrophic" if the brand they like doesn't give them bragging rights on an anonomous forum.

My view is that the market is largely flat. Growth is coming from younger video centric content creators. Older people don't live forever. That leaves the future landscape a bit more balanced.

It seems neither logical nor based in reality, since a) video is well catered for by Canon (some complain the focus on it too much), b) the cameras we're discussing are surely not on the radar of the vast majority of video content creators, nor would they be appropriate for that use, and c) this market it probably not as big as you imagine.

Everyone is focused on video, the issue is who will be most successful at it. As far as it being as big as I imagine I'm just going off of what the top camera exectutives are saying at CP+

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6377501292/the-state-of-the-camera-industry-2024-edition

Video remains a significant growth driver, with demand increasing even among still photographers, and manufacturers see video as essential for attracting and retaining customers. The coveted 'creator' market, comprised of (mostly) younger users who have yet to establish brand loyalties, is also seen as a crucial demographic for growth.

As to your issue with Canon calling a sports/action-oriented model its flagship - that's what they have done for a few release cycles. Why are you so irked they've stuck with that? Oh wait, because this time they got it wrong, the market is radically changing right now.

Yes, do you really think its a good look for Canon to PAY for people to fly to see their unreleaseed new camera and those same people go on YouTube and trash that camera for not being a true flagship. You are arguing about the capabilities of the camera, I'm talking about the marketing of that camera.

Even if that were true, they can always correct their course with the R1 mark II. If that comes out with a much higher MP count, we might infer things have changed.

The rumors are already out that they plan to do some sort of R1X with a higher MP count.

This is from the Canon community on Canon's official website:

https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/...ras/Canon-R1X-the-new-game-changer/m-p/491010

Fot all those that have been complaining that the new R1 only has 24.2 MP, you better hold on to your pants cause rumors have it that Canon will be annoucing, sometime in late August, the new monster MP flagship camera. The new Canon R1X/R1S will be the new "High Resolution Monster" Canon flagship ! If you want to learn more click on the link below:

https://youtu.be/ksJJEARUv9E?si=JnAyreRmUdJuNFNT

This will be the monster that everyone has been waiting for. This monster will push aside all the arguments about Nikon Z8 and Z9, and Sony Alpha 1 being better than Canon EOS R1s. So now it all makes sense, that Canon introduced the R1 with 24.2MP specifically for the photo journalists and the sport reporters before the Olimpics. Now it will introduce the monster that will be the all in one camera for everyone, that will goble up the competition. I'm hearing with maybe 80MP and global shutter sensor, now that's bold. Can't wait ! ! !

This is a place for Canon users to ask questions. There are no evil Sony trolls corrupting their pure Canon minds. And yet even there people want a true high resolution flaghip.

 

[CJaurelius]

Congratulations on using machines that possibly have vulnerabilities from outdated hardware, and just because you choose to use ancient technology (in the world of computing) does not mean that everyone else can or wants to do the same. I disagree that more megapixles does not equate to a better camera, that one factor alone does not prove your point. There does not always have to be a trade-off and even if there is, as long as the trade-off is bearable then it is palatable to those that would prefer it. I would have gladly given up some fps or some readout speed of the sensor for a higher resolution. But that is just me.

This is a special place. On the one hand you have people complaining that 45MP files are too large for their desktops and on the other hand you have people bragging about using 12 year old processors.

I don't think I know anyone who doesn't have at least an M1 at this point as all the creative types use Macs. I just can't imagine anyone paying thousands of dollars for mirrorless camera and yet doesn't have a fairly rencent laptop. This has definitely been an eye opening experience.

 

[Dragon]

And this is not different than the Z8. The R5mii and Z8 are both newer and better priced than the A1. However the newer R5mii and Z8 are both 45MP and the Nikon has a faster readout speed and cost less. The R5mii has better autofocus. These newer cameras are more closely comparabe. But again the 4 year old A1 has the most megapixes and tied with Nikon for fastest readout speed.

Your are missing a key point. The Canon has better autofocus because it really has 90 MP (DPAF) and it is still almost as fast as the Nikon. Thanks to DPAF, Canon is always reading out twice as many pixels as the final image. That does put them at a disadvantage in the MP war, but then I suspect a majority of users would rather have correct focus than a few more MP.

 

[Dragon]

Yes and considering they are over 40% of the CMOS market whereas Canon is 1% this provide them a lot of latitued on that front.

It would be interesting to know the details of your data source for those numbers. I suspect that is a report on sensors sold to other manufacturers. E.g. sensors sold to phone makers and camera makers. Since Canon has almost 40% of the ILC market, they clearly make almost 40% of the ILC sensors (not 1%). They also have a very large security business for which they may make some of the sensors. Lastly, in the phone market, Samsung is a big player and they also make sensors for many of their phones, but those would not show up in a market report of sold sensors. Bottom line is that Canon has a much bigger piece of the sensor market than you think and since they have twice the stated pixel count thanks to DPAF, they are also the most advanced in many ways. Yes, they only recently got into stacked sensors, but then remember how all the pundits were amazed at the DR and overall performance of the R5 with a front side illuminated sensor. Not the work of a company with inadequate resources or lack of understanding.

 

[Dragon]

I don't think I know anyone who doesn't have at least an M1 at this point as all the creative types use Macs. I just can't imagine anyone paying thousands of dollars for mirrorless camera and yet doesn't have a fairly rencent laptop. This has definitely been an eye opening experience.

Total inclusivity = exclusivity. Nice to know that since I don't use a Mac I must not have a creative bone in my body. BTW, Nvidia will wipe the floor with Macs for AI features in photo programs and those features are rapidly becoming mainstream.

 

[OldDudePhotog]

On the one hand you have people complaining that 45MP files are too large for their desktops

I can honestly say I have never heard anyone say that. I have seen picture too small but that was long ago.

 

[CJaurelius]

Your are missing a key point. The Canon has better autofocus because it really has 90 MP (DPAF) and it is still almost as fast as the Nikon. Thanks to DPAF, Canon is always reading out twice as many pixels as the final image. That does put them at a disadvantage in the MP war, but then I suspect a majority of users would rather have correct focus than a few more MP.

The R1 is clearly a great sports camera and the ball based autofocus for basketball, soccer and volleyball is top notch. To most the people I know this isn't that big a deal and they would take more MP. You do realize the Sony has AI autofocus? If you are a pro basketball photographer then the R1 is for you.

 

[Dragon]

The R1 is clearly a great sports camera and the ball based autofocus for basketball, soccer and volleyball is top notch. To most the people I know this isn't that big a deal and they would take more MP. You do realize the Sony has AI autofocus? If you are a pro basketball photographer then the R1 is for you.

You pay no attention to what others have to say and just keep returning to your talking point, whatever it is. Very tiring.

 

[CJaurelius]

It would be interesting to know the details of your data source for those numbers. I suspect that is a report on sensors sold to other manufacturers. E.g. sensors sold to phone makers and camera makers.

Exactly. You do realize that CMOS sensors are used in a ton of applications. First let's go to Canon's website so you can see that they would like to compete in all of these applications.

https://canon-cmos-sensors.com/applications/#:~:text=Canon's%20CMOS%20sensors%20are%20ideal%20vision%20solutions%20for%3A&text=Advanced%20driver%20assistance%20systems%20(ADAS,Automated%20food%20production

• 3D metrology
• 3D scanners for prototyping and quality assurance
• 720 – 60fps cameras
• Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS)
• Aeronautic imaging
• Analysis of color prints
• Automated food production
• Automotive parts inspection
• Automotive metrology
• “Big Science” telescopy
• Biomedical imaging
• Biometrics
• Border security
• Dental imaging
• Detailed feature extraction for smart cameras
• Digital archives
• Document scanning

• Dome cameras with electronic pan, tile, and zoom
• Electronics part inspection
• Embedded vision (when used with flat ribbon flex cable)
• Flat panel display inspection
• Fluorescence imaging/microscopy
• Fruit, vegetable and pastry inspection
• High end surveillance and security
• High resolution network cameras
• High speed video broadcasting
• Hybrid video cameras with high resolution stills
• Intelligent traffic systems
• License plate capture
• Machine vision
• Manufacturing parts inspection

• Mapping
• Medical imaging
• Metrology
• Microscopy
• Neuroscience
• Night vision
• Ophthalmology
• Packaging and inspection
• PCB inspection
• Pharmaceutical and life science microscopy
• Red light camera
• Robotic vision
• Scientific research
• Surveillance and security
• UAVs
• Wide FOV cameras

Now let's look at the actual market share with Sony in the lead at 42% and Canon one of the smallest players in the market at 1%.



Now let's look at how much of the CMOS market is focused on cameras (Consumer).



The market for CMOS sensors in cameras is expected to DECREASE while the market for CMOS sensors in pretty much everything else is expected to grow.

Since Canon has almost 40% of the ILC market, they clearly make almost 40% of the ILC sensors (not 1%). They also have a very large security business for which they may make some of the sensors. Lastly, in the phone market, Samsung is a big player and they also make sensors for many of their phones, but those would not show up in a market report of sold sensors. Bottom line is that Canon has a much bigger piece of the sensor market than you think and since they have twice the stated pixel count thanks to DPAF, they are also the most advanced in many ways. Yes, they only recently got into stacked sensors, but then remember how all the pundits were amazed at the DR and overall performance of the R5 with a front side illuminated sensor. Not the work of a company with inadequate resources or lack of understanding.

The future of CMOS sensors is clearly not going to be focused on camreas. This has been my point. while people are worried about Canon's market share in camera bodies sold the world is moving in a direction where cameras are becoming a niche product.

https://ymcinema.com/2023/08/07/sony-dominates-the-cmos-image-sensor-world-by-far/

Between Sony and Canon, there are other companies that make their own sensors (Samsung, Panasonic, Onsemi, and more). But the delta is too high, which means that Sony is in control of the market.

Canon has been trying to compete​

We reported a long time ago about Canon’s new sensor division. In that case, Canon’s goal was (and still is) to offer its CMOS image sensor to 3rd party companies. Canon owns high-end sensors of all kinds (large format, global shutter, High FPS and DR, and so on). However. It seems that Canon itself has been utilizing sensors from 3rd party companies, mainly…Sony. Hence, in the CIS segment, Canon finds it very hard to compete with Sony.

Many filmmakers don’t know the intriguing fact that Onsemi (On Semiconductor) might be the most utilized sensor by professional filmmakers. Onsemi’s CIS is implemented into the ARRI ALEXA cameras for more than a decade (ALEV III and ALEV 4 – ALEXA 35). Thus, every one of us has been watching this sensor’s imagery on the big screen. According to Yole’s analysis, Onsemi sensors are located in a good place right in the middle (6% of the market share – a lot above Canon).