Canon USA: The R3 line will continue

[CJaurelius]

They certainly do.
Sony has mostly taken market share from their own customers.

Speculation of course but I think Sony would be perfectly happy to sell no cameras and instead supply everyone with sensors. Look at their smartphones. They seem like their phones are entirely designed to show off their sensors as advertisement to Apple.

I am really not sure why the other camera companies still use Sony sensors.
It is only working out for Nikon and Fuji right now.

Because it's hard to compete in that field, be profitable and produce the best sensor tech. The sensors that Nikon use are still designed by NIkon. They are just fabricated by Sony.

Canon has held up the best against Sony and they are the only ones not using Sony sensors.
RED has sensor technology behind what Sony has.
Nikon should be trying to phase Sony out.

Again a lot of what they got from RED is in the design of sensors not the fabrication. There is little reason to not have the company that fabricate sensors the best do so for you. Unless of course you want to be in the business of fabrication sensors which most camera companies don't.

 

[CJaurelius]

People complain about everything.
I visit forums for all the brands and the comments are mostly complaints.
Sony forums are unique in that they still manage to have a superiority complex while they hate on their own brand.

Agreed here. I just don't really understand the obsession with the brands. I enjoy the competition which usually leads to better tech.

 

[Dragon]

This is what the Sony people complain about. They buy a full frame camera for $6,500 only to see newer featrure in $1,400 apsc camera just a few years later. On top of that they don't upgrade the older cameras with firmware updates. Sony instead seems focused on pushing out new tech as fast as they can in as many newer bodies as they can. The cinema line FX3 sensor is also in the A7Siii and the ZV-E1. The only one with the new AI processing unit is the cheapest one, the ZV-E1.

This is one of the key reasons Canon does measured and predictable releases of cameras and always tries to introduce new tech in the 1 series first. The R3 was an anomaly in that respect, but it did include features that many would describe as experimental and experimenting is not something done with the 1 series. The experiments worked and both eye autofocus and stacked sensor are now in the R1 and much improved. Sony just throws stuff out there with no regard for the life of their users' investment. That strategy may collect the aficionados of the latest and greatest, but it will tick off folks who would like to see their investment have at least a little lasting value.

 

[Dragon]

Agreed here. I just don't really understand the obsession with the brands. I enjoy the competition which usually leads to better tech.

But you are the one who keeps telling us that Sony is best . Sometimes directly, but usually subliminally.

 

[CJaurelius]

Sony primarily provides sensors for smartphones as well.
Sony dominates that market.
Samsung is a distant second.

That was my point. The report clearly uses sensors that companies produce for their own product lines.

Canon is trying to break in but they are something like 1% of the market.
That is still a lot of money though.

The issue is that the reason Canon is 1% of the total market is because they are 50% of one of the smallest segements. CMOS sensors used for cameras is about 4% of the market moving toward 3%. The growth is happening in the spaces like the automovtive, industrial, security, etc. market where they don't really compete.

Sony developed a 247MP 19K medium format sensor for industrial use. I'm sure at some point they'll be able to sell a version of that sensor to Fuji for the medium format cameras. That's harder to do when all your R&D needs to be reimbursed from the flat camera market.

 

[Dragon]

The issue is that the reason Canon is 1% of the total market is because they are 50% of one of the smallest segements. CMOS sensors used for cameras is about 4% of the market moving toward 3%. The growth is happening in the spaces like the automovtive, industrial, security, etc. market where they don't really compete.

Sony developed a 247MP 19K medium format sensor for industrial use. I'm sure at some point they'll be able to sell a version of that sensor to Fuji for the medium format cameras. That's harder to do when all your R&D needs to be reimbursed from the flat camera market.

FYI, 50% of 4% = 2%, not 1%

BTW, Canon has 250 MP sensor for sale if you want one https://canon-cmos-sensors.com/cmos-sensors/

 

[CJaurelius]

But you are the one who keeps telling us that Sony is best . Sometimes directly, but usually subliminally.

Because I want better tech. I have outrighted stated that the R5mii is a better value than the A1. It is essentially 90% of the camera at 65% of the cost. However it doesn't really push tech forward just makes it more accessible (which I'm happy for).

The reason I wanted the R1 to be a flagship spec monster is too push the top of the market forward. While the A9III took a hit in DR its pusheing the the tech forward. Now that they are mass producing a global shutter I'm sure they'll be able to improve up it.

Canon makes BETTER bodies and BETTER high end glass. I don't deny reality because I shoot on a Sony. Again I shoot Sony primarily because that's why my circle shoots. Most cameras are above my capabilities so I'd be happy to shoot on pretty much anything (although I do prefer the smaller Sony bodies).

Rest assured I'm also on YouTube debating with Sony fans about them essentially rehasing old sensors in new bodies while also RAISING prices. When they released the A7CII and the A7CR at $2,200 and $3,000 respective I was companing about them being greedy. The original A7C came out at $1,800 and the A7CR while 61MP has a sensor that 5 years old at this point. The "innovation" in those cameras was that they were able to make a larger camera smaller.

 

[CJaurelius]

FYI, 50% of 4% = 2%, not 1%

And Canon isn't exactly 50% of the Consumer CMOS market either. Again were talking on a forum not preparing a disseration.

BTW, Canon has 250 MP sensor for sale if you want one https://canon-cmos-sensors.com/cmos-sensors/

I will as soon as Fuji or someother Camera company puts it in a body I can buy.

 

[koenkooi]

This is one of the key reasons Canon does measured and predictable releases of cameras and always tries to introduce new tech in the 1 series first. The R3 was an anomaly in that respect, but it did include features that many would describe as experimental and experimenting is not something done with the 1 series. […]

The M50 had virtually all of the features that went into the R, the 70D was the first with DPAF.
I wonder how it gets decided at Canon which feature is experimental and goes into aps-c crop bodies for testing and which feature are too good for croppers to test and go into the 1-series.

 

[Dragon]

I will as soon as Fuji or someother Camera company puts it in a body I can buy.

Then you would have to do some real hunting to find a lens that would take advantage of 1.5 micron pixels. https://clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/#DIFFRACT . Nothing slower than f/2 and preferably f/1.4 or faster and full resolution wide open. Not too many of those floating around in the camera stores. A passion for technology you can't use is silly. Roger Cicala did some testing of lenses at that kind of resolution and the results were not encouraging. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/07/experiments-for-ultra-high-resolution-camera-sensors/ and https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/

 

[neuroanatomist]

Then you would have to do some real hunting to find a lens that would take advantage of 1.5 micron pixels. https://clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/#DIFFRACT . Nothing slower than f/2 and preferably f/1.4 or faster and full resolution wide open. Not too many of those floating around in the camera stores. A passion for technology you can't use is silly. Roger Cicala did some testing of lenses at that kind of resolution and the results were not encouraging. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/07/experiments-for-ultra-high-resolution-camera-sensors/ and https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/

Why should anyone let practical reality intrude on their opinions?

 

[CJaurelius]

This is one of the key reasons Canon does measured and predictable releases of cameras and always tries to introduce new tech in the 1 series first. The R3 was an anomaly in that respect, but it did include features that many would describe as experimental and experimenting is not something done with the 1 series. The experiments worked and both eye autofocus and stacked sensor are now in the R1 and much improved. Sony just throws stuff out there with no regard for the life of their users' investment. That strategy may collect the aficionados of the latest and greatest, but it will tick off folks who would like to see their investment have at least a little lasting value.

You are literally reciting to me what I already wrote:

This is what the Sony people complain about. They buy a full frame camera for $6,500 only to see newer featrure in $1,400 apsc camera just a few years later. On top of that they don't upgrade the older cameras with firmware updates. Sony instead seems focused on pushing out new tech as fast as they can in as many newer bodies as they can. The cinema line FX3 sensor is also in the A7Siii and the ZV-E1. The only one with the new AI processing unit is the cheapest one, the ZV-E1.

I could care less about seeing my "investment" last in value. I don't care how much my old camera or TV is worth. I want them to pump out new models with new tech as soon as they can. If the camera is worth the price you paid when you bought it that is all that matters.

I think this is a disconnect between the older and new crowd. I remember a day when you repaired major appliance, heck even tv's. Now you simply buy a tv, use it for a year or two and throw it away. The tech moves so fast that there is not reason to keep it. Outside of the folks here with 12 year old processors of course.

If you run a YouTube channel a camera is just another piece of equipment. Let's say you purchase an R5mii at $4,300. After a couple of years the camear is beat to heck, one of the memory slots doesn't work, etc. But over that time period it has probably already paid for itself. You've already expensed the full price assuming your profitable. Now add in the fact that you're probably using 2 -3 cameras so you are essentially switching out at least one camera every 1-2 years.

So you buy the FX3/A7SIII for video at $4k before they release their AI autofocus, You buy the A7IV for $2,500 as your all around camera (still no AI autofocus). Then they release the FX30 and you buy it as a B cam since it's only $1,800. It has an apsc sensor but has the new AI autofocus and all the cinme features. You get rid of the older FX3/A7SIII for the newer cheaper ZV-E1 that has the same sensor, does have the newer Autofocus and it only $2,200 but is a cheaper body. Then they release a new Fx3II/A7SIV that has an even better sensor with some newer feature and the cycle repeats.

Again remember a huge part of the appeal of your YouTube channel is that you are using the latest and newest gear.

Even though Canon is 50% of the market I wouldn't be suprised it there are WAY MORE actual people using Canon than Sony. Canon owners are probably keeping their cameras longer while the smaller amount of Sony people are just buying cameras over and over.

 

[CJaurelius]

Then you would have to do some real hunting to find a lens that would take advantage of 1.5 micron pixels. https://clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/#DIFFRACT . Nothing slower than f/2 and preferably f/1.4 or faster and full resolution wide open. Not too many of those floating around in the camera stores.

I need to start using emojis or something as my facetious nature doesn't show well here.

A passion for technology you can't use is silly. Roger Cicala did some testing of lenses at that kind of resolution and the results were not encouraging. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/07/experiments-for-ultra-high-resolution-camera-sensors/ and https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/

It really all comes down to cost. If features, that are overkill to most, becomee affordable enough then more people buy those features whether they use them or not which brings down the cost and leads to newer features that may or may not be used.

I used to ride sportsbikes in my youth when I was even more of an idiot.

https://www.topspeed.com/top-liter-sports-bikes-of-all-time/

Even though sales have slumped in recent years, it hasn’t stopped the major motorcycle manufacturers from continuing to develop what are still seen as their flagship models: the liter sports bikes. Hugely powerful, intensely focussed, dynamically out-of-this-world, vastly electronically sophisticated, certainly not for the faint of heart. With the exception of the electronics, this is the way they have always been: true flagships of performance.

They are continually increasing performance even though we have speed limits and 99.99% of the people who purchase these bikes barely have the skills to ride them below those speed limits. I magine if Canon made a sportsbike that could barely break the speed limit they would be perplexed as to why anyone would want more.

 

[Dragon]

I could care less about seeing my "investment" last in value. I don't care how much my old camera or TV is worth. I want them to pump out new models with new tech as soon as they can. If the camera is worth the price you paid when you bought it that is all that matters.

I think this is a disconnect between the older and new crowd. I remember a day when you repaired major appliance, heck even tv's. Now you simply buy a tv, use it for a year or two and throw it away. The tech moves so fast that there is not reason to keep it. Outside of the folks here with 12 year old processors of course.

If you run a YouTube channel a camera is just another piece of equipment. Let's say you purchase an R5mii at $4,300. After a couple of years the camear is beat to heck, one of the memory slots doesn't work, etc. But over that time period it has probably already paid for itself. You've already expensed the full price assuming your profitable. Now add in the fact that you're probably using 2 -3 cameras so you are essentially switching out at least one camera every 1-2 years.

So you buy the FX3/A7SIII for video at $4k before they release their AI autofocus, You buy the A7IV for $2,500 as your all around camera (still no AI autofocus). Then they release the FX30 and you buy it as a B cam since it's only $1,800. It has an apsc sensor but has the new AI autofocus and all the cinme features. You get rid of the older FX3/A7SIII for the newer cheaper ZV-E1 that has the same sensor, does have the newer Autofocus and it only $2,200 but is a cheaper body. Then they release a new Fx3II/A7SIV that has an even better sensor with some newer feature and the cycle repeats.

Again remember a huge part of the appeal of your YouTube channel is that you are using the latest and newest gear.

Even though Canon is 50% of the market I wouldn't be suprised it there are WAY MORE actual people using Canon than Sony. Canon owners are probably keeping their cameras longer while the smaller amount of Sony people are just buying cameras over and over.

I will just let that stand for forum members to enjoy

 

[EOS 4 Life]

That was my point. The report clearly uses sensors that companies produce for their own product lines.

The issue is that the reason Canon is 1% of the total market is because they are 50% of one of the smallest segements. CMOS sensors used for cameras is about 4% of the market moving toward 3%. The growth is happening in the spaces like the automovtive, industrial, security, etc. market where they don't really compete.

Sony developed a 247MP 19K medium format sensor for industrial use. I'm sure at some point they'll be able to sell a version of that sensor to Fuji for the medium format cameras. That's harder to do when all your R&D needs to be reimbursed from the flat camera market.

Canon does not have very much market share but Canon is in all of those markets

 

[Quack]

....
I think this is a disconnect between the older and new crowd. I remember a day when you repaired major appliance, heck even tv's. Now you simply buy a tv, use it for a year or two and throw it away. The tech moves so fast that there is not reason to keep it. Outside of the folks here with 12 year old processors of course.

...

You must be living in a tech fantasy world. Tech moves and improves fast when it is new. As it matures, advances slow. Use a TV for a year or two and then throw it away? If that is what you do then you are obviously far more well off economically than the average consumer, but are apparently gullible to tech hype. I've been working on computers since the late 1980's. It was quite necessary to upgrade our computers frequently, perhaps every 2 to 3 years in those early days. Now it maybe 10 years - or more. I believe my company has upgraded my computer twice since 2000. And we are talking about an Engineering company that needs fairly high powered computers. The reality is that computers haven't changed much in the last decade or 12 years. Nor TVs. The same thing is happening in cameras. It's OK to want or be excited about the latest tech, but small minor advances are the reality for mature tech.

 

[john1970]

.....small minor advances are the reality for mature tech.

The last few words of your statement are very true.

 

[OldDudePhotog]

You must be living in a tech fantasy world. Tech moves and improves fast when it is new. As it matures, advances slow. Use a TV for a year or two and then throw it away? If that is what you do then you are obviously far more well off economically than the average consumer, but are apparently gullible to tech hype. I've been working on computers since the late 1980's. It was quite necessary to upgrade our computers frequently, perhaps every 2 to 3 years in those early days. Now it maybe 10 years - or more. I believe my company has upgraded my computer twice since 2000. And we are talking about an Engineering company that needs fairly high powered computers. The reality is that computers haven't changed much in the last decade or 12 years. Nor TVs. The same thing is happening in cameras. It's OK to want or be excited about the latest tech, but small minor advances are the reality for mature tech.

That is WAY too long to keep desktop computers for production, I've worked in the IT industry for 25 years and have never let equipment go more than 5 years without replacement. After 5 years the probability of a work-stoppage failure increases dramatically. I will only keep servers in production as long as I can maintain a 4-hour mission-critical warranty on them (hardware craps out the vendor has the replacement part to you within 4 hours), once I am told I have to go to a basic hardware warranty the server gets replaced. I also disagree that computers do not change that much, there are significant changes that go deeper than processor speeds and cores. I will concede the changes were perhaps a little more significant in the earlier days of computing.