Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Exactly what we would expect someone in the cartel to say.
Canon Sales Continue to Plummet
- Thread starter Ken1212
- Start date
Canon still hasn't provided a way to enter into their mirrorless environment that doesn't involve extremely expensive glass. The lenses are great, but there's no starting point as they're mostly expensive, and because the M lenses don't make sense as a stepping stone towards the RF mount, the barrier is still too big. They made an ok decision with the RP, but they probably need a couple more budget RF lenses to lower the barrier to entry.
There's an entire YouTube channel dedicated to exposing them: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwxgo62w72LxZDA1fTibdYg
Selective feature crippling between manufacturers all line up like a jigsaw puzzle perfectly: it's just a coincidence lol.
ARRI has been and is still playing on a different level- leading the market with the now ancient ALEV III sensor: 9 years old! (65 & LF use the same basic tech to preserve the look)
I'm really digging the looks I'm getting from the EOS R and RF 24-105 and 16-35 F2.8 II (with the $99 adapter). For live shooting and changing light conditions, AF, auto ISO and decent AWB resulting in pleasing skin tones is pretty cool. All in a package that can comfortably ride on a one-handed gimbal.
For stills the DPAF eye tracking on the EOS R is cool, as is the new .cr3 compressed raw (C-RAW) for 30-40% disk space savings (no visual difference in quality so far). The 1DX II has the edge in image quality for both stills and video, at the expense of being a much bigger heavier camera with bigger files (especially for 4K video).
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I think I'd made a compelling case that the consumer cameras have, as JSC said, a jigsaw puzzle market fit with each other. If you prefer to call it purely incidental, then it's your call. I reject the idea that not having a 10-bit video in A6600, SA7III and A7RIV is incidental. I reject the idea that Canon lack of 24P on 90D is accidental. Or that Canon can't offer a beefier codec and other features while Fuji XT-3 can do both. I reject the idea that FS-7 not being replaced in the last four years is incidental, especially because EVA1 and C200 have superior features for the same price.
And why isn't Sony making a Medium Format stills camera, while Fuji is with Sony's own sensor? Maybe there was a deal that Sony wouldn't compete on some features with XT-3 while letting Fuji have a free run at the MF market. That sounds quite reasonable. And if such a deal exists, then everything else falls into place too.
BTW, isn't it amusing that Sony users who have been clamoring for A7SIII for four years now have been dutifully rewarded with Z6 and S1/H? With a videocentric Sony sensor.
PS. ARRI is obviously above the market and possesses a unique pricing power a la Panavision of old.
What created the universe? Consciousness with the concept of non-duality is a good candidate. This was probably not shot on an ARRI, however the information is well presented:
Lol on the downvotes, probably just a mouse-error while eating a pastrami sandwich; they really meant to click Helpful since they have a great sense of humor.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
What would the motive be of a company to not make the best product they can and instead make an agreed upon mediocre product that fits a market segment that their competitors have intentionally left open? Companies want to make money, so I don't see the profit of doing this. I can see the profit of not canibalizing a company's own product line, such as the Canon C200 omitting an intermediary codec to not cannibalize the C300 Mark II so that people still pay the higher price for the latter, but why would say Canon not want to take away sales from other competing companies?
EVA-1 is not a popular camera; I imagine the FS7 still sells more than the EVA-1 does. EVA-1 felt like a toy when I used it; the FS7 felt like a more professional tool even though I dislike the image quality from it. I personally quite dislike both of the cameras for many reasons after having used them.
I answered it in an earlier post.
It's the reason why OPEC exists.
Or, for that matter, Five Families.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Ah, so you're saying each company would need to spend less on R&D if they're not competing with each other and instead mutually agree to release mediocre non-cutting edge products into the market that each fit their own market segment, and theoretically the customers would still spend the same amount of money for the less cutting edge products, and then everyone wins, except perhaps the customers.
And then I suppose you have companies like Blackmagic who don't limit their specs yet still fail to make professional cameras.
You're ignoring little things like reality...
Sony doesn't have any motivation to cannibalize its high end cinema camera sales when it's overtaking the market leaders in cameras across the board.
Canon's just too tied up with its own culture. Nikon's been there for a while, until it got a bit of a shakedown when even its fans though it was going to go under.
Canon's just clueless. Sony and Panasonic are obviously making money. Nikon is being aggressive, though it's obviously going through some teething problems with its first attempt at a raw recording camera.
Do you have anything rational to back this, or just your imagination?
A) There is innovation but it's passed down in targeted increments in the sensors realm.
B) The general technological advancements mostly come off the shelf because, outside of sensors, camera is just another computer. In that sense, CPU's, GPU's, codecs, media, electronic blocks/FPGA/ASIC are generally sourced from a third party vendor that specializes in a particular field and then tweaked in-house.
C) Some consumers complain about crippled products while others have the Stockholm Syndrome.
D) The barrier to entry in this field is very high, which is why you see only the pro market with its high end models respond to the independents. And Red and BMD did indeed upset the apple cart while others have failed to do likewise. In fact, BMD lunched a major bomb just this month, which showed what a competitive market would be like.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Well yeah, I know a lot of owner/operators, I read on DVXuser and elsewhere, and I get requests from clients for cameras. I don't recall ever seeing an EVA-1 requested, while I've had a good number of FS7 requests even though I don't own it and it's not on my website, and out of the say 100 owner/operators I know, I only know one who bought an EVA-1, while I know many with Canon C-series and Sony FS7s, including people continuing to buy the FS7 and Canon C-series.
For another source, if you go to B&H Cine Cameras (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Digital-Cine-Cameras/ci/28624/N/3705627354), sort in order of "Best sellers," the EVA-1 shows up behind/below the C200, C300 Mark II, and Sony FS7.
I do see the camera here and there, it's not like it's a dead in the water Canon C700, but I would hardly call it a popular camera, and as I said, I personally did not find it to be a good camera on the three day shoot I used it on.
Grug
Veteran
I thought it was a ludicrous concept as well until I saw Steve Yedlin’s comparison tests.
Now to be clear, Steve’s tests are the only direct comparison I’ve seen that’s put the two formats side-by-side. But the results were pretty illuminating.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Steve Yedlin works for the cartel and those results were doctored.
So you're using anectodal evidence and confirmation bias. Until we see some actual sales numbers, it's going to be hard to believe you.
You might be right, but you haven't provided any real evidence yet.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Wow, so serious. 
Well fortunately it's not a trial where someone's life is on the line, so I'm just going to stick with the information I have rather than hire a lawyer to back up my "anectodal evidence and confirmation bias." So we may just have to leave it at, "I'm probably right but could be wrong," unless if someone else can jump in with more factual data.
In a more extreme case, the Canon C700, I can more confidently state that it's not a popular camera, but I suppose you wouldn't believe me for sure without seeing actual factual sale numbers, as my information is merely based on a personal lack of seeing or knowing of professionals who use or own it. For myself, that's good enough for me. If I was condemning someone to prison, yeah, I'd need more evidence.
Well fortunately it's not a trial where someone's life is on the line, so I'm just going to stick with the information I have rather than hire a lawyer to back up my "anectodal evidence and confirmation bias." So we may just have to leave it at, "I'm probably right but could be wrong," unless if someone else can jump in with more factual data.
In a more extreme case, the Canon C700, I can more confidently state that it's not a popular camera, but I suppose you wouldn't believe me for sure without seeing actual factual sale numbers, as my information is merely based on a personal lack of seeing or knowing of professionals who use or own it. For myself, that's good enough for me. If I was condemning someone to prison, yeah, I'd need more evidence.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I also think there's no cartel and no conspiracy. It's just the result from a bunch of firms trying to milk customers when they see they're not really ready to jump ship when there's something marginally better elsewhere. Firing shots at each other constantly doesn't make them any money, so they only do it sparsely, or as retaliation when somebody else becomes too aggressive.
We humans are not great at decision making and they try to take advantage of that. The a6000 is an excellent camera for someone starting out in photography or shooting vlogs, and it's super cheap. And then you have the a6100, a6400, 6500 and a6600 bringing marginally better specs in non-linear jumps (the a6400 has awesome AF but not IBIS, a6500 is the other way around, a6600 is the one that has both), so they catch your interest with the price of the entry model or the performance of the flagship model and then make you choose among a plethora of incomplete options, many of them badly priced, until you end up giving them $200 more than you planned.
We humans are not great at decision making and they try to take advantage of that. The a6000 is an excellent camera for someone starting out in photography or shooting vlogs, and it's super cheap. And then you have the a6100, a6400, 6500 and a6600 bringing marginally better specs in non-linear jumps (the a6400 has awesome AF but not IBIS, a6500 is the other way around, a6600 is the one that has both), so they catch your interest with the price of the entry model or the performance of the flagship model and then make you choose among a plethora of incomplete options, many of them badly priced, until you end up giving them $200 more than you planned.