Canon Sales Continue to Plummet

DLD said:
So, to sort of get it back to the thread title.

BCN is a Japanese industry site that tracks the Japanese photo-video sales. Apparently, over there, full frame (both mirrorless and the DSLR) comprises only 10% of units sold and Sony now is the leader in full frame (but they're all tanking).
Click to expand...

Makes sense. The amount of human beings on earth that care about the benefits of FF enough to pay the premium for both the body and the generally larger lenses is limited to people who make money with their cameras. Not to mention there are actually crop bodies that I prefer to most FF cameras now (Fuji). Hell for most people the convenience of camera phones outweighs the benefits of having to deal with a dedicated camera at all.

On the stills side I haven’t felt the need to upgrade in a long while because the products are so mature and I’d bet a lot of others feel the same. I’m using a Fuji crop and a FF camera from 2012. If I need better quality I’d go directly to medium format.
 
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/dw-201910_e.pdf

After an awful summer, there's been a slight rebound ... in the sense that the decline in units shipped isn't as precipitous - ~ 13% vs. 35%. At the same time, there's been a slew of discounts on many popular models. A7III is not only down to $1,800 but (insert a name of the often quoted retailer) is giving away a memory card, a camera bag, an external charger, a spare battery and a lens care kit.
 
This may also go to a "Black Friday/Cyber Monday" thread but a retailer whose name rhymes with a popular 1980's girls band "Bananarama" is giving away Atomos Ninja Inverno 7" with Sony A7RIV. On paper, it's a $500 monitor/recorder but it was $800 prior to the holidays. Plus, there's mo' stuff thrown in on top of this.

5DMKIV is $2,500 (over the years Canon had 5D in mid-$3,000's).

A7RII is $1,400. That's probably as good a deal as any. Sure, it's a four and a half year old camera but it has a 42 MPX sensor, which is more than enough for most uses.
 
PM conversation with a friend on Facebook, who was looking for a small travel camera, likely an APS-C with a pancake.

Me - hey, you were looking for a camera and there's a great deal on A7RII right now.

Him - That's OK .... went to Best Buy last week and, for the way I shoot, I'll just stick with my new iPhone
 
Canon EOS R is being discounted at $1,550. That's an RF-mount equivalent of 5D (the same 30 MPX sensor) and 5D used to be a $3,500 piece of equipment. And 5D MKIV is selling at $2,000 at Walmart. And EOS R was introduced at $2,300 only a year ago. At 35% retail markup, the wholesale would be around $1,550-$1,600, so Canon must be rebating like crazy.
 
DLD said:
PM conversation with a friend on Facebook, who was looking for a small travel camera, likely an APS-C with a pancake.

Me - hey, you were looking for a camera and there's a great deal on A7RII right now.

Him - That's OK .... went to Best Buy last week and, for the way I shoot, I'll just stick with my new iPhone
Click to expand...

Yeah, i shoot on my phone a lot these days.


That is the main reason i have always disliked the “mirrorless” compact interchangeable lens design. Too small for pro use, and too big for casual use, when a phone is always present. I found that once i got used to the Canon 1D, i could carry it around and shoot comfortably. I’ve never enjoyed shooting with a mirrorless camera, ever. Cramped controls, cramped everything, yet it still requires a pouch or some big pockets. Mirrorless either has to be even smaller, or just relax a bit and be big as it needs to be, to be enjoyable to work with.

Cellphones feel awful in the hand, but they are small and light enough to carry without noticing much. Plus they do so much. So not exactly apples to... (see what i did there?) apples.
 
DLD said:
Canon EOS R is being discounted at $1,550. That's an RF-mount equivalent of 5D (the same 30 MPX sensor) and 5D used to be a $3,500 piece of equipment. And 5D MKIV is selling at $2,000 at Walmart. And EOS R was introduced at $2,300 only a year ago. At 35% retail markup, the wholesale would be around $1,550-$1,600, so Canon must be rebating like crazy.
Click to expand...

What’s kind of crazy, is that those prices aren’t even exciting.
 
I vividly remember my lust over the original 5D when it came out for $3300 in 2005 and I couldn't afford it. I wouldn't use a Canon EOS R today if they gave it to me for free. Same for Nikon and Panasonic FF mirrorless offerings, and even worse for any camera with a mirror inside. I might consider an a7R IV if it was free but the a6600 is a better option *for me* anyway. I'm having a hard-enought time trying to convince myself to bring my two APS-C bodies with me to a trip to Athens, imagine if I had to carry two big and heavy FF lenses instead of these small APS-C primes.
 
Just joking here a bit, but you two guys sound like a bunch of whiners! :) All of these great tools available today and you can not find a way to be happy? And even consider using a phone over real cameras? What would make you happy in the future? Kind of a lot to ask to put an Alexa in your pocket for $1,200. What is a camera company to do?
 
For me it's exactly the other way around: my a6500 with Sigma 16mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.4 is great for stills, I don't need to go for anything bigger and heavier than that; and my p4k is great for video, I don't need to go for anything more expensive than that. It's not that I can't be happy with any equipment, it's that I'm happy with what's available nowadays in the midrange market.
 
That's good. I wish the p4k had a viewfinder. Then I would be happy buying it. All of the emphasis on phone usage says to me that RAW video needs to be here yesterday on all models to make these mirrorless offerings a more viable alternative in the marketplace. I don't think it is wise for the makers to ignore this tidal wave. Not the time to keep features in reserve because at this rate, the camera business is going to be in demise 3-5 years from now anyway.

A friend was showing me his new Iphone last night. The ability for folks to shoot, edit and post video instantly is just too enticing. Not for me as I did not like the look of the end result, but I am a geek so to speak. We as the content creators need tools that can offer something better than what is in folks pockets or we are toast as well.
 
I haven't shot with the latest iPhone but on my 8 Plus, I have been pretty disappointed with the stills, the video is usable here and there. Both look ok for social media but once you examine the images and video on Retina 5K screen, they look quite lousy, noisy, aliased, almost posterized looking
unless the light is really bright and even. Almost no DR, the images only look good if the DR is very narrow and controlled, even with "manual" exposure using Filmic Pro and ProCamera for stills. I'm sure the iPhone 10/11 images look incrementally better than my 8 Plus but for now, I am quite
content with stills from our 80D and footage from our XT-3. Having tried to deploy it for some pro level projects, I am quite soured on iPhone cinematography. It's okay looking but real cameras still have a pretty big edge, although I agree, for the average consumer, Phones are IT.
P&S are dead and even mirrorless are basically out of contention except for photographers, pro and hobbyist.

It's funny, just a few years ago I was constantly bombarded from friends and relatives with requests on which DSLR to buy because they wanted to take their photography to the next level.

Not getting very many of those requests for gear to consider anymore.
 
Last edited:
FWIW, DXO marked iPhone 8+ at 94 and the iPhone 11 Pro Max at 117 (Huawei Mate 30 Pro and Xiaomi Mi CCP Pro Premium lead at 121 ... not accidentally, many contend that it's basically the same smartphone that is designed to bypass various trade sanctions placed against Huawei). There's a Finnish YouTuber, who's also an Olympus "ambassador". He pixel-peeped at iPhone 11 vs. an Olympus MFT camera and found an MFT far superior. Naturally, he missed the bigger point and that is iPhone11 is "good enough" for most consumers already and, those enthusiasts and pros who dp want to pixel-peep, have either moved on to full frame or are in the process of doing so. And that's simply because they won't be left with much choice.

The big move by the smartphone manufacturers against the photo-video hybrids is discussed in the adjacent thread. The new Qualcomm chips will deliver a superior performance to the current generation of smartphones both in stills and video and will also exceed performance of most hybrid photo-video cameras for a fraction of the cost (albeit not under all circumstances). And that leaves the pro market to fend for itself.
 
DLD said:
And that's simply because they won't be left with much choice.
Click to expand...

And that is the scary part, that we won't have choices in the future... I've probably taken WAY more pictures on my iPhones than I have on my DSLR's(removing high-frame rate sports from the equation), simply because it's always with me and I think my iPhone 11Pro is pretty darn good, BUT it still doesn't compare to real still and video cameras. It looks great on its gorgeous little OLED screen, but when you look at it on anything resembling a "big" screen, like a 15" laptop, the images can quickly fall apart, especially anything shot in a "light challenged" environment. LOTS of light, no problem, you can probably fool most people, but when you're not in those ideal conditions... Modern camera phones may be able to punch above their weight, because of "computational photography" tricks, but the teeny-tiny sensors still suck in low-light.
 
Bassman2003 said:
That's good. I wish the p4k had a viewfinder. Then I would be happy buying it. All of the emphasis on phone usage says to me that RAW video needs to be here yesterday on all models to make these mirrorless offerings a more viable alternative in the marketplace. I don't think it is wise for the makers to ignore this tidal wave. Not the time to keep features in reserve because at this rate, the camera business is going to be in demise 3-5 years from now anyway.

A friend was showing me his new Iphone last night. The ability for folks to shoot, edit and post video instantly is just too enticing. Not for me as I did not like the look of the end result, but I am a geek so to speak. We as the content creators need tools that can offer something better than what is in folks pockets or we are toast as well.
Click to expand...

At the lower end, being more creative should bypass any ability to shoot raw. I shot an event two months ago with an EOS R. It was 11am-2pm in a big venue that was a mix of shaded areas and harsh sun directly overhead. 80% of the shots have blown highlights, most to the point they've gone "nuclear". Of course, it wasn't a problem at all and they were happy with the video. As a small business, you're better off spending on content that will grab attention vs. look nice and be boring. I'm trying to avoid an all-encompassing content is king argument and am mostly referring to smaller projects.

Like R&G mentions, I think they need to improve on the mixed and low lighting front, otherwise the phones are there. Ideally with low budget content creation you'd get the same rate if using a phone or a mirrorless and you get to choose the appropriate tool.
 
Run&Gun said:
... Modern camera phones may be able to punch above their weight, because of "computational photography" tricks, but the teeny-tiny sensors still suck in low-light.
Click to expand...
Technically speaking, the smartphone manufacturers can provide a very low count MPX sensor/camera for the low light performance. They make "lower than regular" but still high enough MPX module because people don't care. I have a friend who is an early morning jog junkie. He runs along the Miami Beach oceanfront and will usually snap a few photos at sunrise. Or before the sunrise with the orange street lights. And those don't have the "filmic" noise. They have the "blue powder" noise and his selfie face has an orange cast on top of that. Do you think he cares?

PS. And don't start me on a shot composition. "Are you shooting the pier?" - "Yes" - "Why is the empty sky seventy percent of the frame? You want to shoot the pier, shoot the pier".
 
Last edited:
One of the reasons the current RF mount models are being so heavily discounted is because there's an expected high megapixel full frame announcement. CR has it at 75 MPX and, if it's priced around $3,500, then it would make sense to have a 30 MPX EOS R slotting into a "half-the-price" position. Sony's 61 MPX A7R MK IV is selling well at $3,500 - Camera of the Year by the DP Review - and Canon will try to edge it on (some) specs.
 
MPX wars are stupid imho. I think Canon would get more mileage with pros if they made the 5D mirrorless in the 30's and improved the light gathering & DR. This is kind of their big opportunity to get a lot of DSLR users to go mirrorless - with their brand. If I see 75MPX I am just not that interested to be throwing away all of those pixels and filling up hard drives with extra processing time... By all accounts, the need for more pixels has diminished in recent years. Printing is way down and upscaling technology is the best it has ever been. One does not need to feed a photo lab with monster sized files to make wonderful prints.

Just seems like they are chasing the wrong car. But maybe there are more people who are woo'ed by that than folks who want to keep it real.
 
High MPX count allows for all sorts of crops and aspect ratios. The idea with 75 MPX or thereabouts is to get a medium format performance from full frame for the portraits, landscape, architecture, products, food, etc.

For video shooters looking for affordable gear, Canon is rumored to come out with C100 MKIII. Its specs are unknown but will probably be on the FS-5 level - 4K with XF-AVC or CRL.
 
I think phones could "easily" improve their low-light abilities to m43 levels if customers really cared about it, but they don't.
Getting rid of the color filters allows more than twice the light to hit the sensor. And combining exposures from two sensors (a color and a b/w one) further helps reduce noise. I think two 1/1.7" sensors, one color and one b/w, could match an m43 with a fast-ish prime in terms of low-light ability.
This is what the Huawei P20 pro did: it had a triple camera, with a main 40Mpix one and a secondary 20Mpix one that was only b/w and helped a lot in low light, even though it was a smaller sensor with half the area of the primary one.
I never used that phone, but either technical issues when merging the color and b/w images were bad enough to kill that low light advantage, or Huawei found that users cared more about having an ultrawide option than they did about low light, because the P30 pro killed that secondary b/w sensor and put an ultrawide instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top