New Report States That Only Canon, Nikon, and Sony Will Survive in the Camera Market

[bikerhiker]

Nikon and Canon are still doing extremely well with DSLRs, and mirrorless sales in the US are not all that strong, true, but to say "always will be" just doesn't work. Every camera manufacturer that has said "is and always will be" has gotten very sharp corrections from the photographic marketplace.

History usually repeats itself and that's what Americans prefer. Both Canon and Nikon sell feeder products as APS-C in the attempting to get you to eventually upgrade to a full frame. At least Sony is getting the right idea with the A7. Americans usually equate bigger as better. Just look at the US military and the attitude of Americans overseas and you know what their culture traits are. Unless Americans make a drastic culture change which I think is hardly the case. We've been through this kind of thing in the early 80s with film and, guess what people said then? Blah blah Nikon, Canon and 35mm will be taken over by 110. That time, it was called the Pentax System 10 which uses the 110 film format. The camera was known as the Pentax Auto 110. It was small, the same size as the E-PL1 or maybe E-PL5 and the hope was, people will prefer the smaller format. It was sold until 1985 and then gone! As we know now, 35mm film DSLR kept going along despite the fact that there were other competing formats.

Today, m43, E-mount, A-mount, APS-C blah blah are just a repeat of history in the early 80s. And what happened to Pentax now? Relegated to the small division of Ricoh. No one had seen this coming -- no one because most of them like most of you now are blinded by the truth!

 

[Fmrvette]

Well gang, it appears that the sky is falling.

There's only one thing left to do:

Buy a faster wide angle lens and upgrade to a fiber carbon tripod so as not to miss it.

.


If Olympus is going out of business then I need to get going and get more stuff before it's all gone!



Somewhat more seriously - if Olympus and Panasonic shed the camera market all together my cameras will probably still function for some time to come and when they fail somebody will probably be marketing something I can use and if not then I can get myself a cardboard box and start taking photos with the camera obscura I've always intended to build but never have.

Or I can get into a less expensive hobby, such as collecting used aircraft carriers...

Happy New Year, gang - try not to worry overmuch this early in the year.

Best regards,

Jim

 

[fortwodriver]

Full frame is the future, because there's where the innovations and breakthroughs are going to happen; not mirrorless. Mirrorless is just noise; basically serving the market in this tough difficult economic conditions because they offer a cheaper entry point that say Nikon and Canon.

Why is Full Frame the future? It's ONLY a larger sensor. Sensor size doesn't dictate functionality. A larger sensor doesn't mean the camera will have any additional features. A Pentax 6x7 has a huge negative, but it doesn't do anything a 35mm can't do. In fact the 35mm camera can likely do more because that 6x7 camera practically rattles the walls when it's mirror flips up!

If camera companies think APS-C is just a way to get people to their full frame systems, they may be very wrong.

The same thing was said in the 80s and 90s with companies like Minolta, Pentax, and Olympus. If you didn't have Canon or Nikon you were often thought of as "hampered" or "constrained". That simply didn't end up being true.

 

[RT_Panther]

People buy Nikon and Canon because it's Nikon and Canon..

The same philosophy exists within our community to an extent. Some folks gravitate immensely towards Olympus & vice-versa.
Proof is the blasphemy that popped up when some MFT users "dared" day that they preferred the GH2 over the E-M5.

 

[JamieW]

Americans usually equate bigger as better.

There's a bit more to it than the size of the sensor. People making the argument that M4/3's are superior technology even though the sensors are smaller aren't being completely honest with themselves.

M4/3 Cameras vs FF Cameras for:

ISO Noise: Winner, FF
Sports: Winner: FF
RAW file bit depth: Winner: FF
Resolution: Winner: FF
Tethering: Winner: FF
Wireless implementation (Canon 6D / Sony A7): Winner: FF
RAW Converter Profiles: Winner: FF
Bokeh / Shallow DOF images at various focal lengths: Winner: FF

Granted several of these features have nothing to do with the sensor, but you're not buying a sensor, you're buying a camera system.

Most people buying M4/3 equipment seem to be experienced photographers wanting a light weight travel camera, and have reached the conclusion that for their needs the M4/3 is good enough. And for those people, they're not wrong. But your needs don't necessarily reflect the needs of others. Some people just want to buy the best tools they can afford, even if it's more than they need.

It's hard to argue against better tracking / more reliable focusing for sports photographers, or getting as much resolution and bit depth as possible for fine art photographers, or tethered shooting for studio photographers, or high ISO performance for concert photographers or wedding photographers who often work in low light, and so on. Sure the E-M1 for instance can do most of these things as well as most people would ever need, but other cameras do it better and there are apparently a lot of people out there that don't care how much more they have to spend to get the camera that will.

Then there the people that just don't care how large or heavy their gear is. My wife prefers the 6D to the E-M1. Make no mistake, there are some pretty petite women out there shooting on full frame DSLR's that think we should all man up.

I'm not weighing in on the future of M4/3, the demise of Olympus, or anything else, partially because I'm not a wizard and can't tell the future, and partly because I'm hungry and want to go eat lunch. I'm just saying, buying a 16MP smaller sensor with more ISO noise and smaller bit depth for $1400 vs a 24MP full frame sensor with better ISO performance and larger bit depth, with tethering, better camera profiles, better WIFI implementation, and night and day better video capabilities, in a package that is about the same size and weight as the E-M1, for only $1700 is a hard sell for some people.

In some cases, bigger really is better, but that's up to the consumer to decide. It's the consumer that will determine the outcome of this debate, not anything we say on this forum. :smile:

Now, to see a man about a sandwich...

 

[fortwodriver]

It could also be a matter of timing. 35mm was in use in Europe long before it hit the US. Look at the large formats that came up and died in the US before 35mm became the format to use. 620, 126, bantam 828... Those were all larger film stock that Americans felt gave better picture quality. Even though 120 and 220 formats still exist they're basically fringe or pro formats. They were in the days of film photography.

35mm cameras got cheaper and developing got cheaper and then that format settled in. From that point onwards, people started using 35mm just like larger formats.

APS-C camera kits are cheap and plentiful - that's why they're selling. Just like the old film days, if you walk into a brick and mortar camera store, the salesman behind the counter will still push whatever brand he's been asked to push which is usually Canon or Nikon. There are lots of people out there who just don't read the online reviews and make their own decisions based upon abstract concepts like "image quality at %100 view". It just doesn't make sense to them - like it didn't in the days of 35mm film.

When my wife came home with a Panasonic m43 kit in 2009 (after using Pentax cameras for years) I was shocked that the sales people actually made a case for the format at the time.

It ended up working out nicely!

 

[Droogie]

I don't see u43 going away and right now there are only 2 players. Olympus and Panasonic have partnered in this venture. While I like Sony's full sized sensor It is pretty clear that M43 is here to stay. Canon and Nikon both have ventured into mirrorless but neither successfully. While smartphones will definitely take a bite out compact camera sales, I think it is a ridiculous assumption to say they're hurting mirrorless. Technology will continue to cut the perceivable gap between M43 and its bigger SLR cousin. Eventually, just like the dinosaur, the SLR will become extinct because of its mechanical mirror. Sony has been, and will continue to be a viable competitor with its line of mirrorless cameras and the recent full frame addition will further chew into SLR sales. IMHO, both Nikon and Canon are more at risk than Olympus. Panasonic could be at risk because its camera's really don't offer any advantages over the Olympus.

You mean other than fabulous video, EVF, and image quality? That seems more of a ****** response than anything realistic. The last article I read had Panasonic concentrating on more of a scaled down useable full system than Oly's constant nod to the retro look.

 

[fortwodriver]

The same philosophy exists within our community to an extent. Some folks gravitate immensely towards Olympus & vice-versa.
Proof is the blasphemy that popped up when some MFT users "dared" day that they preferred the GH2 over the E-M5.

For sure. That's brand loyalty to a degree. There are people out there who will insist on an Olympus, or have nothing less than a Panasonic. That's ok. To waste energy justifying why (while insulting others) is what I have a problem with.

I suspect people would be a bit more understanding or gentile in person than they tend to be on the forums. I have been proven wrong though... ;-) I had to walk out of a photo meet up once years ago because of all the people sneering at each other for their choice of camera.

 

[RT_Panther]

To waste energy justifying why (while insulting others) is what I have a problem with.

So why waste energy saying it about Canon & Nikon owners when it's not true in all cases ?

 

[fortwodriver]

So why waste energy saying it about Canon & Nikon owners when it's not true in all cases ?

Have you seen some of the other photo forums discussing frame sizes? It's like a bloodbath in some of those.

 

[RT_Panther]

Have you seen some of the other photo forums discussing frame sizes? It's like a bloodbath in some of those.

LoL hey you were the one saying it was a waste of time - I was just asking why you yourself did it then?

 

[fortwodriver]

LoL hey you were the one saying it was a waste of time - I was just asking why you yourself did it then?

Oh sorry, I'm still washing all that off... ;-) I wasn't directly disparaging the other formats. I was just saying that often the reason amateurs pick and defend something has more to do with heart and head. There's a way to do that without insulting others - but the big camera brands seem to bring out some of the worst vitriol I've ever seen on an online forum.

;-)

 

[RT_Panther]

There's a way to do that without insulting others - but the big camera brands seem to bring out some of the worst vitriol I've ever seen on an online forum.

Agreed
But IMHO, we ourselves do it all the time with our incessant "CaNikon" terminology and subsequent topics....

Perhaps "OlySonic", "OlLumix", "LumPus", or "PanLympus" is need...

 

[Jonathan F/2]

I got full frame, m43 and a cell phone camera. My wife recently gave birth (like 2 days ago) and I used all three. All have their uses. Arguing the merits of one over the other is pointless. Does a surgeon use one scalpel to cut? Why should photographers have one camera system? Heck in one of the Nikon forums I cruise on (and others on this forum as well), the 'other camera' sub-forum is mainly populated with Nikon users who use M43 as their secondary system. I'd say Fuji is second and Sony NEX being 3rd.

 

[Fmrvette]

...Why should photographers have one camera system?...

Because my wife won't let me have two...:cry:

[g,d, & r]

Regards,

Jim

 

[RT_Panther]

I got full frame, m43 and a cell phone camera. My wife recently gave birth (like 2 days ago) and I used all three. All have their uses. Arguing the merits of one over the other is pointless. .

A big "BINGO" here!

 

[JamieW]

There's a way to do that without insulting others - but the big camera brands seem to bring out some of the worst vitriol I've ever seen on an online forum.

It's not the brands. It's this culture we have today where people treat other people with different opinions as an enemy. It used to be that people with different views were coveted, as it presented an opportunity for personal growth. Today anyone that doesn't agree with you is an idiot.

You see the same thing in iOS vs Android, Ford vs Chevy, Republicans vs Democrats, Christians vs atheists, etc. People need to stop trying to win, and start learning how to tolerate. The world would be a friendlier place for it.

 

[bikerhiker]

Why is Full Frame the future? It's ONLY a larger sensor. Sensor size doesn't dictate functionality. A larger sensor doesn't mean the camera will have any additional features. A Pentax 6x7 has a huge negative, but it doesn't do anything a 35mm can't do. In fact the 35mm camera can likely do more because that 6x7 camera practically rattles the walls when it's mirror flips up!

If camera companies think APS-C is just a way to get people to their full frame systems, they may be very wrong.

The same thing was said in the 80s and 90s with companies like Minolta, Pentax, and Olympus. If you didn't have Canon or Nikon you were often thought of as "hampered" or "constrained". That simply didn't end up being true.

Full frame is 35mm in film format, so far the 35mm format had survived a number of challengers in the past (film days) and in the present. It's like car. 4 wheels is 4 wheels. Do you need 6 wheels or 3 wheels? I think there were, but people go back to driving a car with 4 wheels. We are a creature of habits. LOL.

 

[dougjgreen]

Full frame is 35mm in film format, so far the 35mm format had survived a number of challengers in the past (film days) and in the present. It's like car. 4 wheels is 4 wheels. Do you need 6 wheels or 3 wheels? I think there were, but people go back to driving a car with 4 wheels. We are a creature of habits. LOL.

If you haul 8 tons at a time, you might need 18 wheels. If you are looking to get exercise and travel light, 2 wheels might be much better.

 

[gr8Shot]

1