CP+ showed a shifting focus
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Thanks Richard for this nice article, it was a pleasure to read!
I remember the Samsung camera well, it was on my shopping list until I realized it was carrying and heavily outdated Android version right from the beginning. During the last few years I was regularly asked which is the right camera for me and more then often my answer was it's your phone - you carry it all days and it allows you to share your images immediately. Furthermore I see how Fuji's Instax attracts people, including my daughter. It's a dedicated camera she has to carry in addition to her mobile, but it offers an (almost) immediate image she can share in the offline world.
Probably Samsung knows more why the camera you can do phone calls failed. But I imagine there is a potential niche for such beasts. Me included! Of course it has to be serious - I'm not afraid of outdated camera firmware if the device stays offline, but I am with my mobile - and offer a visible quality improvement compared to the usual mobile.
I like your idea of an LTE mini grip. Allow phone calls with a Bluetooth headset - I never understood why any tablet including iPad doesn't allow this - and I'm in.
I remember the Samsung camera well, it was on my shopping list until I realized it was carrying and heavily outdated Android version right from the beginning. During the last few years I was regularly asked which is the right camera for me and more then often my answer was it's your phone - you carry it all days and it allows you to share your images immediately. Furthermore I see how Fuji's Instax attracts people, including my daughter. It's a dedicated camera she has to carry in addition to her mobile, but it offers an (almost) immediate image she can share in the offline world.
Probably Samsung knows more why the camera you can do phone calls failed. But I imagine there is a potential niche for such beasts. Me included! Of course it has to be serious - I'm not afraid of outdated camera firmware if the device stays offline, but I am with my mobile - and offer a visible quality improvement compared to the usual mobile.
I like your idea of an LTE mini grip. Allow phone calls with a Bluetooth headset - I never understood why any tablet including iPad doesn't allow this - and I'm in.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Personally I don't think colour is the thing to attract new users, size, weight and PRICE is the key. for the inflated lens prices it is really extremely difficult to sell to new, young generations, when AI assisted phone cameras doing so well, so portable and ppl already spending 2 grand on a phone once every 2-3 years, going for a dedicated camera with a single nice lens costing 3k just didn't cut the pie for 90% of potential customers. Yes there are plenty of cheap lens out there, but remember those lens usually have much smaller aperture making it much less distinctive in photos compared to phone cameras. It's not like 20 years ago where phone cameras only output 1024*768 jpgs with next to no usable ISO or resolution.
Imagine when you were young, you spend on clothings, dating, gaming PCs etc. and once you get hold on a camera which... didn't vastly outperform your phone in your pocket.
Imagine when you were young, you spend on clothings, dating, gaming PCs etc. and once you get hold on a camera which... didn't vastly outperform your phone in your pocket.
Upvote
0
Back in the days, I ended up with a plain black M2 because I found one on the refurb market for less than the bay blue version, but oh boy the bay blue version looked nice. A perfect combination of svelte form factor and cool color. It is the only color variation of any product that I regret not springing for. Sure, the AF sucked raw eggs and the sensor was a generation old by that point, but a fun product. I would gladly pay for a modern-day equivalent of M2 with an RF mount.
Upvote
0
Just wait until you find out how Bernays used feminism and communism with ideas of gender equality to sell cigarettes. Marketing for both men and women has always been toxic and always worked to destroy cohesive elements of society and pretend that society was always blown apart and indeed of marketers to right it. Problem, reaction, solution.
Upvote
0
I don't drive a black or silver car and I got a new car just so I could choose my color. Ferrari owners can order a car of any color but there's only 1 red. For some cars are just "whatever" but for others they are the ultimate fashion statement. I would never drive a black car (statistically higher accident rate) and black/silver/white are just too boring. Bring it on with the red/blue/green cameras!
Upvote
0
My wife always asks me why Apple doesn't make a camera that's as easy to use as an iPhone but with better IQ. What I derive from this is that a potential camera for non-photoenthusiasts (like herself) has to be just that - like a phonecamera but slightly better in every area. Make it fun with a palette of colors to choose from. Bright colors pair well with dark lenses, so no need to offer colored lenses (imho). I don't have the numbers but my guess is camera manufacturers were always aiming a bit too high for this market in terms of price and features. Just make it small, cool to use and fun to look at so that people actually bother to take them anywhere. I know too many people with a Canon 1000D with kitlens somewhere in a drawer that they never use because it's still too bulky and doesn't offer a better user experience than their phone
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
TBH I think using primes are still kind of more "advanced" group of "old customers", hack if used properly a 20 years old classic 5D with a 50 1.8 kills smartphones if you dig into the details, but thing is it is far from the night and day compared to the phone images back then, primes at least have the huge aperture for the DOF effects, but when one just casually goes into best buy or a local store, more so if one are still in colleage, the most probably budget or option one will try is a kit zoom lens, where most MILC are small aperture option, when those are compared to a point and shoot and UPLOAD to instagram/tiktok experience, it will be more difficult to attract the new buyer and expand the market.
Even for old folks like me, if I am asked I would say the RF glass are mostly better than the EF counterpart, but if I am to pay with my money? I likely still will opt for a new EF glass, which can be shared among the DSLR and RF, and other MILC with plenty of good adapters to choose from, RF is good, but paying $1000 more for the similar focal length and same aperture? likely not.
and canon implementation of computational photography is kind of least important IMO, for SOOC JPG users, most will prefer smaller setup or just with the phone, but if you are more power user, the ability to do the fine tuning in RAW is what really matters
Upvote
0
I suspect Apple (and Samsung for that matter) knows some people (probably even some of their employees) want such a camera and they are either working on something special that will change our thinking or have decided it won't be profitable at this time.
Upvote
0
I agree with you for the most part, but you can have cpricewatch.com send you an email when their is a lens you want under a price you specify
Upvote
0
Used RF non L gear depreciate rapidly, I pick up RF16 and RF28 for USD423. Combine with my 1st hand R50 is under 1k USD. Even if I brought all 3 items in MSRP, it's cheaper than latest flagship smartphones that hits 1200 USD mark. I do have bigger better f2.8 zooms and R6. However bringing these cheap gears for daily is safer and less likely to get rob.(Unless in Paris, anything will get robbed )
In the past, smartphone users trash talk camera users because the inability to produce straight out photos of back-lit scenarios. Cameras have to do HDR photos with PC/Mac post-processing. Whereas smartphones can get it without hassle. Nowadays Canon put the HDR Backlight Control in cameras below R3.
You, as a enthusiast/power user might think it's nothing special. But for others, it's. Everyone keep saying the best camera is the one you have with you, capable entry level mirrorless is what we need.
P. S. The Digital Teleconverter from R8 R50 are also better than smartphone's digital zoom(& Sony's Clear Image Zoom that only works with power zoom lenses). It is enough to act as pseudo zoom lenses.
Upvote
0
Can't agree on some parts. value wise you cannot compete with smartphones, yes the latest smartphones costing 1200USD+, but it's not one buys the phone only to take photos, ppl buys the phone anyway, so it's like $0 extra value vs $423 for the RF 16+28. of course the dedicated camera and lens have superior image quality in most cases if not all, but you forget most ppl only need image for IG style of usage, so those micro details is really of no significance for most ordinary folks, not many ppl cares how sharp the eyelash is.
The phone is really pick out and instant snap, upload, while camera you always need to at least sync to the phone before the sharing action, and the phone is basically always charged and ready, while camera you need to take from dry box, recharge for a few hours before bringing out to use.
Make no mistake I am a all phone, trash camera guy, I am still using the 5D3 and L lenses I bought in the past 2 decades and no desire to upgrade quality wise, what I will only need is a new body if the 5D give way and get the adapter with a R6 or so.
Point is that it is difficult to attract new customers INTO PHOTOGRAPHY becomes much more difficult with the phones being well beyond good enough, even at $400 it's not really dirt cheap money for normal person, especially young ones, long gone are the days of you can only get dreamy bokeh and usable indoor/night handheld ISO from DSLRs. Back then you lure them into a EOS 350D with a kit lens for usable indoor photography, then one will be tempted for higher end lens and body for better features and results. Now for most ppl, buying a R100 with kit lens usually will just get them similar or inferior photos compared to the all AI assisted iphone photos, and only practically marginally better them after some learning, after which the desire to spend more and carry the huge L glass just stops.
The embarrasing part for camera vendors are that power users don't really need/want those AI features, we all have plenty of real tele converters, our choice and skill to use those picked zooms/primes, but for real layman who just want to take some great photos, the iphone that they will buy anyway is good enough to get what they want, so very few will even consider buying into the expensive and chunky (anything will be compared to a phone) system, easire to sell stylish and small form factor ones like the Leica Q3 or Fuji X100 than a ILC nowadays
Upvote
0
Richard, this is a very well written, insightful article. Thank you for writing it. Thought provoking!
While some reflexively point at smartphones as the spectacular gorilla in the room, in this case, Canon's timing might be unusually fortunate.
Canon is seeking a younger market, and as well stated already in this thread, new generations of consumers are vital. And it's the very youngest that might be enticed away from the Swiss-Army smartphones to dedicated cameras. However, it's parents that need to be a primary target in ad campaigns.
Conscientious, thoughtful parents are learning about and understanding the developmental and emotional damage done by too much screen-time, especially with smartphones. I believe this is a growing trend. As a parent myself, I take the issue very seriously. My wife and I've already seen the negative effects of smartphones on our kids' schoolmates, and we've seen neighborhood kids become virtual shut-ins as they stay glued to screens of one sort or another.
(Our family will not allow the kids to have smartphones until college, providing them with "call and text" only devices when they are learning to drive, but not before.)
A dedicated camera can prompt kids to get outdoors and explore their world with fresh eyes as they look for new perspectives.
But here's the rub: Where will kids show their pictures? The cameras should produce great jpg's and have simple wireless transmission, but then where will the kids display the photos? If the idea with dedicated cameras is to keep the kids off instagram, etc., then how will their friends see the great photos? Will they share them only with parents?
Perhaps we could also see a revival of printing, but printing has to be simple and affordable. Printers that can produce prints up to 8.5x11 can have small footprints, but few parents are going to want to shell out for ink at today's prices, and the ability of the printer to produce the same colors and exposure as the kids are capturing has to be painless and reliable.
Another victim, I believe, of smartphones has been the "old fashioned" photo club. Why meet in person when members can just post on social media? Perhaps libraries and other kid-oriented organizations can pick up some slack, but until a critical mass of parents have realized face-to-face, not screen-to-screen, is essential to mental health, there won't be much demand.
Ok, just responding, Richard, to your excellent article!
While some reflexively point at smartphones as the spectacular gorilla in the room, in this case, Canon's timing might be unusually fortunate.
Canon is seeking a younger market, and as well stated already in this thread, new generations of consumers are vital. And it's the very youngest that might be enticed away from the Swiss-Army smartphones to dedicated cameras. However, it's parents that need to be a primary target in ad campaigns.
Conscientious, thoughtful parents are learning about and understanding the developmental and emotional damage done by too much screen-time, especially with smartphones. I believe this is a growing trend. As a parent myself, I take the issue very seriously. My wife and I've already seen the negative effects of smartphones on our kids' schoolmates, and we've seen neighborhood kids become virtual shut-ins as they stay glued to screens of one sort or another.
(Our family will not allow the kids to have smartphones until college, providing them with "call and text" only devices when they are learning to drive, but not before.)
A dedicated camera can prompt kids to get outdoors and explore their world with fresh eyes as they look for new perspectives.
But here's the rub: Where will kids show their pictures? The cameras should produce great jpg's and have simple wireless transmission, but then where will the kids display the photos? If the idea with dedicated cameras is to keep the kids off instagram, etc., then how will their friends see the great photos? Will they share them only with parents?
Perhaps we could also see a revival of printing, but printing has to be simple and affordable. Printers that can produce prints up to 8.5x11 can have small footprints, but few parents are going to want to shell out for ink at today's prices, and the ability of the printer to produce the same colors and exposure as the kids are capturing has to be painless and reliable.
Another victim, I believe, of smartphones has been the "old fashioned" photo club. Why meet in person when members can just post on social media? Perhaps libraries and other kid-oriented organizations can pick up some slack, but until a critical mass of parents have realized face-to-face, not screen-to-screen, is essential to mental health, there won't be much demand.
Ok, just responding, Richard, to your excellent article!
Upvote
0
