I don't understand this industry.

[robbins.photo]

No one's even mentioned Sigma's foray into dSLRs ..
Cameras | Sigma

What? Really? yup, haven't you seen all the expensive advertising campaigns out there that relie on profitable body sales?


IBM's MCA will live forever, but not on my table top LOL

Lol.. looked over the specs for the SD15.. looks like they charge about twice as much as I paid for my D5200 for about half the camera.

that's called trying to recover the cost of R&D based on lower production output. Lower sales require higher price to recover costs. I'm curious if their 3-5 projections actuall materialize to be profitable .. we'll never know. I wonder if they have a warehouse somewhere full of 'em. They are having a nice "sale" from retail though.

though, you could say there's more competition in the marketplace against Nikon & Canon & Sony, et all

More competition is a good thing. I really wish Sony would get their act together, from the stats it looks like they build a great camera on paper but I don't have a lot of confidence they'll continue to support their Alpha series, and I really don't want to invest in a system that won't get long term support. Love my Nikon, but I wouldn't mind investing a bit into another system at some stage.

 

[JerryLove]

More competition is a good thing. I really wish Sony would get their act together, from the stats it looks like they build a great camera on paper but I don't have a lot of confidence they'll continue to support their Alpha series, and I really don't want to invest in a system that won't get long term support. Love my Nikon, but I wouldn't mind investing a bit into another system at some stage.

If that Sony used a mount (and associated controls) that you were confident in, like EF or 4/3; would that change whether you were willing to invest.. knowing that even if Sony left, you'd still have other companies making bodies and lenses?

 

[Gavjenks]

Most of your last post, Jerry, was again about saying why universal standardized mounts would be good. Which was not really on topic with any of my points you were quoting, since I explicitly said I agree, that would be nice.
What I do NOT think makes sense is each company making lenses for the same 4 or 5 different mounts of each other. That's not a "universal mount" Different things.

I don't know what will happen in the future to Sony.

And you think Sony is somehow going to engender MORE confidence by suddenly starting to sell Canon lenses? Erm, no. That would scream to me as a customer "Well crap, we give up making our own stuff. Canon wins, we're just gonna make Canon" and I would become significantly more concerend about Sony's future.

Is that rational? Who cares, doesn't matter. People will think it. I would. Other people in the thread have said they would.

Sigma is weird. You might learn something from studying their specific history and how they got away with it if you're interested. I don't know it. They sold lenses since I started in photography, which is why I don't lose confidence in them when they come out with new 3rd party lenses, unlike I would other brands that switch while I'm watching.

Unless it's a secret.

Oh if only there was some way to measure electrical signals.

Canon's plans for future changes they may make to the EOS mount in order to lower the compatibility of third party lenses are not "electrical signals" in their products, and cannot be reverse engineered.

 

[robbins.photo]

More competition is a good thing. I really wish Sony would get their act together, from the stats it looks like they build a great camera on paper but I don't have a lot of confidence they'll continue to support their Alpha series, and I really don't want to invest in a system that won't get long term support. Love my Nikon, but I wouldn't mind investing a bit into another system at some stage.

If that Sony used a mount (and associated controls) that you were confident in, like EF or 4/3; would that change whether you were willing to invest.. knowing that even if Sony left, you'd still have other companies making bodies and lenses?

I can put something like that on my wishlist but it's a moot point because major manufacturers don't change the way they do things based on my whims or desires. Would it be nice to have a universal mount? Sure. Is it going to happen? Nope. Your dealing with market forces here that are a lot more complicated than that, and they just are what they are.

 

[Derrel]

Kodak USED TO make d-slr bodies that used the Nikon F-mount. FujiFilm USED TO make d-slr's that used the Nikon F-mount. Kodak USED TO make a d-slr that used Canon EF mount. This was back when these cameras ranged in prices from a low of about $2,999.95 up to $7,899.95.

Kodak's early DCS-720 and DCS-760 were full-frame d-slr's that were VERY expensive, in the early 2000's; the Kodak 14n was a Nikon F-mount d-slr that had a then industry-leading 14 megapixel sensor, and it was followed by the Kodak SLRn and SLRc models (Nikon and Canon variants). FujiFIlm first had the FinePIX S1 Pro, a 3>6MP model way back in the early days of d-slr's before Canon had anything on the market, and the Nikon D1 was current; Fuji followed with the S2 Pro, S3 Pro, and then the S5 Pro, which was built on a modified Nikon D200 body. As I recall, SIGMA also made a d-slr that used Canon EF mount, but it was a failure.

ALL OF THE ABOVE cameras were basically, of limited acceptance and limited commercial success. The most widely accepted and successful was the Fuji S2 Pro, which was a good shooter, but it was a two-system camera, which required batteries for the "digital side" and separate batteries for the "camera" side. This camera was $2400 when introduced. The huge successes came with the breakthrough camera models from Canon, and Nikon. The Digital Rebel, the EOS 10D, the Nikon D1 and D1h, and the Nikon D100 and later the Nikon D70 were models that had HUGE success.

The m4/3 and the 4/3 lens mount cameras have had extremely low sales numbers. Fuji and Olympus have recently let some sales numbers out on their compact mirrorless sales numbers; we're talking in the neighborhood of 500,000 to 604,000 cameras per year, from Fuji and Oly. There is absolutely ZERO profit potential for Canon or Nikon or Tokina or Tamron to make lenses for NON-Canon or non-Nikon SLR mounts...and that is why they do not make them.

The mirrorless camera lens mount cameras sell in numbers that do not justify entering the market, except for companies that actually manufacture mirroless cameras, so Panasonic, FujiFilm, Olympus pretty much "own" the market for lenses for the smaller-format mirroless lenses. Mirrorless models like the Oly and Fuji models get a lot of mind share on-line, and they are wonderful products, but the actual sales figures are dismal compared to ONE month's worth of Canon d-slr sales. In 2012 or 2013, the entire North America market of mirrorless cameras was like 30,000 units for the entire YEAR--maybe equivalent to say, like a week's worth of sales of Canon d-slrs. Olympus's camera division is close to being shut down...it is a money-loser. Panasonic's camera and lens biz is part of a HUGE corporation that underwrites a money-losing camera/lens segment. Not saying that their cameras or lenses are bad; far,far from it. It's just that they get a lot of mindshare on the web, but not a lot of broad, popular sales.

Not trying to be mean, but no, you really do not understand this industry.

 

[JerryLove]

Derrel,

I don't disagree with your facts (though mirrorless is about 1/4 what DSLR is, not 1/36th (1 month of Canon's 33%)), but I do disagree with your conclusions. Without *why*, these facts don't mean to much.

 

[JerryLove]

Most of your last post, Jerry, was again about saying why universal standardized mounts would be good. Which was not really on topic with any of my points you were quoting, since I explicitly said I agree, that would be nice.
What I do NOT think makes sense is each company making lenses for the same 4 or 5 different mounts of each other. That's not a "universal mount" Different things.

You are hacking a straw man. I've never advocated production for 4-5 mounts. I've not even advocated for 2 mounts. (a case could likely be made by later posts that I've looked favorably on a second mount; but that's actually twisting my intent)

And you think Sony is somehow going to engender MORE confidence by suddenly starting to sell Canon lenses? Erm, no. That would scream to me as a customer "Well crap, we give up making our own stuff. Canon wins, we're just gonna make Canon" and I would become significantly more concerend about Sony's future.

And I would realize that, no matter Sony's future, I could still use my investment in an EF body and lenses on Canon's EF gear... or the EF gear from one of the other companies (Pentax, say) who also standardized on an existing form. Just like I don't worry about Sigma's future plans when I buy a Sigma lens... because if they got out of the business tomorrow, I could still use their lens as part of a modern lens-set on a camera body which continues to get updated by Canon.

Indeed: it would make it *harder* for Canon to abandon the platform as they risk losing customers who don't take the switch with them (with only one supplier, they can shut-down a platform).

Canon's plans for future changes they may make to the EOS mount in order to lower the compatibility of third party lenses are not "electrical signals" in their products, and cannot be reverse engineered.

Oh, if only there was some way to update microprocessors after they'd shipped. To "flash" them or something.

I'm guessing your next response is about the update vendors leaving the market, in which case *my* next update involved Magic Lantern. (which reminds me: It seems all the microcode is known)

 

[astroNikon]

Return on Investment and marketing might keeps some companies in business.

I certainly remember all those Digital Rebel commercials on TV from years past. I don't remember any from Fuji.
Alot People like to buy familiarity .. such as McDonalds etc. People "know" the Canon from marketing and the Big Name sport star that was hocking them.

Ashton Kuchner was a big push for NIkon for the Nikon 1 system. I dont know how well that went though. It did get me to look at the specs once.

 

[Light Guru]

Why are lens adapters so poor? To my knowledge, there aren't any that allow full control from a camera of one type to a lens of another

There are a LOT of things about lenses I don't think you understand.

The optics of a lens are built to work best when that lens is a set distance from the sensor. Adaptors change that distance. And because the electronics on the lens don't match up with the body you would need an even thicker adapter to adapt not only the electronic connections but the adapter would probably need some circuitry of its own to make the two talk to each other.

All that added thickness in an adapter would throw off the optimization of the lens optics.

 

[table1349]

The reason you don't understand is because you are looking at this as a consumer rather than a manufacturer. Why can't you directly bolt a Ford Motor to a Chevy transmission with them both dropped into a Dodge? Why don't Sunbeam Mixer blades fit a Kitchen-Aid Mixer etc. etc. etc. Proprietary = revenue.

You end up buying the parts and accessories you need from the manufacturer. Yes you can buy Off Brand and people do. Rarely does the Off Brand live up to the OEM in all aspects.

Remember, you didn't buy a camera when you bought a DSLR, you bought into a system. If you don't want to be part of that system then get a P&S. Otherwise, welcome to the business world.

 

[Derrel]

Derrel,

I don't disagree with your facts (though mirrorless is about 1/4 what DSLR is, not 1/36th (1 month of Canon's 33%)), but I do disagree with your conclusions. Without *why*, these facts don't mean to much.

Yes, WORLD-WIDE mirrorless sales this past year were about a quarter of total d-slr sales. But in North America, MILC's are not selling in high volume.

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2013/08/has-bubble-burst-is-that-why-camera.html

" Another interesting number to emerge from CIPA is the total sales of mirrorless system cameras in N. America. In the last year the makers of these little gems have sold slightly fewer than 39,000 units. Total. And I suspect most of those were sold only in the financially prosperous, tech forward cities of the U.S. The value proposition being lost in more traditional markets. "

 

[Gavjenks]

You are hacking a straw man. I've never advocated production for 4-5 mounts. I've not even advocated for 2 mounts. (a case could likely be made by later posts that I've looked favorably on a second mount; but that's actually twisting my intent)

Exactly... so why don't Canon and Nikon make lenses for other formats? For that matter, each others?

So each others, as a separate point from other formats plural, implies Canon should be making lenses for at least 4 different mounts at once according to you:
* Canon's own mount
* Nikon
* Plural other mounts

If that is an inaccurate reading, and you're only asking for one universal mount for everybody, then I agree. No particular reason why everyone couldn't use the same electronics and physical bayonets (although still with variable flange focal distances for mirrors or not, etc. But all you'd need is a <$50 electronics pass through tube to convert)

 

[table1349]

"If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride."

 

[Josh66]

And would it kill either of the big two to put IS in the body?

Canon & Nikon's film legacy is why IS/VR is in the lens.

 

[table1349]

And would it kill either of the big two to put IS in the body?

Why put a second rate IS system into a first class system?