Canon, Nikon mirrorless = Disney and FOX on DVD

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by RichA, Sep 6, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    People who remember the inception of DVD on Mar 1997 will remember the
    laggards. The studios who sat back, and watched everyone else do the
    market ground work for them, to establish if the format was a good
    idea. Meanwhile, when Disney finally did begin releasing, they
    charged the highest price of any studio for it's offerings. This
    worked out well for them, as clamoring children wanted the Disney
    features. But they showed no leadership, and neither have Nikon or
    Canon or (far behind) Pentax. They let Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and
    Samsung build the market and teach people about the new kind of
    cameras.
     
    RichA, Sep 6, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. From their point of view I think that makes perfect sense. Nikon and Canon
    completely dominate the DSLR market, don't they? If there's a "new kind of
    camera" that is supposed to challenge the DSLR (and it remains to be seen
    whether it can effectively do that), why would Nikon or Canon be in any
    hurry to essentially compete against their own market-leading products?

    Personally I would love to see more makers getting into Micro Four Thirds,
    and make that a sort of universal standard in the way that the old M42 screw
    mount once was. As long as it's only Panasonic and Olympus making m4/3
    stuff, its future appears to be very limited.
     
    Neil Harrington, Sep 6, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. This is how Digital Equipment Corporation came
    to not be a player in the micro-computer market,
    and eventually went bust. They were thoroughly
    dominant in the minicomputer world, and didn't
    pay much attention to those little toy computers
    based on microprocessor chips. Until it was too
    late.

    You should compete with yourself because
    *somebody* is going to. If you don't play,
    and the new market turns out to be important,
    you'll be trying to get into it in a few years
    from far behind the pack.
    And Zeiss and Cosina (lenses). Another body
    manufacturer would be nice, I agree.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 7, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    bugbear Guest

    Laggard, or excellent timing? Sounds like it worked
    out pretty well for Disney.

    BugBear
     
    bugbear, Sep 7, 2011
    #4
  5. Well, as far as mirrorless ILCs are concerned I suspect Nikon is probably
    doing just the right thing now, and presumably Canon is as well even if we
    haven't heard anything about what they're doing. It now seems practically
    certain that Nikon's offering will have a sensor size giving a 2.7x lens
    factor, as has been rumored all along. That seems small enough not to
    cannibalize sales of their small-body DSLRs, and to allow the design of very
    small lenses, while still giving a significant increase in sensor size over
    their compact models.

    I'm still not persuaded there's actually a need for such a camera, but of
    course we will see.

    Whatever it turns out to be like, I doubt it will take F-mount lenses --
    even with an adapter (unless some functions are given up). If I'm right
    about that, it might be an issue.
    And Leica too as far as lenses go, but I don't think any of those have much
    of a stall in the marketplace. It's mainly just Panasonic and Olympus.
    Yes, at least one more. What I think would really make a sort of tipping
    point would be if there were enough bodies being produced to attract the
    interest of the high-volume lens makers Tamron, Tokina and Sigma.
     
    Neil Harrington, Sep 7, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    It did. I just dislike their lack of leadership and building
    investment. Still, considering how Disney is run, I'm not surprised.
     
    RichA, Sep 7, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I'd still like to see them take a hit as punishment. Like Nikon did
    in the 1980's when they lagged (purposely) on AF. They deserved the
    pain.
     
    RichA, Sep 7, 2011
    #7
  8. Well, I have no interest in punishing Nikon for anything. I assume they will
    do what they think is best for Nikon, and that is fine with me. I don't
    believe "they lagged (purposely) on AF." Minolta beat them to market with
    the first really successful AF SLR in 1985 (and very impressive the Maxxum
    7000 was; I had one) but then Minolta beat everybody else too.
     
    Neil Harrington, Sep 8, 2011
    #8
  9. Sigma does make Four Thirds, but not Micro that I can find.
    I suspect Panasonic and Olympus are pretty happy not
    to have that, right now!
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 8, 2011
    #9
  10. And Micro is the only flavor of Four Thirds that makes sense to me.
    I wonder. You may well be right, but on the other hand if there were enough
    makers that m4/3 became a real standard, Panasonic and Olympus might benefit
    too. It didn't seem to hurt Pentax or Praktica when all those other
    manufacturers started turning out M42 screw-mount cameras. For the first 15
    years or so that I owned SLRs, I bought various different makes *because*
    they had that "universal" screw mount.
     
    Neil Harrington, Sep 9, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    People always seem to give the credit for the M42 to Pentax/Practika when
    it had already been out for some years with the Edixa series of cameras.
     
    Neil Ellwood, Sep 10, 2011
    #11
  12. It was generally called the Pentax-Praktica (or Praktica-Pentax) mount at
    least in the U.S., but my understanding was that it actually originated on
    the Contax S. I remember the Edixa having it (a friend of mine had one), but
    I don't know when Edixa started using it.
     
    Neil Harrington, Sep 10, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    They're certainly the leader in selling DVDs that force you to sit
    through ads for their other movies before being allowed to watch
    the movie you paid for.
     
    Ray Fischer, Sep 10, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    And since Olympus have dropped their consumer 4/3 DSLR cameras it's even
    more limited IMO.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Sep 14, 2011
    #14
  15. Interesting -- I didn't know they had dropped the 4/3 DSLRs, but then I
    don't really follow Olympus that closely.

    The original 4/3 cameras never made a lot of sense to me anyway. Maybe a
    little *cuter* than a DX (etc.) camera but not enough smaller to make a real
    difference.

    But m4/3 is different. I love the Panasonic G1 and G2.
     
    Neil Harrington, Sep 14, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    As Trevor said, Olympus has dropped the *consumer* DSLRs.

    The E-30 (prosumer) and E-5 (professional) DSLRs are still available.
     
    Bruce, Sep 14, 2011
    #16
  17. Ah. Thanks for the clarification.
     
    Neil Harrington, Sep 14, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    You're welcome, Neil.

    As a former E-1 user, I still take an interest in Four Thirds DSLRs.
    We even manage to sell one occasionally, but demand has dropped almost
    to zero.

    Four Thirds was quite a brave attempt to offer something new, a system
    that was specifically designed for digital from the outset. Most of
    the lenses were outstanding performers with very high resolution,
    almost all being near-telecentric with an absence of colour fringing.

    But the small sensor size meant that Olympus got left behind in the
    megapixel race. The E-1 had 5 MP which was competitive when it
    appeared, but was soon eclipsed by Canon's 1D Mark II with 8 MP. Canon
    now offers 21.8 MP, with more to come very soon. Olympus is still
    stuck at 12 MP.

    It didn't help that the original Four Thirds sensor manufacturer
    (Kodak) completely lost interest at the time an 8 MP sensor was being
    developed. That sensor was very noisy but it was released anyway.
    That all but destroyed Four Thirds. All subsequent sensors came from
    Panasonic.

    Sadly, the relationship between Olympus and Panasonic is now
    approaching the same dysfunctional state as that between Olympus and
    Kodak a few years ago. Panasonic won't offer Olympus anything more
    than 12 MP sensors but sells 16 and 18 MP sensors in its own LUMIX
    Micro Four Thirds camera bodies. Olympus has designed its own 12 MP
    sensor but it is manufactured by Panasonic. Olympus' dependence on
    Panasonic cannot be healthy.
     
    Bruce, Sep 14, 2011
    #18
  19. All very interesting. Thanks again.

    I agree it's an unhealthy situation if Panasonic is not being the sort of
    cooperative partner that it should for the good of the Micro Four Thirds
    standard. That seems certain to discourage any other manufacturers from
    joining m4/3. It looks short-sighted to me, but then I'm not in that
    business of course.
     
    Neil Harrington, Sep 15, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    It is important to realise that Panasonic and Olympus are competitors,
    and that Panasonic's original foray into Four Thirds (not Micro) was a
    commercial disaster. Micro Four Thirds was Panasonic's idea and
    Olympus was a long way behind in developing MFT cameras and lenses.

    Panasonic's sensors saved Olympus' Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds
    ranges from oblivion. There is no obligation on Panasonic to offer
    Olympus its latest, high resolution sensors, but Olympus has
    definitely been held back by the 12 MP upper limit that Panasonic
    appears to have imposed.

    As you say, it's an unhealthy situation, but I wouldn't want to be
    seen to blame one party or the other for that.


    That's a good point. It appears Nikon has chosen a sensor slightly
    smaller than Panasonic and Olympus when it would surely have been just
    as easy to choose to follow the Micro Four Thirds standard. Maybe it
    would have been difficult to arrange for compatibility with AF Nikkors
    on an MFT body, maybe the 3:2 aspect ratio was considered too
    important to drop, maybe there were licensing issues - while Four
    Thirds is an open standard, I think some of the IP related to Micro
    Four Thirds is proprietary, being owned by Panasonic.

    Given the unhappy experience paying steep royalties to Canon for the
    first few years of AF-S "Silent Wave" lens production, I cannot
    imagine Nikon being keen to pay royalties to Panasonic for Micro Four
    Thirds.

    It will be interesting to see what Canon does. Early rumours
    suggested a sensor size close to Micro Four Thirds but with a 3:2
    aspect ratio. That sounds remarkably similar to Nikon's.
     
    Bruce, Sep 15, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.