Above it all ? FZ1000 |
I read
on a photo rumor site several days
ago that Canon wants to be number 1 in the Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens
Camera (MILC) market by 2017.
I read
elsewhere that sales of
compact cameras have fallen dramatically, DSLRs sharply and MILCs slightly but
from a very low base.
I
wrote the comment below at the end of 2012, about the original Canon
EOS M which was released in mid 2012.
Canon was the last player to arrive at the MILC party. They waited 4 years from the
first MILC which was the Panasonic G1. They had all the time in the world to
evaluate their competitor's products, analyse their strengths and weaknesses,
develop a strategy then produce a
category killer product line. Instead
they presented the EOS-M, in my view the most derivative, uninspiring, under
achieving new camera release in recent photographic history. To create the
EOS-M, Canon took an EOS 650D then
hacked off most of the useful holding, viewing and operating
parts. Canon's image quality is going
backwards. My EOS 40D of 2007 had a DXO Mark score of 64. The EOS 650D which
apparently uses the same sensor as the M, scores 62. The slow autofocus
performance of the M has been widely reported. The 650D's handle and thumb
support along with the eye level viewfinder and most of the buttons and dials,
have all gone, along with the swing out monitor. If this thing were really
inexpensive it might make a little bit of sense, but they are asking you to pay
the Same price as a 650D.
The puzzle is - What is Canon trying to
achieve with the EOS-M ? I really can't
figure it out at all. I can understand
that maybe they are trying to make something that puts them in the MILC
tent but won't steal sales from their own DSLR line. The problem, it seems to
me, is that it is unlikely to steal sales from anywhere.
The EOS
M2 was a mild upgrade of the M with faster autofocus.
The EOS
M and M2 sold so poorly they were withdrawn from sale in many countries. But
apparently they are reasonably popular in Japan.
This
raises the possibility of different products for global regions.
My work
with ergonomics suggests strongly that for world wide success with a MILC,
Canon needs to produce a Proper Camera. One with an anatomical handle and thumb
support, built in EVF of good quality, fully articulated monitor, built in
flash and a full suite of controls to satisfy an expert user. It needs good
picture quality and good all round performance.
The
camera could be operated perfectly well
by a snapshooter in fully automatic mode.
It
seems bizarre to me that I should be urging Canon, of all manufacturers, to make a
proper camera.
In the
event, two and a half years after the EOS M they have come up with the EOS M3.
This
is, basically, an M with small handle
and thumb support. And a flip up
monitor.
No
built in EVF, no fully articulated monitor.
With this they want to conquer the mirrorless world
????????
All they really needed to do
was copy the Sony A6000. Move the
lens axis over to the left (as viewed by the operator) to make room for a
decent handle and stick a good EVF top left on the body. How difficult could
that be ??
What on earth
is happening at Canon ?
They
have recently released a series of half baked cameras which will endear the
brand to only a few rusted on Canon loyalists and their number is declining every
year as indicated by sales charts.
The EOS
7D (2) was 4 years late and has a sensor DXO mark score no better than the
(Sony) sensor in the G7X compact.
The G7X
was presumably intended to compete with the Sony RX100 (3) but they forgot the
EVF.
Similarly there is no EVF in the Powershot G16, just the antiquated, inaccurate, uninformative OVF from G cams of years passed.
The
Powershot SX60 superzoom has decent ergonomics including, lo and behold, a good
enough EVF but there are many reports of poor image quality.
The
Powershot G1X(2) failed to fix many of
the numerous problems which burdened the original G1X. The Mk2 has a low DXO
mark score for the sensor size, just a vestigial handle, no built in EVF and some ergonomic issues with
the various user interface modules. If you want a reasonably decent handle and
an EVF these have to be purchased separately and when fitted the camera is no
longer compact.
Canon’s
DSLRs stick to a design formula which has been endorsed by the market for
several years. But Canon’s DSLR ergonomics could easily be improved yet that is
not happening. Neither is their image performance improving much. They are stuck in a rut, releasing ‘new’
models which look and operate just like the old models. That might be fine if
the old models were incapable of improvement. In fact they could be improved
but Canon is not doing it.
Today
Canon announced that it intends to make a new fixed zoom lens camera (FZLC) to
be named G3X (maybe). Canon’s strategy here is a bit strange. They are
announcing a product for which, it seems, there is just a prototype.
Apparently it will use the same Sony 15.9mm sensor as that found in several
cameras (RX100/3, RX10, G7X, FZ1000) and will have an E24-600mm lens and will somehow
(probably a very small aperture at the long end), given the 25x zoom lens, be
very compact, but from the promotional (? mockup) product photos appears to
have no EVF.
So apart from
a few outliers like the Powershot SX50/60 line which does have a built
in EVF, Canon appears to be offering
either the DSLR line, with optical viewfinder
or all the rest including most Powershots
and the MILC EOS M2/3 without a built in viewfinder.
Presumably Canon hopes the selling point for these
cameras is ‘smallness’.
‘Smallness’
as a camera attribute is most useful when one is not using it. In other words
it makes the device a bit easier to carry.
But it
also often makes the thing less user friendly especially if the price of ‘smallness’
is an important ergonomic feature such as the inbuilt EVF or a proper handle.
My view
is that Canon’s product development people need to stop dithering around
with half baked products and drive into
the MILC market with force majeur.
They
did this in 1987 with the first EOS autofocus SLR and again in 2000 with their
first digital SLR the D30. Both bold strategies led to major market success and
Canon’s still high, but waning, brand recognition
in the market.
They
need to fully embrace the inevitable which is that MILCs are a much better option for the
entry/upper entry and mid range ILC market than DSLRs. They need to make full featured MILCs which are proper cameras.
They
need to apply the same ‘all in’ approach to their (Powershot) fixed zoom lens
cameras (FZLC), stop messing about with underdone products like the G1X and proposed G3X and go the full featured way with real cameras
which people will be proud to own and enjoy using.
It looks to me very much as though Canon is
making the products which Canon wants to make with little regard for their
customers or for the requirements of good ergonomic design.
In due course the market will deliver its
verdict.
But wait:
that verdict has already been given on the EOS M1/2. Many countries
outside East Asia did not buy it in commercially viable numbers.
I am
not a marketing person but I suspect that if I was trying to sell a product and
found that whole global regions elected not to buy it, I might regard this as a
hint
or clue
that there might, just possibly, be something wrong with the product.
No comments:
Post a Comment