Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

eoshd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 132 posts

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#61

Post by jdietrich »

BeetleB wrote: post #32
zazaraka wrote: post #14

The lack of vision at DSLR companies is mind boggling. Why can't I do light editing and post to Instagram directly from the camera? Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable? I get it that pros don't need these features, but how hard are they to implement? The camera is already $1000+ dollars, how much more could adding a touch screen, a SIM card and a beefier…

Completely agree. Why don't they provide APIs so people can customize the behavior and processing? Take a look at this: https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/04/experimental-nighttime-pho... Using a relatively crappy camera on a phone, they were able to get great results merely because they can program it. As a simple example: I want to reduce high ISO noise by taking N photos and taking the median. This is an established t…

You can already customise the behaviour of a Canon DSLR, because there's an open-source third-party firmware option with a Lua API.

https://magiclantern.fm/

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#62

Post by kenhwang »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #53
kenhwang wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can the people who take photography seriously sustain Canon's camera business on their own? That's the main problem.

Why should a bubble of casual-photographers exiting the DSLR market be enough to sink Canon? The serious photographer market should be enough to sustain the business (it's not like these things are sold at a loss), but investors in pursuit of infinite growth might not like that.

Canon needs the consumer market to subsidize R&D costs for the professional lines. I'm sure the they're not selling at a unit loss, but like all R&D heavy manufacturing industries, there's a lot of fixed capex that's easier to offset with high volume offerings.

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#64

Post by throwanem »

zazaraka wrote: post #58
throwanem wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Why can't I do light editing and post to Instagram directly from the camera?" Because the computing resource, battery power, and physical volume spent on hardware Instagram integration detracts from what can be devoted to making the camera as good as possible at being a camera . You'd have to cram a smartphone in there, and everyone already has smartphones anyway. And you can do light editing in-camera, if you want.…

By catering to influencers in SOME models, they would be in a much better financial shape to continue R&D for the pros.

They already do, with their prosumer lines. Mommy bloggers, for example, have a surprising amount to say about how to get the most out of a Nikon D3300 or similar; I actually got some useful tips from them back when I was just starting out with my first D5300.

Granted, the camera makers haven't gone to the extent of just building a smartphone into a DSLR so you can post to Instagram with two taps, or whatever. IMO that's because they know where their strengths lie, and also understand that such a hybrid device would need a few generations to evolve into really solid usability - generations which it would not receive, because the same market at which it'd be aimed would consider the v1.0 difficulties a deal breaker for exactly the ease-of-use reasons you're arguing it would be a good idea for the camera makers to do this in the first place.

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#65

Post by Lukeas14 »

jdietrich wrote: post #31
zazaraka wrote: post #14

The lack of vision at DSLR companies is mind boggling. Why can't I do light editing and post to Instagram directly from the camera? Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable? I get it that pros don't need these features, but how hard are they to implement? The camera is already $1000+ dollars, how much more could adding a touch screen, a SIM card and a beefier…

It's a huge investment in software and hardware for an almost non-existent user base. Most current DSLRs already have Wifi or a Wifi option; those that don't can be fitted with a Wifi SD card. It turns out that hardly anyone actually uses that feature, because Wifi transfer rates are generally a more problematic bottleneck than the inconvenience of pulling the SD card and putting it into a card reader. The main users…

I think that huge investment is going to pay off several times over for whichever company is willing to make it. Canon and Nikon each share almost 50% of this market because their offerings aren't much different from one another. A DSLR that has the same functionalities, software magic and ease of use as a phone would be a game-changing product. Right now phone cameras are so far ahead technologically but permanently held back by physical form-factor. The only thing preventing camera companies from matching them is making massive investments in their software divisions.

The user base would be everyone who buys <$1000 crop sensor cameras, which is already significant. This includes parents taking photos of their kids playing sports from across the field, (un)official school photographers, Instagram boyfriends, all non-pro photographers who need separate telephoto lenses. Improving ease of use would expand this market greatly since the main barrier to entry is learning how to use a DSLR.

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#66

Post by jdietrich »

mdorazio wrote: post #51
jdietrich wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a huge investment in software and hardware for an almost non-existent user base. Most current DSLRs already have Wifi or a Wifi option; those that don't can be fitted with a Wifi SD card. It turns out that hardly anyone actually uses that feature, because Wifi transfer rates are generally a more problematic bottleneck than the inconvenience of pulling the SD card and putting it into a card reader. The main users…

This is akin to people who said "why would you want computer-like features on your phone? Everyone who's willing to pay $500+ for a phone already has a laptop!" A very large number of would-be content creators (not just Instagram, either - YouTubers also) want the higher image quality, dynamic range, optical zoom, interchangeable lenses, etc. of a full-body camera, but don't want to deal with the clunky interfaces an…

How many Instagrammers and YouTubers do you personally know? How many conversations have you had with them about their needs, preferences and workflow? Have you ever done a direct image quality comparison between an iPhone X and a mid-range DSLR?

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#67

Post by BeetleB »

throwanem wrote: post #52
BeetleB wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree. Why don't they provide APIs so people can customize the behavior and processing? Take a look at this: https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/04/experimental-nighttime-pho... Using a relatively crappy camera on a phone, they were able to get great results merely because they can program it. As a simple example: I want to reduce high ISO noise by taking N photos and taking the median. This is an established t…

You can't do that because no one is building general-purpose computers into DSLRs - or, for that matter, MILCs - because no one cares about that use case, and the resources wasted on making it possible are better spent on supporting the things that photographers expect cameras to do. That said, you probably could do something like that with sufficient effort invested in CHDK or Magic Lantern or whatever the current h…

>because no one cares about that use case, and the resources wasted on making it possible are better spent on supporting the things that photographers expect cameras to do.

No one except all the people who are using smartphones instead of DSLR's, causing a decline in sales?

And what do you mean "no one cares"? The use case I've provided are precisely ones that "real" photographers care about. The amateur non-hobbyist photographer isn't going to want to do stacking on photos. The serious hobbyist/professional is.

CHDK and Magic Lantern are great. My problem is that I don't use a Canon :-) But even if I did, I assume these are all unofficial? The idea is for the manufacturer to have official APIs. Now of course, it does make it more likely one will reduce the lifetime of a camera with a poorly written plugin (e.g. one that wildly keeps using the focusing motors), but they can simply say the warranty is voided if you install custom firmware/plugins.

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#68

Post by throwanem »

mdorazio wrote: post #56
hestipod wrote: post #19

I am probably a minority but I hate live viewfinders as looking at a tiny screen, despite the benefits live exposure composition offers, gives me eyestrain and headaches. I much prefer an optical viewfinder so for this reason I really hope the mirrorless hype isn't going to displace DLSRs entirely and Canon keeps making them. Bit of a moot point for me at present as all I have is an old Lumix LX1 with manual settings…

Personally, I have the exact opposite opinion on optical viewfinders. Optical is eyestraining, non-ergonomic, physically limiting (can't use an optical viewfinder when you're shooting at foot or waist level without contorting yourself into weird positions), and modern shooting modes often require a lot more setup and selection than is comfortable to use without a full-size screen and looking at the controls you're hi…

That last point depends strongly on the camera. I almost never have to take my D500 away from my face when I'm setting up a shot, because it has physical controls for the exposure parameters and displays in the viewfinder to show changes of setting - not just shutter speed, aperture, and ISO, but even down to stuff like bracketing and flash exposure compensation. Granted, a lot of DSLRs, especially the prosumer ones, don't benefit from such thoughtful (and expensive!) design. But you absolutely can get cameras that are ergonomic to operate.

(Well, if you buy Nikon, anyway. I don't know who does Canon's UI design, but whoever they are, they could be a lot better at it...)

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#69

Post by hestipod »

mktmkr wrote: post #57
hestipod wrote: post #19

I am probably a minority but I hate live viewfinders as looking at a tiny screen, despite the benefits live exposure composition offers, gives me eyestrain and headaches. I much prefer an optical viewfinder so for this reason I really hope the mirrorless hype isn't going to displace DLSRs entirely and Canon keeps making them. Bit of a moot point for me at present as all I have is an old Lumix LX1 with manual settings…

You don't have to use the tiny screen. Mirrorless cameras generally come with a large display. I almost always use the display on my Olympus because it's easier and I don't look like I have a machine on my face (this was also an important advantage of old view cameras with the focus screen on top, like the Hasselblad 500). If you want, you can attach a much larger screen to your mirrorless camera, they just use HDMI…

I meant specifically when using a viewfinder on a mirrorless camera, it means looking at a tiny LCD/OLED screen inside an eyepiece that simulates the classic view vs through glass lenses/prisms for an actual optical view. I like optical viewfinders not little screens in tubes.

Re: Canon rush to reassure investors as camera profits plunge

#70

Post by doctorpangloss »

zazaraka wrote: post #14

The lack of vision at DSLR companies is mind boggling. Why can't I do light editing and post to Instagram directly from the camera? Why can't download the photos directly to a phone? Why can't I charge from a micro-USB/USB-C cable? I get it that pros don't need these features, but how hard are they to implement? The camera is already $1000+ dollars, how much more could adding a touch screen, a SIM card and a beefier…

An artmaking tool like the DSLR will still outlive Instagram. There will be a reaction against oversharing, ad-adjacency and other social media that leads to its demise, but nobody will oppose the mechanical, mirror viewfinder for any political reason.
Post reply on HN