New Workshop! Lighting 3 | Advanced Off Camera Flash

Insights & Thoughts

Will Canon and Nikon Lose to Sony and Sigma? – CameraTalk With Matthew Saville

By Matthew Saville on April 26th 2014

matthew-saville-central-coast-seascape-650California Central Coast, San Luis Obispo Area
Nikon D5300, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Oben CT-3451 Tripod
9-stop Hoya ND filter, 20 sec. @ f/10 & ISO 100
SOOC image, Monochrome Picture Control, +3 Contrast

One of the things that I often ponder, while on long drives to weddings and wilderness adventures, is this quote from Winston Churchill:

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it

This is very relevant to the camera industry right now.  Why?  Because the camera business has seen some big changes recently, and I think there are more dramatic shifts just around the corner.  Sure, change itself is usually good.  What I’m talking about is the effect change has on an industry and its businesses, and which ones survive while others go under.


If you happen to be some sort of professional market analyst, this article will probably sound like it was not written by, well, a real market analyst.  You’d be correct. However if you’re like me, just a curious photographer who enjoys a good discussion, then read on!

(If you’re an expert and would like to weigh in, please feel free to contact me directly or leave a comment below, this is meant to be an open discussion!)

Why All The Hype About Competing With Newcomers?

The question I want to mull over today is the one that seems to start all the flame wars online: Why are we so hyped up in the first place, arguing about how certain major camera companies desperately need to try harder to compete…or else they’ll go out of business? Canon and Nikon own almost the entire industry; how could they possibly be unable to keep up with newcomers?

As I’ve disclaimed before, I’m no expert on market analytics. I’m just a photographer who enjoys reading up on history, and pondering what the future may hold.

Rapid Change In The Digital Camera Industry

In recent years, the entire industry has struggled to keep up with consumers’ rapidly changing buying habits. Cell phone cameras rapidly destroyed the market for small point-n-shoot digicams. Today, although beginner DSLRs are still selling well, it seems like nobody talks about them as excitedly as they do about compact, mirrorless cameras.

[Rewind: How The Fuji X-T1 Shocked Me – Initial Review of a hot new camera]


Lastly, pro-quality mirrorless cameras have started popping up and they’re receiving quite a lot of praise from many review sites, yet we haven’t heard even the slightest rumor or whisper about something similar from Nikon or Canon.

Although both Canon and Nikon have thus far been able to maintain their place in the top two positions in most markets worldwide, dramatic changes can still take place overnight and this is why I worry.  The last couple years, in particular, have been very interesting, to say the least.

For example, Canon announced their first mirrorless camera, the EOS M series, nearly four years after the very first mirrorless camera appeared. (The Panasonic G-1) Then, when the first EOS M camera didn’t sell very well at first, Canon cut back and the EOS M2 is currently not even available in the USA.  It is as if they just dipped a toe in to test the water, and then panicked at the first sign of trouble.

Meanwhile, Panasonic is releasing their umpteenth mirrorless camera, the GH4, which offers 4K video recording and other features that are not seen on traditional DSLRs.

panasonic-gh4-flip-screenPanasonic GH4, available for pre-order from $1698.

Sony is also topping the charts with the popularity of their A7 series of full-frame mirrorless cameras, one of which offers (external) 4K video recording as well.

So, why does all this new stuff matter so much?  Why don’t all the complainers just shut up and buy that camera they’re so jealous of?  Most photographers are happy with their current DSLR system, cameras that will keep on doing their job very well regardless of any new whiz-bang technology that comes along.

Unfortunately, I just don’t think consumerism and the global market work that way.  New technology steam-rolls over the old, eventually.  People buy the latest, greatest, coolest new thing- that’s just what they like to do!

With that being said, I think that stories like that of Kodak are a big warning sign to current industry giants. What happens when you ignore red flags, and put your trust in a status quo?

The Warning Signs Of Kodak’s Downfall

If you read the Wikipedia page about Kodak, you can catch certain shocking hints here and there:

Japanese competitor Fujifilm entered the U.S. market with lower-priced film and supplies, but Kodak did not believe that American consumers would ever desert its brand.

If that’s not a red flag, I don’t know what is!

Kodak passed on the opportunity to become the official film of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics; Fuji won these sponsorship rights, which gave them a permanent foothold in the marketplace.

Oops!  The moral of the story?  Never rely on brand loyalty, especially if you are a very large corporation.  Consumers are fickle and will “jump ship” for almost no apparent reason other than something being new and exciting, or of course price. Brand loyalty can only buy a few years’ safety net.

In the late 90’s, Kodak’s net earnings fell off a cliff, (again according to Wikipedia) from over 1 billion dollars to just 5 million dollars, in 1997.  Keep in mind that the late 90’s, digital wasn’t even a major player yet; film was still king then.  (The Nikon D1 was announced in 1999, had 2.7 megapixels, and cost $5,500.)

So even in the latter days of film, an industry in which Kodak is probably still the most recognized name in the world, there were already warning signs.  Then again, why should they worry?  The world was calling memorable moments “Kodak Moments,” and even Paul Simon had (literally) sung the praises of its most famous slide film, Kodachrome….in 1973, that is.

Like I said, brand loyalty can only carry you for so long, and change is inevitable. Speaking of inevitable change, how did Kodak handle the digital revolution?  Again, the red flags are decades old:

Although Kodak developed a digital camera in 1975, the first of its kind, the product was dropped for fear it would threaten Kodak’s photographic film business.

WHOOPS.  Kodak had the biggest head start in the history of digital imaging, (in fact they owned some of the earliest patents in digital imaging!) …yet they decided to ignore it because (once again) they were too scared to cannibalize their existing “cash cow.”  Sound familiar?

i-VvBMTZv-LNikon FM2, Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AIS, Fuji Velvia 50 Slide Film

Of course this is not the whole story, and there were other factors that eventually brought such a massive corporation to the point of bankruptcy.  Bad management in general played a role.  Then again, it always seems to.  The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

No, I’m not ready to predict doomsday just yet, so don’t start accusing me of writing all this for shock value. Today’s market conditions are not critical just yet, and there is plenty of room for any (or all) of the major players to survive and thrive for many more generations in the world of digital imaging.

However, in my opinion, some changes do need to be made in the current market leaders’ strategies and product lineups, and relatively soon.

[Rewind: Sony A7S Can Record Video At Night As If It Were Broad Daylight!]


Thus, I give you my prediction:  If “the big two” camera makers continue to hold back at their current level with regards to ignoring the popularity of new systems, formats, or technology in general, then one or both of them will inevitably suffer the same fate as Kodak within the next ~10 years.

I know this sounds crazy, and I honestly hope I’m wrong.  Either way, I’m kind of already assuming the best possible outcome, just because I’m an optimistic kind of guy.  I’m just fascinated by these types of discussions.

The Canon 6D, Nikon D800, Sony A7R, and Olympus OM-D.  All relatively professional-grade cameras, yet they differ considerably in features, cost and definitely in size!

[Rewind: Is the DSLR a dying system? – CameraTalk With Matthew Saville]


Canon & Nikon Versus Sony

So far this has been just a bunch of theoretical “jibber-jabber,” as Mr T. would say. As a real-world example, here’s what I think Canon and Nikon must do in the next few years, in relation to what Sony and similar companies are doing:

Compete directly with cameras like the Sony A7R, the new Sony A7S, and the Panasonic GH4.  We need to see a mirrorless Nikon D800 that costs about the same as the D610 and weighs less.  We need mirrorless lenses that offer significant weight and (moderate?) cost savings over current DSLR systems.  (Remember how small 35mm rangefinder lenses were?)

We need to see a mirrorless DX Nikon D5300, with that fantastic 24 MP 1.5x crop sensor, not just the current teeny-tiny 2.7x crop sensors.

We need to see hybrid AF that can be as precise and consistent as contrast-detect is, yet as blazingly fast and reliable in low-light as phase-detect.

And while Nikon has been using Sony sensors for years now and owns many of the top spots on rankings such DXOmark, Canon definitely needs to bring their A-game with regards to sensor performance.  Landscape, editorial, and similar types of photographers are flocking to both the Nikon D800E, and now the Sony A7r. nikon-d800e-vs-sony-a7rSony A7r (left) and Nikon D800E (right)
Same sensor, (almost) yet ~1 lb lighter and ~$1,000 cheaper.

Although it could seriously harm current DSLR sales, I feel that calculated moves are far less damaging in the long run than un-controllable or un-expected market share loss.  By then, it will probably be too late.

Speaking of “by then it’s too late,” one of the main reasons photographers still use traditional DSLRs is quite a valid one: lens selection.  There are tons of DSLR lenses available, and by comparison the Sony E mount has barely any native lenses.

However, this will change far more rapidly than most people think. Third party companies like Rokinon and Sigma often announce new compatibility in large batches, and over the course of a single trade show, a dozen or more lenses might become available natively in a new mount.  Again, by which time it’s almost too late to catch up.

Canon And Nikon Versus Sigma

Speaking of Sigma, talk about an 800lb gorilla! Sigma’s “ART” lens series seem to be rapidly changing everyone’s stereotype about Sigma and third-party lenses in general.  It’s not just about sharpness charts, either.  Sigma’s entire buyer experience is improving rapidly, from the nice padded cases that every EX lens ships in, (far better than any Canon / Nikon padded case!) …to customer service and quality control.



In other words, Sigma has nothing to lose and they’re going full throttle.  It isn’t far-fetched to think that soon Sigma will stop being considered a “third party,” and will become many people’s primary choice across numerous lens mount systems.

Nikon and Canon already have loads of great lenses, but they might want to step up their customer support and some of the other little details that Sigma is using to lure customers away.  We could also use a new Canon 50mm f/1.4 that doesn’t cost a fortune, too.

nikon-df-rokinon-24mmNight Sky & Shooting Star, Canyonlands National Park
Nikon Df, Rokinon 24mm f/1.4, FotoPro C5C Tripod
3-image Vertical Panorama

Canon And Nikon Versus Rokinon

Last but not least, Samyang / Rokinon / Bower are also going full throttle.  Their target market and strategy is definitely very different from Sigma’s, or anyone else’s for that matter, because they’re (currently) 100% manual focus and have relatively cheap construction. Basically, it’s just amazing image quality at an amazing price.

Despite being of average build quality, “Roki-Bow-Yang” already dominates the rapidly growing scene of astro-landscape photography. The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is an expensive behemoth, and both the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L mk2 and Canon 24mm f/1.4 L could almost be described as abysmal for astro-landscape photography, despite their decent general performance.  I won’t even mention the Rokinon Cine lens kit families, a category all by itself offering geared focus and aperture rings for serious movie makers on an indie film budget.


Either way, at the rate they’re selling lenses they (Roki-Bow-Yang) could quickly turn around and fund a serious change in quality, customer service, or whatever they think might help them increase their market share even more.  (Autofocus, anybody?)

What do Nikon and Canon need to do?  I don’t think they’re about to start churning out lenses as affordably made as Rokinon et al. but I think they do need to consider competing a little better on price, and re-making some budget lenses in the same prime ranges.  Canon for example has always been very proud of its L glass lineup, yet the likes of the 28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8,  85mm f/1.8, and 100mm f/2 could really use an update.

Isn’t Competition Good For Business?

How can the likes of Sigma and Rokinon truly pose a threat to Canon and Nikon?  There is currently more than enough room in the industry for everyone, and a certain level of healthy competition is always good for business. It keeps each company from sitting back and relaxing too much, that’s what the whole “leapfrog” game is about.  Canon and Nikon have safely been leapfrogging each other for many camera generations now, despite Canon being a far, far larger company than Nikon.

While competition is indeed good for business, a perfect storm of new technology and newcomers in the industry can still happen.  If Sigma, Sony, Panasonic, Rokinon et al. keep going at their current speed and direction, and if Canon and Nikon stick to their current systems, we’re in for one of those perfect storms indeed.

Anyway, now you have a pretty good idea of what I think our near future could hold.  2014 and 2015 in particular will be very interesting, because we’ll see how the industry responds to all these new cameras that have really begun to hit their stride in the last year or so.


To wrap things up,‘s article on “Disruptive Technology” is similarly thought-provoking.  I think Roger Cicala sums it up very nicely in this quote:

History suggests two things pretty strongly. The first is that when change comes, people invested in the status quo (that would be us photographers when discussing the photography market) have a strong desire to deny it. Things have never been better. There is no need for change. And this is a stupid change that nobody would ever want. Well, nobody who is serious about photography would want it.

The second thing history suggests is that there’s no accurate way to guess which companies are going to thrive and which will fail during a time of disruption. If being first were a huge advantage, we’d all be shooting Minolta digital SLRs. If being the biggest or most profitable were a huge advantage, we’d all be shooting Kodak or Polaroid. Sometimes biggest is really a disadvantage. As they say, it takes a long time to turn a battleship.

So, dear Nikon and Canon:  Please don’t fall into this mindset!  It would be a shame to see either company have a significant decline in the next 5-10 years.

Why do I care?  After all, it’s just a bunch of large corporations making cameras.  If another company comes along and makes a better camera, then how is that a loss for me?  It’s not like Nikon will give me free access to new technology they develop in 2 years- I’m going to have to pay for it one way or another.  And to be honest, I don’t care too much what the name on the front of the camera says.  (Otherwise I’d be shooting a Leica or a Hasselblad, right?)

So, the answer to the question “why do I care?” is simple:  I like where the buttons are.

I’m used to the system I have. To me, comfort and familiarity are huge reasons to stick with (and root for) the system I’ve already invested a decade or more of my life into getting acquainted with.  Unfortunately though, they’re not big enough reasons.  The geek inside me is happy to learn a new interface, and adopt a new system.  Eventually.

Take care, and happy clicking,

This site contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links, however, this does not impact accuracy or integrity of our content.

Matthew Saville is a full-time wedding photographer at Lin & Jirsa Photography, and a senior editor & writer at SLR Lounge.

Follow his personal wilderness adventures:

See some of his latest wedding photography featured on:

Q&A Discussions

Please or register to post a comment.

  1. Ken Edwards

    I just got a Sony A6000 with the Zeiss 16-70 F4 lens. Had it a week now and have put all my Canon gear up on ebay. I will probably go for an A7r with the 24-70 F4 next year. The image quality of the A6000 is so much better than my old EOS 50D that I decided to sell. I was actually only buying the A6000 to replace my old Canon G11 as my carry around camera.

    | |
  2. Veselin Gramatikov

    Hi everybody from Bulgaria.
    Nice article so far.
    I start before 5-6 years with Nikon d80, d90, d300 and then switching to Canon gear 7d, 400 5.6L, 300 2.8 IS L.
    I`m wildlife photographer and for me Canon have better super telephoto gear than anyone at this moment.
    Their 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 800, 200-400 mk ii lenses are best telephoto lenses you can buy.
    These reflects a lot of sport and wildlife photographers and video makers.
    So why nobody discuss that?
    There will be long time before mirror less will be capable of that or even other brands dslr systems like Sony, Pentax or bigger formats.
    There still no good mirror less af with telephoto lens in continue mode. I speak for above 200/300mm lens.
    No usability with teleconverters and so one….

    Mirrorless cameras are still weak performers.They are usable only for second body`s or systems. No professional needs and hardwork.

    About lenses. Sigma art are good optics. Still not proven like durability and they still have a lot of af problems cause they are third party. Still they need long time to proven. Still no telephoto lenses from any third party company. Where is 300, 400, 500, 600, 800 from sigma, tokina or tamron.
    You are all hurry to much with the opinions. There are no only landscape and portrait photographers out there. Yes they can not sell 100.000 600mm f/4 lenses but one is 15.000$ so these have big profitability for the companies like Canon and Nikon.

    Still we have to watch the market. It`s too early for switching systems and deadlines.

    | |
  3. Rick Hemi

    Its a debate that no-one can determine or what will eventuate in the future and to be honest who really cares as long as the choice of equipment that one uses is reliable every time its used. Reliability is my concern and investment! Mirrorless systems and 3rd party lenses no matter what brand name are still unpredictable for the long haul. I cart approx. 24kg of Nikon gear over-land through the sub-continents of Africa, South America, Asia & the Middle East – I need equipment that works unconditionally without compromise within any chosen environment. I wouldn’t trust a mirror-less system in the middle of nowhere, one drop and its history! The Nikon gear I’ve been using has proven more than enough without any issues or failure! so for the time being I’m content with Heavy DSLR bodies & lenses capturing 100’s of images daily in dusty, cold, hot & extreme environments.

    | |
  4. Sergio p

    Rey well written, loved the article, I own mostly canon but just got the GH4 and I’m about to jump ALL IN,

    | |
  5. Ralph Hightower

    I don’t know if Canon and Nikon will continue, but they’ve been producing cameras since the 1930’s. I think the rivalry will continue as had the rivalry between Ford and Chevrolet. Yes, Kodak is no longer the company that it was; they also branched into many different businesses: ink-jet printers/ink is a cut-throat business.

    In researching what my first DSLR would be, I ran into “analysis paralysis”. Now, I never considered Nikon as a purchase since I have been using a Canon film camera (A-1) for 34 years; yes, I would need to invest in a new lens mount.

    But this is an “arms race” with Canon and Nikon trying to out-megapixel each other and out-feature the other every 3 to 6 months. As soon as one purchased a new camera, it would be obsolete by the new model; this practice is similar to Detroit’s “Planned Obsolescence”. The rumor sites don’t help with the purchase decisions either with “Should I Buy or Should I Wait?”

    In the film era, Nikon and Canon used 10 year upgrade cycles on their pro cameras.

    I bought a Canon 5D III, but I will also buy Kodak Alaris film for use in my A-1 and F-1N.

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Kodak became a giant in the industry too, but still managed to somehow fail. Maybe you’re right though, maybe Canon and Nikon will be the ones that just refuse to die, and Sony will be the one that eventually burns out. Who knows!


      | |
  6. Randy Black

    I agree that both companies are risking missing the boat. Nikon continues to ignore integrating WiFi into their upper tier cameras (without the required plug-in module) and Canon is very silent about innovation presently. Strategically their silence speaks volumes. If you even remotely had something in the pipeline or were in development wouldn’t you leak that information to create some interest and possibly give some consumers a reason to hesitate purchasing new equipment?

    And as for KODAK, I remember driving to work in the late 80’s early 90’s listening to the radio when they reported that at the annual meeting the then CEO was asked about the future of digital imaging was in KODAK and he responded that he didn’t see that digital imaging would play much of a role in KODAK’s future and did not anticipate much of a financial impact looking forward. That day the market savaged KODAK as the stock plummeted. The next day the CEO was fired. KODAK never recovered.

    Big corporations, like big ships may be hard to turn around. But they can sink quickly.

    | |
  7. Jim Laubach

    You’re dreaming. Nikon and Canon will still be the two systems professionals turn to for years to come. To paraphrase a politician, “It’s the glass, stupid.” It’s not about nice padded lens cases. It’s that Nikon and Canon have the best lenses by far. The best glass, coupled with the best photographers, makes the best photos.

    | |
    • Mike

      How are you measuring “best”?

      | |
    • Matthew Saville


      If consumers are two things, they are fickle and gullible. Don’t underestimate the power of things like the fact that Canon tries stupid things like making dedicated lens hoods an aftermarket purchase for certain lenses. Yeah, a lot of Canon lenses do come with hoods, but others don’t.

      Simply put: Good customer service, quality repair / support, and included accessories or innovative options (like that Sigma lens dock!) will DEFINITELY have an effect on the sales of the big two. It might not be a death blow, but it will be a dent that hurts at least.

      And if you think Canon has the best lenses by far, period, well I dunno what to say to that really. Wider than 50mm, Canon lenses are consistently the WORST with respect to sharpness, especially edges / corners. They can’t make a superb ultra-wide zoom for the life of them, and practically every third-party f/1.4 prime on the market is sharper than its Canon competition.

      What DOES Canon glass have going for itself? Sharp telephoto glass, and bokeh. Hooray. Oh, and the new 24-70 mk2 is flawless, but that just barely makes up for how long the sad, sad mk1 was around.

      | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Clearly also, Jim Laubach, you haven’t used any OTHER glass at all lately? Nothing from Rokinon, Sigma, Zeiss, Fuji, Tamron, Tokina, and others? They are all producing incredible glass and many are offering options that Canon and Nikon simply don’t have the ability to compete with due to their being stuck in an existing business philosophy of up-selling and elitism.

      I already know numerous full-time pros who shoot 100% Tamron or Sigma or Rokinon etc. etc. glass, in everything from weddings to astro-landscapes.

      So yes, “it’s the glass, stupid” indeed! But you’re still going to wind up being wrong, eventually.

      | |
  8. Mario

    I have the feeling we are missing something here. There are two worlds in photography in my view, and the DSLR types usually enjoy working with the settings our gear have, take photography more as a trade, in other words we have the tendency to actually work with the equipment, not using Auto for everything (I’m not being condescending here, OK?) and the new cameras are filling the space point-and-shot cameras are/were before the advent of smartphones.
    What I would like to see from Canon is lower prices in their lenses, I’ve never used anything other than Canon lens but if I ever get my hands on say, some Sigma or Tamron ones that offer better quality for the same price I don’t see why I shouldn’t but them. I say better quality because same as Canon wouldn’t be enough to change.

    | |
  9. Pompo Bresciani

    In my opinion Canon being the large company that it is, with ramifications in other business weakens its strength, it doesn’t make it stronger. They *may think* they ‘ll eventually survive financially, even is DSLRs sales will drop instead of having them on red alert to get off their butts and get back in the game ASAP.

    Yes indeed the big innovation was the 5D Mark II and since then they just slightly improved the sensor with the mark III and the 1DX and 6D… I sure hope they step up once again and come out with a a KILLER mirror less and some incredible sensor improvements within the next 12 months.

    | |
  10. Patrick Murphy-Racey

    I can remember when Quark Express was king. Then, just a year or so after they released their “new improved” version that was buggy, crashed all the time, and was utterly un-needed, Adobe InDesign took over in record time. Now, instead of editing in FCP, which was great, now FCPX is in the throes of death as I am learning Adobe Premiere. I’ve been either Nikon or Canon since I started as a pro back in 1986. I look for any excuse to shoot the A7, RX10, and now the tiny little A6000. It’s cool to look forward to my back not hurting “the day after” my wedding shoots… Get a clue Canon and Nikon, or you won’t be the “big two” for long… Great post man! pm-r

    | |
  11. Sean Smith

    I think that the landscape of lenses is going to really change in the next generation. There is a growing demographic of high level enthusiasts that are going to look at the Sigma Art line as the lenses to aspire to instead of the ‘L’ or ‘Zeiss’ glass that holds that position right now. If someone can get better performance out of a lens for half the price why wouldn’t they jump at that. Canon and Nikon are going to have to rethink their lenses in a hurry.

    | |
    • Mike

      A couple of good lenses from Sigma isn’t making me re-think how I buy lenses. Sigma doesn’t have the lineup of either Nikon or Canon and they likely won’t. I’m buying the new Sigma 50, but they don’t have anything to compete with most of the Nikon lineup.

      Can I replace a 14-24? What about a 400mm f/2.8? 800mm? Tilt shift?

      Sigma makes nice lenses, but they have a LONG way to go before they displace Nikon or Canon in terms of a full line up.

      Also, the 50mm I’m buying is still $1000 and a lot of people would buy a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 for a QUARTER

      | |
    • Mike

      Meant to say a QUARTER of the price of the Sigma. So Nikon and Canon have a much bigger selection and cheaper (though still great) options.

      | |
  12. Mike

    Mirrorless bodies are likely the way of the future, and Canon/Nikon will certainly need to enter the market with their own offerings at some point. They don’t need to panic and jump right now though, they do have some time. Anyone saying Nikon is dead because Sony has a full frame mirrorless body isn’t looking at the big picture.

    Let’s also note that Sony wasn’t the first with a full frame mirrorless body, they just made it more affordable.

    Further, even though the A7r and D800 share a similar sensor the D800 still outperforms the Sony in image quality. This is primarily due to Sony’s poor implementation of RAW files. Let’s also not forget the lens selection, where Sony is seriously lacking.

    I love that Sony came out with the A7 series, they are great cameras which will certainly challenge Nikon and Canon to respond. I have no doubt that they will, so I’ll patiently wait for my mirrorless 56mp D900 :)

    | |
  13. Tristan L

    For me the debate should be centered around mirror vs mirrorless. SLR where a great invention enabling the camera operator to see the light through the lens the same way (or close enough) as the film will receive it at shutter time. Mirror is the concept, and many declinaison of it where made to accomodate metering and AF.
    Then digital arrived and replaced the film by a digital back at first and then integrated sensor, image processor and mirror /mount in a more optimized way. In that process it seems that one lost sight of that the reason d’ètre of the mirror was due to the impossibility to look at the film to check the picture on the spot.
    As the sensor and image processor progress (CMOS technology being at the center of almost everything digital as probably millions of engineers dedicated to improve it.) the speed of scanning and in parallel the progress in screen rendition technology made the EVF the natural, obvious and ultimatly definitive way to look at what will or was captured by the sensor. That progress is here to stay and the mechanical complexity of mirror based camera will be what will kill DSLR on the short to medium run.
    Yes one can adapt is vision to really capture in his/her brain what the final product will be but then I will ask why so much post processing if the OVF scene capture is so vastly superior to the EVF one?
    That said if Nikon and Canon do not enter the mirrorless market seriously they will be crush by their fabrication cost and the perceived quality problem induce by the very mechanical nature of the mirror technology (the r in slr…).
    More over what we have today is not quite digital it is more analogic with a backend digital processing. The next revolution lies in a true digital capture at the sensor not a mere analog to digital conversion with all its caveats in term of noise and DR .

    | |
    • Joe

      There’s also a point to be made on how well Fuji listens to customers while Nikon really takes the bottom rating on that front with Canon somewhat better. I’m waiting to see how Sony behaves and how responsive it is to its client base. I would go Fuji all the way if I could get good/dslr type AF, which a6000 may have be closest to. My FF upgrades are on hold for now.

      | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Joe, it may seem like Nikon “doesn’t listen” in certain consumer polls, but in my opinion they still wind up making THE EXACT CAMERA I WANT. I have lost count of the times they’ve released a lens or a body, and I’ve thought “omg that’s exactly what I was hoping they’d make! And it’s not crippled / gimped in a really dumb way, either, they didn’t hold back!”

      …Meanwhile, the list of features / that I was shouting and yelling that Canon desperately needed to add to their camera bodies, let alone lenses they desperately need, …goes relatively un-addressed.


      | |
  14. Alashisan

    You can bet that Nikon and Canon have mirrorless cameras in the works, and that they intend to compete in a big way with the current leaders in mirrorless. I have gotten rid of my 2 Canon FF cameras and embraced mirrorless, in particular MFT. I may not stay there forever, but for now, size and cost attract me, as does image quality. No, it’s not up to FF capability (yet), but then, the results are sill good enough for weddings! And, my landscapes are fine too. Moreover, I know it will get a lot better as smaller sensors come to rival the best FF sensors now. Anyway, the big two are not unaware of the trend and you can be sure that within a 10 year time frame, the DSLR will fade into the sunset for all camera manufacturers. That is, they will become special purpose at best. I think the Kodak failure is not lost on them either, as both of them got very serious with digital right away.

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      As always, I think it comes down to DOF and ISO. The lenses will come, and fill any need for focal ranges.

      If you don’t need absurdly shallow DOF and absurdly high ISOs, then APS-C and MFT mirrorless cameras are really hitting their stride these days….

      | |
  15. Joe

    Great article and on point. I’m just waiting for the next Sony lineup to jump ship from Nikon for a lot of reasons but here’s a simple one that the pros just scoff at. Here it is, why is it that my iphone can do better face detection than any Nikon? Yes, a newb technology that no ‘pro’ would ever use…until you see how well it works at weddings and how quickly the company cranks out new models. The last step is waiting for an equal or near equal line or Tamron/Sigma lenses and I’m in. Goodbye Canikon!

    If I could get a Fuji X-T1 with the AF out of a Sony A6000 I would just buy them and a 7/7R and be done with it.

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Joe, FYI we’re currently testing the A6000 out, I just used it the past couple days in a wedding environment.

      While on the one hand I really love it, on the other hand I am overwhelmed by the “so close, and yet so far” feel of the controls, customizability, and overall performance.”

      Sony has a lot of things going right for them, but mirrorless tech is still FAR from replacing even my ~6 year old D700, lol. Oh well, it’s still a fantastic camera in general!


      | |
  16. Albert E

    I have always been under the mindset that the 2 monsters Canon/Nikon better take note cuz I wanna know where my mighty $ is going to be spent next….TY Matt for spelling out what I have been thinking….

    | |
  17. Chas

    Time to get away from the old manufacturing philosophy:
    “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
    and into the new technological philosophy:
    “If it works, it’s obsolete”.

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Chas, I would slightly adjust your astute observation on technological philosophy to instead say:

      “If it works smoothly without any bugs, it’s probably obsolete!”

      A shame, really, that we MUST move at such a fast pace. I wish I could just pick a tool that I’m comfortable with, and spend a few years with it without worrying about “keeping up” with everything else.

      In other words, would a Sony A7S completely revolutionize my astro-landscape shooting world? Sure. But there are so many things for me to do and see, I’d rather take my time and go at my own pace. I guess nobody is FORCING me to upgrade.


      | |
  18. Barb

    If I were going to buy right now, it would be a Sony but I’m not… so the big two have a couple of years to get into the game and get my cash. IMO, small systems are the future.

    | |
  19. Yannick

    Great article! I don’t think Canon & Nikon are done yet, but if they’re not move in 2014/2015 it will get uncomfortable for them. I’m not a pro, but an enthusiast. I’ve swapped all my Canon entry DSLR gear for an Olympus E-P5 because image quality is the same. Size does very much matter to me and the mirrorless cameras just play in another league there. In addition premium lenses are more affordable.

    Currently I would bet on Sony, they have had always great sonsors and they now have access to even more mirrorless technology simce they partnered with Olympus last year.

    | |
  20. Dave

    canon seems more worried about video and gimmicks than imagining so I could careless about what they do. As a landscape guy their cameras are next to worthless to me… crappy dr, low IQ, how they turn browns into freakish reds… no thanks!

    Nikon’s had it’s bumps but unless you’re completely anal it’s not too bad but everyone seems to ignore the other brands “issues” for whatever reason.

    All these lil “techie” photographers are making such a big deal out of mirrorless being “better” because they are smaller… really??!! lol I remember years ago reading about adding the battery grip to camera just to add weight because the weight made it easier to hold steady which I FULLY agree with. I’m 6’3″ 240 and i don’t want a dainty lil teacup of a camera to wobble around in my hands. Funny how all these years the heavy camera guys criticized the cheap plastic bodies of the low end because of their low weight are now touting it as better lol. If i can’t get thru a day holding a reg dslr without whining about weight then I’ll man up and go to the gym.

    At the end of the day the few hundred people that whine on these sites get squashed by the millions who don’t worry about it and just buy what they like (or think they like) and go take pictures. Hell canon makes a “new model(5t)” and uses ancient parts and that camera will probably outsell all the mirrorless combined in the USA this year… go figure.

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Interesting reply, Dave, and thanks for it.

      I agree with you regarding weight / heft: I personally decided recently that, at least for the purposes of travel and landscapes, I didn’t need to lug around a massive pro-grade full-frame DSLR. Yes, it feels great in my hand and balances well with a pro zoom or prime, for weddings and portraits, however if all I’m doing is carrying it around in a backpack and then locking it onto a tripod, why NOT save a pound or three?

      But you know what? I didn’t go out and buy a mirrorless camera, I went out and bought a crop-sensor DSLR, the Nikon D5300. And to be quite honest, I can’t imagine too many situations in which I might actually need something smaller than that. Sure, a mirrorless setup akin to the Nikon D5300 might save me a few ounces or a little bit of space. I bet the Sony A6000 (same 24 MP sensor) turns out to be just that.

      But I like how the D5300 feels, I don’t NEED something smaller, at least not just marginally smaller.

      | |
    • Matthew Saville

      I think, however, that the main difference for me comes not in the size / weight advantage, but in the technology and innovation that comes with the package. For example, Nikon and Canon (to the best of my knowledge) have yet to offer things like focus peaking, live histograms, live AF 100% auto-zooming, etc. All of these things which are readily available on numerous mirrorless systems. That, and new lenses like the Rokinon 12mm f/2 and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 for mirrorless and crop systems are offering really cool options in technology in general.

      So, that’s where Nikon and Canon need to compete. Innovation. I’m not expecting something crazy like a 24-70 f/2 that magically weighs just one ounce more than the f/2.8. But maybe a 24-50 f/1.8?I’ve always been a prime guy anyways, I’d buy that instead of a 24-70, or a 24, 35, or 50 prime. Or how about a 16-20 f/1.8, or a 16-24 f/2.0? I dunno, but please do “bring it on”, Nikon & Canon!


      | |
    • Ironymous

      Have to agree with you about that “mirrorless is smaller” thing. Maybe the bodies are, but have you seen the lenses? Look at the ridiculous NEX with its couple of small lenses, and DSLR sized complement otherwise.

      What are lenses with honking filter diameters of 58mm and 67mm doing on a Sony A7 or Fuji XE1 that justifies them being called small? The Pentax KR I used to have with the DA pancake lenses were smaller.

      And the Fuji’s supposed “portrait” f1.4 lens — which is really just a normal 50mm — is about AS BIS AS my ACTUAL 85mm 1.8 EF lens! And my 50mm 1.4 is SMALLER that the “mirrorless” Fuji!

      Mirrorless from Olympus and Panasonic, now those I can get. Because m43 was _designed_ as a digital format. But let’s not kid ourselves that mirrorless as a category is in any way smaller than APS-C DSLRs. Hell, with the 50mm 1.4 on, the Canon 6D is no more bigger or heavier than the Fuji XT1 with its “portrait” lens.

      And I say this as an owner of mirrorless cameras (Ricoh GXR, Canon EOS-M, Olympus EP-1). I would never touch anything from Sony or Fuji — I might as well save money and buy a small DSLR system.

      | |
  21. Austin

    I think a great deal of us , whether we like to think so or not, are creatures of habit and stubborn behavior. We like what we like and we try to justify liking what we like whether it’s good, bad, or just okay. Some of us, including myself, also like to stay “brand loyal” because that’s what we grew up with, it’s what our parents bought, we like the look of the product, or we just like staying in our comfort zone. It kind of reminds me of the book “who moved my cheese?” about the mouse who was too afraid to try new things.

    A lot of people in response to this article have bashed Sony, Olympus, Fuji, etc because they want to justify their choice to stay with Canikon, and that is fine, nobody is going to force anyone to switch just because the “big two” haven’t innovated in a while like the other brands, but I think that it’s a mistake to write other brands off just because they haven’t made cameras for decades.

    Going back to Matthew’s example of DxOMark’s scores for example in terms of sensor performance, I found out that Sony’s higher end cameras like the a7, a7r, rx1, and rx1r beat out every single Canon camera (period) and almost all Nikon cameras with the exception of the d800 and d600 models, which turn out to have Sony made sensors in them. It made me totally re-think Sony.

    My point is that we should be willing to try new things if what we have isn’t working or it turns out that there is something a lot better/more convenient out there.

    | |
  22. GJS

    Well written article. This is a conversation/discussion that is happening at present, from one side of the planet to the other. Nikon & Canon really need to be paying some serious attention. Sitting on your track record is not going to sustain any business, let alone one that is so locked into technological advancement and innovation. Sigma, Sony, Olympus etc are gathering momentum, the big two could ignore this or look at it as a minor irritant, if that is/remained there stance it will be to their peril. As you have stated, the history is there for all to see.

    | |
  23. Dan Bissonnette

    Olympus? Is anyone going to trust them again after they completely abandoned their entire SLR customer base in the mid-1980s? Yeah. Whew. I’m just *dying* to base my photography business around a company that panicked during the autofocus revolution and threw its’ customers to the wolves.

    Sony? Gimme a break. They make electronic gimcracks. They’re about as serious as nothing.

    Canon and Nikon have *nothing* to worry about.

    | |
    • Stephen

      Don’t forget giving up on 4/3s for M4/3.

      | |
    • Nick

      You probably missed this part of the article:

      “And while Nikon has been using Sony sensors for years now and owns many of the top spots on rankings such DXOmark,…”

      So Nikon cameras (e.g D800) use gimcracks for (top rated) sensors according to you?

      …Gimme a break

      | |
    • Tim Lucas

      So Sony are about as serious as nothing huh? I would wager that most of the TV shows and movies you watch were shot with Sony equipment. They make the very best digital imaging sensors which is why Nikon (National Geographic’s choice) SLR’s use them. Not to mention, Sony are WAY ahead in the mirrorless space which, if you don’t see as they future, you have your blinders on!

      With regards to Olympus, they teamed up with Panasonic to produce a lens / mount system which currently has the largest offering in the mirrorless space. I don’t think they are going anywhere anytime soon.

      | |
  24. John Caz

    I couldn’t have written this analysis better myself nor did I ever imagine someone else was thinking the same predictions as myself! Excellent writeup

    I would only add that where you predict that maybe Nikon and Canon may slip in the next decade, i see Nikon being the one to slip out of existence. Apart from everything else you pointed out about the volatile photographic market, Nikon has a problem with finding a partner to supply “good” sensor technology. Sony seems to be closing the door and Aptiva isn’t showing anything promising. If Nikon goes with Toshiba (as I am hearing) for their next gen of cameras, then this may be one of the first signs of their downfall, who know?

    | |
    • Stephen

      Nikon is the only thing keeping Sony making sensors. There is no issue with Nikon getting sensors from Sony. Sonys sensor dept does not care who they sell there sensors to. Be it Nikon there biggest customer, Sony, Olympus, or Pentax.

      | |
    • Matthew Saville

      John Caz, I’m very curious to hear more about why you think Sony is “closing the doors” to Nikon with sensors! Right now almost the entire Nikon sensor lineup is Sony, from the D800 to the D3300. Sony seems to be quite comfortable with its profits in sensor sales, period!


      | |
  25. Colin

    This kind of stuff happens all the time in history, and I totally agree and see canon/nikon failing soon if they don’t wake up. I have been a nikon guy since the beginning and pretty much stopped buying nikon gear since the d800 was released. I have multiple d700 bodies and am happy with them, but have recently been bitten by the x-virus (fuji). It is not quite ready for prime time for me… tho I have not tested the xt1. but the lenses are fantastic and probably as sharp and sharper than any nikon glass I have used… even the “lackluster” 18mm f2 lens is awesome and super cheep and super lightweight. BTW. Nikon where is your 18mm f2 crop lens? sorry for the rant there.

    Anyways, why no fuji love in the article. Honestly, if I were to place bets on one of the “little guys” my money would be on fuji. They may not have the best cameras out right now, but they have it where it counts. They have been making photographers cameras and they have been actually listening to them. I can’t ask for more than that.

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      Colin with me there is definitely no need to apologize for ranting about Nikon’s complete disinterest in supporting pro-grade / specialty DX lenses! I think it is a crying shame that Nikon gave up after the 17-55 2.8 DX and decided to never give us a 50-150 2.8 or 11-17 2.8, like they ought to have done. If they had released both of those lenses within a year of releasing the 17-55, they could have profited significantly before FX was even a blip on their radar.

      I think what happened was, Nikon panicked with respect to pro DX support when they realized just how desperately they needed to start working on the D3, and they threw their entire R&D into making the D3 and D300 the two market champions. But even then, ironically, I wound up sticking with the D300 for many years before getting a D700, and it served me well. Still does, actually. As does my Sigma 50-150 2.8, and my Tokina 11-16. You’ll have to pry those lenses from my cold dead hands, even though I do also use FX gear for when it is required. (And sadly, my Nikon 17-55 was stolen… Man that was a fantastic kit for a fraction of what it’d cost (and weigh!) in FX form…

      | |
  26. Stephen

    Have you bothered looking at sales figures in the biggest market? dSLRs out sell Mirrorless by orders of magnitude. The people that fuel the market don’t care about the latest Fuji or Leica Mirrorless camera they want the camera that makes them look like the guy on the sidelines of an NFL game. And if you haven’t noticed that’s nikon and Canon. Now I agree with you that they both desperately need to innovate. More so Canon but they both need to do something interesting without alienating there existing customers.

    | |
    • Ryan

      I agree, more or less, though without Medium Format coming down in price and with companies like Sigma slowly improving their own DSLR lines we may quickly find that all those guys on the sidelines are shooting with medium format CMOS sensors or Foveons and the masses will turn to follow.

      Personally I don’t really think they need to innovate so much is that they need to crank their quality up while lowering their prices.

      For example: The Sigma 35mm F1.4 isn’t an innovative lens, fast 35mm lenses have existed for decades, What Sigma did was come out with a lens that exceeds the quality either Nikon or Canon can offer and at a lower price.

      Traditionally the higher prices from the big two have been because they offered higher quality than third party competitors, times have changed, it now doesn’t make sense to buy Canon or Nikon glass when you can get better performing, higher quality, glass for cheaper with a much better warranty from companies like Sigma or Tamron.

      | |
    • Mike

      Not quite orders of magnitude, if you are to believe Thom Hogan. His thoughts for the market overall:

      Compacts: 28-30m units (CIPA forecast is 33.8m)
      Mirrorless: 2.8-3m units
      DSLRs: 10m units (CIPA forecast for Mirrorless+DSLR is 14.2m units)

      So at best you are looking at 3.5 to 1 for DSLR to mirrorless sales, which is not even ONE order of magnitude let alone “orders”.

      | |
    • Justin

      It goes further then that. The latest numbers show that not only are DSLR sales head and shoulders above mirrorless, but that the divide isn’t changing. If anything, DSLR sales are increasing against mirrorless.

      Which isn’t to suggest that this won’t change, but every time I read one of these “mirrorless to kill DSLR” I always ask why they never produce any actual sales numbers ?

      | |
    • Tom K

      That’s always what technology markets look like before a drastic transformation: a few established market leaders that are releasing mostly evolutionary products that are just minor refreshes of what they shipped a few years before. (See: “The Innovator’s Dilemma”) They get too comfortable and too well-adjusted to the current market landscape, and then a small competitor with no interest in maintaining the status quo comes in with a radically different product design that disrupts everything. The incumbents fail to adjust fast enough, have heavily invested in the old paradigm, and get crushed.

      If you look at it closely, it’s even more exactly what we have here: usually the new design is dismissed as “a toy” or “amateurish” or “cheap” when it first arrives. But as its capabilities continues to increase, it steals more and more of the market because it has other attributes that are highly valued, like low price or small size. The dSLR makers have optimized for quality over size, and that’s great, but when quality get high enough other parameters start to become what people make purchase decisions based on (like size, weight, price, or features) because the quality of all the products has exceeded their requirements.

      | |
  27. Ryan

    Honestly, I pretty much agree, as a former Nikon enthusiast I have been getting more and more frustrated with Nikon’s inability keep up. Given that everything they have released since the D800 has been lacklustre and expensive. For my business I’ve completely gone over to Sigma now for all my lens purchases, I feel that any investment in Nikon glass at this point is not only a waste of money but a poor investment. Nikon’s earning numbers have been terrible over the last few years, if they keep down this path there won’t even be a Nikon for much longer, at least by buying Sigma glass I can swap out all the mounts when I ultimately have to move to another camera system.

    Canon I’d say has been doing a bit better and has a lot more of a cushion given that they are so much larger of a company. I feel like their rumoured Medium Format offering may help them a lot if it undercuts all the other Medium Format competitors while still delivering Medium Format quality but overall they haven’t been putting out stellar released either.

    Honestly, if Sigma gets their shit together with their DSLR line and brings it up to the quality of these new ART lenses I think we may see a LOT of people switching to Foveon sensor bodies. I certainly would, especially if Sigma came out and said something like: “Buy our new and improved pro DSLR and we will swap the mounts on all your sigma lenses for free”

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      ROFL, Ryan, I’m kinda shocked to hear this because I’ve felt the exact opposite is true. Canon is floundering with DSLRs while Nikon has been the reigning champ for years. Sure, they’re still the lead seller and have a great cushion of time to use up without even remotely threatening collapse. However a quick glance at sensor ranking stats like on DXOMark will show that Canon is abysmally lacking. I think they barely hold one or two of the top ten spots for overall sensor rank, (the other 8-9 sensors being all Sony, I think) …and the last time I checked the dynamic range rankings in particular, I think Canon’s best sensor DR was in, um, FORTIETH PLACE? Something pretty depressing like that, I’m not sure exactly.

      Meanwhile, Nikon has hit home runs with everything except the D600, which was just another skeleton for the closet, not a true sign of bad direction. (Just like the Canon 1D mk3’s AF fiasco, or the 5D “classic” mirror box falling out, etc.)

      The D800 is getting old, true, but that’s just because we’re still in between product cycles for a DSLR of that class. Historically speaking, nobody has EVER released new DSLRs in that price range more frequently than we are currently “sitting around waiting”. In fact the waiting time between the Canon 5D and 5D mk2 and 5D mk3 was pretty abysmal, and it wasn’t even until the 5D mk3 that Canon decided to use the same AF system as their flagships, something which Nikon has made a habit out of since 2007 with the sub-$2K D300.

      I could go on, but that’s the general idea. Of course I can see how in many ways Canon is innovating much more than Nikon, especially WRT video, and oh Nikon hasn’t gotten on the bandwagon of touchscreens in beginner DSLRs just yet. But then again they offer dual card slots and no AA filters in many more DSLRs than Canon does, and there’s no way I’d trade a touchscreen for either of those features…

      | |
    • JT

      I also must disagree with the comments about Canon doing better than Nikon. I think if anyone is to go under first it will be Canon, they just cant compete. The only thing that has kept me using Canon brand is their lens. But now with Sigma producing amazing (and cheaper) lenses I am contemplating making the switch to Nikon and just investing in Sigma glass. I think Canon knows they are screwed so they are setting up shop in the medium-format business. I wonder how long that will last until Sony or Nikon jump on the band wagon and do a better job.

      | |
    • Matthew Saville

      JT while I believe that Canon is way behind Nikon in the DSLR quality game right now, there is still very little chance that Canon would “go under” before Nikon would, mainly because Canon is a far larger company as a whole than Nikon. Not only does Canon still take top spots the market, but they also have other branches of their corporation that are global and doing well, as far as I know. Maybe Canon’s imaging / digital camera division is much more of a separate entity than I am assuming, and they could “fail” without it affecting the rest of the Canon corporation? Like I said I’m no market analyst or guru of executive happenings.

      In other words, I think that both Canon and Nikon are still in a good position to “survive” the next digital revolution, whatever it is. Canon has an incredible history of leap-frogging its competition in very big ways. (Although I’d argue that zero notable “leapfrogs” have occurred since the Canon 5D mk2’s video capabilities, which was what, 2007/8?) I think that any year now, they’re going to rocket past everyone with a few carefully calculated camera / system developments.

      Nikon on the other hand, although they are the current DSLR sensor IQ champion, (and therefore, so is Sony) …has not shown signs of being very strong in the last ~1 year. The D7100, D5300, and D610 were all strong cameras, don’t get me wrong. In fact they were all the perfect camera for staying almost completely on top of the competition WRT traditional DSLR design. But that “WRT traditional DSLR design” is the caveat. Sony’s non-traditional DSLRs, such as the A99, are showing lots of promise when compared to the same-sensor (sorta) D610.

      And right when we needed a “true D700 replacement” …we got the Df, and rumors of a D800s / D800x.

      Like my faith in Canon, I do still have faith in Nikon. I think they’re just a D9300 away from “completing” their masterpiece of a DSLR lineup. (Despite a lack of a D700 replacement. At this point though the DX 24 MP sensor is so dang good, I’d happily take a D400 (D9300?) as a replacement to the D700 anyways, actually.)

      Once Nikon feels like their current lineup is complete, they do have a history of focusing very keenly on the next big thing, and doing it slowly, but RIGHT.

      In other words, Sony might get 4-5 cameras into their A7 series, and Nikon could kill them all with a single camera. Nikon’s history of “slow but steady wins the race” has always treated them well, and made their users very happy.


      | |
    • Ryan

      In all honesty the D800 is really Nikon’s saving grace, in the last 5-6 years it is the only product they have released that I have been impressed with. And really the D800 isn’t great for any other reason than that sensor which is made by Sony, not Nikon.

      Swap out that sensor and the D800 really isn’t all the impressive. I shoot with one all the time and love the camera but it has many flaws as well.

      Other than that, what have they come out with that is even remotely impressive?

      You mentioned the D600 fiasco.
      The Nikon Df is cool but hardly practical.
      The D4s is cool but nothing more than an incremental upgrade.
      The D7100 is a good camera but also just an incremental upgrade.
      The 58mm F1.4 was finally a decent pro fifty for them but Sigma’s new 50 looks even better at a much lower price.
      The new 35mm F1.8 seems ok, but compared to Sigma’s 35mm it is sorely lacking.

      Maybe I have just become jaded but I just don’t understand Nikon’s decisions of late. It seems like they are floundering and falling farther and farther behind. But really I can see why their sales numbers are spiralling downward, they aren’t selling anything I want right now.

      | |
  28. Tom Marvel

    Two words: General Motors

    | |
    • Yann

      and nokia.

      | |
    • Matthew Saville

      You know, I searched very very hard to find an article that I read somewhere (I think it was LensRentals) about “a tale of two companies” where they described exactly what is going on right now, and then at the end instead of it being Canon and Nikon they said “the two companies, of course, are GM and Ford”…


      | |
  29. Rick

    I say no. Simply because these companies continue to leap frog each other over time.

    For example, for me it was all initially all about Sony for camcorders. But once HD came out, they did goofy things like framing at 1440×1080 and sticking with hard drives. I then moved to Canon where I felt they were much more responsive to changing technologies.

    Granted that was video, but I think the same will happen with still cameras. I much prefer DLSR over mirrorless; simply more options. Will mirrorless eventually leapfrog DSLR? Probably. But will something else leapfrog that? Most definitely.

    So I’m thinking Canon and Nikon are researching the post-mirrorless world.

    | |
    • Matthew Saville

      To call it a leap frog does imply, IMO, that each one has to be in the lead for at least a little while. And IMO, Sigma ans Sony stand to be “in the lead” (at least in certain respects, or small areas of the market) for sure. In fact, they essentially already are in some respects, namely compact mirrorless for Sony, and the “Art” primes from Sigma. Canon and Nikon can’t come close to competing with this, for now…


      | |