Where does Canon go from here?

After viewing this site for many months and absorbing as much knowledge
as possible, I decided to join in on the fun. This is my first post and
hope I don't come off as an idiot. What are the odds of Canon maybe
making a modular camera where you can pay for what you need upfront and
update it as you can afford. Kinda like the computer industry has done
with their components. Say maybe the only body to buy is that of a
5DMII with a stock xsi autofocus and 1.6x sensor. When you grow out of
it or the needs change, you just buy the upgrades and plug-and-play or
send to your local camera store. Possibly even software packages (like
video) could be bought, although I do understand that video is more on
the gimmicky side to justify the inflated price. One of the HUGE pluses
to this design is your not wasting hours reassigning buttons to your
new camera to match your old one, or not pulling the camera away from a
golden shot to see where the buttons have moved to. Any thoughts are
welcome. I hope to check back today after work for replies.

I'm sure Canon can do what you want, but they probably won't make much money than what they're doing right now. It's all about the money.

Aren't medium format cameras that some companies make (like Panasonic) kind of like this, with different components you can swap in and out? Not just swapping lenses on and off, of course, but more than that.

Had a talk to a Canon rep about this. He felt like me that Canons lens will change only slowly as they are already excellent and increases in optical quality is both expensive and the technology changes slowly. Coupled to the r/d money they need to get back, lens will change but very slowly.


As for cameras its the same. Canon and Nikon wont go medium format as the cost is very high so the cameras they would sell would be limited so difficult to recoup the investment. Its incrmental improvements rarther than massive leaps forward. Better a/f tracking, less noise, RAW video. A combination of APSC/FF in a single camera would be great.


Mick

Along the same lines, the lower end cameras have more frequent model releases while the higher end cameras are updated less frequently. The sheer volume of buyers for the sub-$1000 cameras will recoup the costs a lot faster than selling a relatively few 1xD cameras

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

What are the odds of Canon maybe
making a modular camera where you can pay for what you need upfront and
update it as you can afford. Kinda like the computer industry has done
with their components.

---

II agree with those who have said it is unlikely Canon will do that soon. It's just too big a change.


There was some discussion of this on a previous thread, and I recall Daniel saying that some fancy movie cameras work that way.


As someone who has paid for a 1-series body and autofocus, then later paid for a full frame sensor in a different body, the idea of updating modules of a camera is particularly appealing to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

What are the odds of Canon maybe making a modular camera where you can pay for what you need upfront and update it as you can afford. Kinda like the computer industry has done with their components.

---

This is almost the approach Ricoh is experimenting with on their GXR. It has a body (w/ supposedly good ergonomics) that accepts sensor/lens modules. Currently, the lens and sensor come together, I think mainly b/c Ricoh is not a lens maker per se, but they have showcased mockups of modules that accept other lens mounts (leica, I think), as well as a mockup of a tethered medium format sensor back attached to a hasselblad bellows.


Makes for an interesting, albeit expensive, system. However, if they are successful and start selling like pancakes (which I don't see happening) maybe the major players will take note.

I was kinda thinking that would save them money by firing a whole production line and maybe scaling back the R&D team since there is only one body to work with. I don't know how the team works now. Do they split up into groups for each model with a limited budget they have to work with or what. I'd love to take a tour at one of those plants some day. If they just have one production line that makes or assembles bodies, there would have to be "down time" for the switch over. Then you need to recalibrate stuff I'm sure. You can crank out a lot of bodies in the time it takes to do this and that would make/save money...maybe. I'm a noob and have never taken one of these type cameras apart to see how it all goes together. I did take a Powershot apart! Prolly could have made another camera with the extra parts I had:) Anyone want a used, light weight, almost working A80?

The idea is sound, as it would be much easier on the end user. I've been using an XTI for the last 3 years and then just upgraded to a 7D. Still learning where the new buttons are and their functions.


Having an electronics/engineering background, I would say that the modularity would be a nightmare to design, as you would have to anticipate what you might need in the next few years (assuming the lifetime of a camera is a couple of years). One of the drawbacks to this system is that as newer technologies emerge, there is no guarantee that the "footprint" of your modules can stay the same. For example, when Canon went from the DIGIC III to the DIGIC IV, I'm pretty sure the interface (number and location of signal pins) to the actual sensor changed. Also, in this type of design, you would have to ensure that components are backwards compatible for some number of revisions (YIPES). I agree that in the short term when incremental improvements are made, that a modular design would be an advantage. But I think that when major changes are made i.e. sensor resolution, image processing systems, AF systems etc. it is much easier to keep everything as a single package.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andnowimbroke

I'd love to take a tour at one of those plants some day.

---

Welcome to the forums and thanks for challenging us with a very interesting topic.


I'd love to take a tour as well. We have a large Canon mfg facility very close to where I live.


If you think about it, Digital SLRs are already modular. That's why we buy them. The camera body is only one component of the system and is mass produced for customer value and company profitability. The driving force for newer bodies is the constant competition to gain customer market share and I can say with all certainty that the game is being played as efficiently and cost effectively as the market will allow. After 50 some yrs of doing this, these companies have more than perfected the art of commodity manipulation. We the faithful consumer,willingly andhappilysupport them in their endeavors.


Take laptop computers for instance. Not too much of that is customer serviceable anymore. I just watched the motherboard get replaced in mine. I'm very hands-on and capable of disassembling and reassembling mechanical devices but it is amazing how complex the construction of these devices has become. I would not want to be responsible for replacing something in this laptop that my livelyhood is so dependent upon. It is why I purchased it with a on-site warranty. Cameras have mfg warranties as well.


The flip side to modular construction is the reliance on the consumer to properly change a component. This couldgenerate a lot more support overhead which negates the savings generated by reduced component manufacturing. Also, it raises the complexity of the camera design to allow the end user to replace parts. The less expensive consumer bodies are mostly plastic and the high end pro bodies are made out of titainium. So, would you make the base body out of plastic or titainium? If titainium, then you've already started with a much higher cost base and you'll loose the lower end consumer to the competition.


There are many cost variables in creating these kinds of devices but I'd be willing to bet if it would grab more market share and generate more profit the camera companies would be doing it.


My 3.5 cents..[:)]

Thanks for welcoming me Mr. Lee! And thanks for everyones input. True enough about the backward compatibility stuff. This might be one of those things where the Company could look great in the eyes of the public by having this type of camera. Kinda like a "We're thinking of you" look to it. With computers, you could buy a "cookie cutter" every year at $400 that isn't capable of upgrading, or you could have a nice one made for $700 with your favorite parts and upgrade just the parts as needed over the next three years. Yes, it would cost a little more upfront, but would/might be money ahead of the guy that bought cookie-cutter version every year. Did that make sense? I suck at this:( I'll get better. I promise! Long story short, Canon can squeeze a little more out of your pocket upfront and put it in their account drawing interest while pretending to be on your side. And yes Chuck, I would make the body out of an alloy. Anybody going this route would't want plastic...sorry, polycarbonate. I might even change the body to a 1-series type that has the other grip. Off-brand companies are coming out with very good grips for a lot less. That would cut them out and put a little extra cash in Canon's pocket they might not have had.

You mentioned an interesting concept. But I have my doubts, that it will work. You would need a large body, to make everything exchangable, since everything must have FF size, even if you start with APS-C. The mechanism to exchange the parts would also be difficult to made, and also expensive (especially if you want to exchange many parts of the Camera like autofocus-System, Sensor, Pentaprism, Display. Then there are the differnt body options; the basic one and different levels of sealing against dust and water, and the materials (plastic, magnesium...).


To me this system does not make sense, and it would make the body very expensive. This is especially true if you consider that the body is only a part of the system, and maybe not even the most important one. The lens contributes more to the IQ then the body.


Also if you look at how the development of the cameras evolves. There are no big leaps forward anymore. I still have a350D, and I have no reason to upgrade at the moment. I'm not sure about the body size of the 50D, even though the camera has some nice features.I like the small light bodies of the 3digit series.The 550D is a nice camera, but I don't need HD-movie; 18MP are nice, but overall IQ is not that much better. The AF-System has improved, but the onein the 350D isalso working nice. Sooner or later I will upgrade, but I can live with the 350D for another 2-3years, it will be 6-7 years old by then, and I think thistimespan justifies a new body. Canon and other camera-makers try to tell you, that the new is always much better than the old, but this is not true, the progress is pretty slow at the moment but the cameras are already very good, just look at dxomark.


What I like to see from Canon is:


-Stop the MP race, and try to make the pixels we have better. I don't like the huge files the new cameras generate,they need more storage room on the HD, and make PP slower.


-WiFi capable cameras, so that you can use your smart phone as a remote or camera display (like you can do now when your camera is connected to the computer)


-Design a "mirrorless DSLR" like the Samsung NX or the micro 4/3 system, this will be the future of digital photography (it will take a few years until the AF will work as fast as in a real DSLR, but it is possible). This could put the advanteges of a rangefinder-camera and a SLR together.

What I would like to see is a digital sensor that fits in the film-compartment in film-based cameras. In that way, the excellent cameras from the 90-ties could be revived. Of course, this would be a loss for the camera industry, since a lot of people would stop buying new houses, and only upgrade their sensor when needed. If that existed, I would definately buy that and use it with the EOS 4 for film, rather than buying a 400D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lars

What I would like to see is a digital sensor that fits in the film-compartment in film-based cameras.

---

It's been done, sort of. The very first dSLRs were made by Kodak and were essentially Nikon N90s film bodies with a large Kodak-made module that replaced the back and also extended below the body like a double-height battery grip. The first 'modern' dSLR (the first one to have an LCD screen on the back) was also made by Kodak, built on the Canon EOS-1n body - called the Canon D2000 or the Kodak DCS 520. It originally sold for $15000! As a side note, there's one for sale on my local Craigslist for $250, right now... A used L-series lens from 1999 would have held it's value pretty well (better than investing in stocks [:P])...but for this early dSLR body, that's whopping 98% depreciation.

This reminds me very much of a recent This Week in Photography podcast where they had nearly the exact same conversation. The general consensus they came to was that it would be up to a third party company like Sigma to do something like this. A company that has less to lose and is often trying new and creative things to try and hit it big (Fovean sensor).


Their concept was to create a camera that allowed you to slide something like an iPhone into the back of it, acting as the UI for the entire camera, since camera companies cannot get UI right by most standards. Then it would be possible for third part companies to try their hand at creating a good UI for your camera and it would be much more customizable as far as functionality.


Surely an interesting idea...

So what you guys are saying is someone has already stolen my thunder:( I'm always late to the party on items like this. I invented a capo for a guitar that could be released on individual strings. Didn't do nothing with it. Three years later, someone else thinks of it also and does something with it. Won an award for it too. Go figure.
I was reading some forum and they had talked about things they would like to have. Someone had mentioned a 1.4x tele with IS, but didn't think it was possible. I laughed and thought how cool that would be and blew it off. On my way home, I started thinking about it. You'll have to do the math for me, but all EF lenses are for the full sensor size. What if they made a teleconverter but for 1.6x cameras. It would basically use an opening the size of the smaller sensor to move inside the extra 40% that the 35mm lenses has available. I don't know if that is enough room to do any good. That could mean a sell-out on a regular basis every time they come up with a new version IS. Not enough people would re-buy a 300 or 500mm lens just for a new IS. Plus, it makes the initial purchase that much cheaper when allowed to be purchased without IS. So Canon gets more initials sales of lenses because they're cheaper upfront and then more repeated IS add-ons later! These posts are time-stamped and will split any earnings with you guys if Canon comes knocking on my door as a "thank you" for letting me rant:)
I just realized I spent two paragraphs not talking about this post. Sorry for that. The way I see it is there is hardly enough of a gap in technology between the 50D and 7D to justify a 60D. I bought my 7D for $1400 (refurb though) and by December, it should be down to a grand. A x0D couldn't fit and make it. Besides, you can't really add more pixels. It's all pixeled out as a previous poster mentioned! Canon is going to need a gimic or something to keep going. Custom formed grips you can make at home and put in your easy-bake oven to lock in place, or perhaps a part of what would look like a five inch wide clear rubber band that protects the screen, has the moldable grip, and further enhances weather proofness. Maybe possibably a dual screen. My Beloved A80 P&S had the swivel screen which I enjoyed using for difficult shots. Granted, the screen couldn't be viewed from 180 degrees, but it didn't have to. Save some of the money on the 180 degree viewing angle screen (I'm assuming it costs more) and put in a swivel screen. When you flip open the screen, you could have another screen that was being protected in the pocket. Perhaps one screen has the picture and the other the histograms and other information if needed. I would have loved to of had that last fall. I'm new at the picture takin' thing and was trying to take pictures "correctly" as I thought at the time with all info pasted on my 40D screen and only the actual shot being reviewed minimized and pushed in the upper corner. Had I known (or paid attention to the subject for that matter), I wouldn't have like two hundred pictures of this sick looking bird.[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.40.90/150.jpg[/img]


I was sooo disgusted when I got home. The whole time I thought how easy this guy is to photograph.