Where does Canon go from here?

[andnowimbroke]

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.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

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.

[alex]

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.

[Micktheexbiker]

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

[Brian Kreitman]

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

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

[msmiley]

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.

[andnowimbroke]

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?

[edfrometown]

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.

[Chuck Lee]

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..[]