 |
| Fun Run Panasonic FZ1000 |
This little series will have 10 parts, or maybe more if I get carried away with the theme.
I will talk about the manufacturers in alphabetical order so Canon comes first.
In Chapter 1 I explained why I will not be buying any DSLRs, or Full Frame or APS-C cameras of any variety.
I have a long history with Canon cameras. My first was an EOS630 in 1990. This was followed by a string of EOS SLRs then DSLRs plus several G compacts.
I have no brand preference but my history with Canon and the fact that Canon Australia headquarters and service facility are a short drive from my home probably gives me some predilection towards the Canon brand.
This means if one of two cameras on the market each suitable for my needs is a Canon I would likely choose that.
The fact that with one disappointing exception I have not bought any Canon cameras for several years is not due to any change in brand preference on my part.
Canon was once the most energetic, bold camera maker of the lot, advancing through innovation to become market leader while many brands fell by the wayside.
But since the arrival of the first MILC in 2008, Canon appears to have become cautious, less inclined to innovate and unable to deliver convincing models in the MILC (mirrorless interchangeable lens) and FZLC (fixed zoom lens) sectors.
Even its DSLRs have become mediocre. I saw one of the latest release EOS DSLRs recently described by a reputable web review site as “fairly decent for a consumer class DSLR”. “fairly decent” is hardly a resounding accolade.
In the MILC sector I would describe the EOS M 1, 2 and 3 as ‘half baked” or “crippled” depending on whether I am in a benign or grumpy mood about cameras which claim excellence but lack an inbuilt viewfinder, require an accessory handle and have pedestrian performance.
A string of FZLCs (Fixed Zoom Lens Cameras) have likewise been crippled.
The G1X lacked an EVF and performed slowly.
The G1X Mk2 “solved” the problem of the hopelessly inadequate old OFV by discarding a viewfinder altogether along with any semblance of a useful handle. Add in image quality inferior to several smaller cameras and the package failed to appeal on any level.
The G7X uses the same sensor as the Sony RX100 (3) but ….ooops…..Canon omitted the EVF…..again.
T
he G3X uses the same sensor but …..ooops…..they forgot the EVF…..again
And this on a camera with an E600mm lens absolutely crying out to be held in a steady grip with the EVF firmly to the eye for clear image preview and stability.
Oh, you can go buy an EVF separately then what ?
Leave it on the camera which then becomes taller than a DSLR and exposes the hotshoe to the risk of damage every time the camera goes in to or comes out of its carry bag ?
Or take it off and forever be stuck with having to mount and remove it, then store it, carefully, somewhere.
Another thing they forgot…………there is no included lens hood and no filter thread on the lens.
OK that’s two things.
But wait………… you can buy an accessory lens hood which comes with an adapter for mounting a lens protect filter.
Who on planet earth thought this was a good idea ? Why not simply put a filter thread on the lens ?
But there’s more, or should I say…less….Continuous shooting rate with RAW capture is …..….one frame per second.
This is not going to be the camera for sport/action, unlike the FZ1000 which I used for the photo at the top of this post, which works just fine for sport/action/BIF and the like.
All right it has a longer lens than the FZ1000. So what ? Using a lens this long without a viewfinder is simply a recipe for blurred shots.
Yes, I know, you see lots of people waving their DSLRs and FZLCs out in front of their faces, viewing on the monitor.
In places with bright sun they can’t properly see the monitor and sharp photos are a matter of luck.
By the way Canon promotes this thing as giving the user the “EOS Experience”. How’s that ???
The Canon camera which I actually bought this year is an SX60, small sensor, all in one superzoom.
It has a nice handle, very close in shape to the inverted L configuration which I regard as ideal.
In all other respects it is mediocre or worse. It is frequently rated by owners as delivering a step down in image quality from the SX50.
So what is Canon’s game plan ?
To me it looks like they are:
1. Churning out successive DSLRs each different from the previous model only in some minor detail and none really taking the lead with innovation or user satisfaction. ‘Stuck in a rut” would be my description.
If these DSLRs represented the apogee of the type that might be understandable. But each of them is capable of improvement to specifications, image quality, performance and ergonomics yet no urgency to make such improvements seems apparent.
2. Presenting to the market a succession of half baked, functionally crippled MILCs and FZLCs.
Does that suggest a plan of some description ? I don’t see one.
I have at various times wondered why Canon’s product offerings have become so mediocre.
Of course I have no knowledge of the decision making processes at Canon or any other camera maker, being merely a consumer.
But for what it is worth here are some speculative hypotheses:
#1. Maybe they have a technical problem. MILCs and FZLCs acquire autofocus (and manual focus) right on the sensor chip. Sony, Panasonic and others have now got this working very well with excellent speed and accuracy.
Canon has and presumably is continuing to develop its proprietary “dual pixel CMOS” on chip PDAF.
But this has thus far been used on only one DSLR (the EOS 70D) and the EOS Cinema Camera.
Apparently it gives smooth but not fast AF performance.
Maybe the research team is bogged down and unable to get either their on chip CDAF or the dual pixel PDAF system up to speed.
#2. Some user forum members have opined that Canon is serving up sub standard MILCs and FZLCs to “protect” its DSLR line. I am sceptical about this.
Presumably the idea is that if they make, say, a really good MILC then customers will buy that instead of a DSLR.
Maybe they will, but so what ?
Surely Canon will be happy if customers stay with the brand.
#3. Maybe they are responding to customer feedback.
How Canon or any other maker might be getting this feedback is a mystery to me.
I buy lots of cameras and I write this blog but no maker has ever sought my feedback about anything.
But…. Let us suppose Canon has a customer feedback process of some kind and let us suppose those customers are saying they don’t need an EVF thank you. And maybe they are saying they think those big handles are really ugly. And maybe they are saying we want smaller cameras please.
If something like that is the case, maybe the product development people have taken the feedback literally and removed the components which some customers say they don’t want.
The problems with this approach, if that is actually what is happening, are
a) people need to be careful what they wish for
b) literal fulfilment of customers’ stated wishes can and often does lead to unintended consequences.
For instance when politicians ask people if they would like to pay less tax they always say ‘yes’.
I see on the front page of the newspaper today that the Australian federal government will go into the next election promising to reduce personal income tax.
But if they do so society will end up with fewer health and welfare services and/or higher taxes of some other variety which might not be what most people want at all.
Camera design has a similar problem. Removal of key components like the EVF and handle leads to cameras with impoverished holding, viewing and operating characteristics.
This leads to user frustration and eventually to diminution of the maker’s reputation.
Is Canon struggling with, or perhaps failing to engage with, Clayton Christensen’s dilemma ? [Google it]
Will Canon go the way of Kodak ? We shall see.