Why didn t Apple launch a DSLR camera?

Why didn't Apple launch a DSLR? This question is good because SLRs are more difficult to do. Apple is a company founded in 1976, and there are many DSLR brands before him, so even if Apple invests more, it will be difficult to surpass these predecessors in terms of lenses.

So instead of rising to the challenge, it is better to make some simpler digital products.

The mobile phone is such a relatively easy digital product, so Apple's mobile phone is very happy. A lot of the originals of the mobile phone can be obtained from some brand manufacturers, so to speak, if I have money, I can also create a mobile phone brand, and then get accessories from various manufacturers to assemble them together, and that's it.

Speaking of which, the most successful assembly of mobile phones is Xiaomi, when Xiaomi first appeared, I was the first batch of users, the experience was not very good, but it also made me feel the charm of smart phones. Today, looking back at Xiaomi, in fact, his configuration has no features at all. His success is only because he has captured the heart of the market and the hearts of young people.

The Apple mobile phone provides a lot of design of the mobile phone, in addition to the core processor and iOS system of the mobile phone, so the Apple mobile phone is still very distinctive. So who provided the camera for the iPhone? It is a custom camera provided by Sony Corporation of Japan, a Japanese digital company founded in 1946 and one of the best achievements in the field of lenses.

And from the perspective of the market, the market for mobile phones is broader than the market for SLR, and Apple has also launched personal computers later, which are similar to mobile phones, as long as you find the original assembly. The SLR needs to master the process of the lens, and many times the investment and return are not proportional, so Apple does not make SLR, he can rely on Sony's camera to build his mobile phone into a first-class. （ps：

Domestic mobile phones are the best! ）

A long, long time ago, Apple was a company that made cameras. But after Jobs came, the camera business was canceled. And now as Apple continues to grow, why hasn't it continued to launch cameras, or DSLRs?

Now I'm going to tell you.

The product line condition limitation marketing theory talks about this product mix, and this applies well to the current situation of Apple. FirstFirst of all, we want to say that the more product lines of this product, the better, although there are many types of products, but you have no ability to produce it is worthless. The current situation is that Apple now has a series of product lines such as iPhone, iPad, Mac, iPod, etc., and under the process of each product line, there are different product combinations.

It can be said that the existing product line has made Apple's entire assembly line very crowded. Especially recently Apple is ready to abandon the iPod, what is the reason? Isn't it still because of too many product lines, which leads to the problem that production capacity cannot keep up and the needs of users are scattered?

So Apple's failure to launch a DSLR camera is a product line problem to a large extent.

Scientific and technological progress in the context of the times.

I don't want to say it, but the trend of the future is that DSLR cameras will only be the collection of nostalgic people. Think about it,With the advent of the future industrial age, science and technology have developed and progressed greatly, and artificial and intelligent equipment is also becoming popular. At that point, people may just move their eyes.

It can be saved by high-tech sensors. Don't tell me pixels can't do it, no camera can surpass the human eye, and if there is, it's not for humans. Therefore, in the future, more advanced photographic technology will replace this SLR camera, and Apple, which has always prided itself on technology, will naturally not produce SLR cameras.

Summary. <>

To sum up, the reason why Apple did not launch SLR cameras is, on the one hand, because of the limitation of the product line, there are not too many resources to support the SLR camera business, and on the other hand, because the development of SLR cameras in the future is worrying.

Who said no, it's you who don't know, Canon 5DSR is no low-pass filter, and you also said the opposite, SLR is generally a camera with a low-energy filter, and you want to say that there is no low-pass filter.

Because the market of Nikon card machines is now eaten up a lot by mobile phones, it has to rely on the mid-to-high-end consumer market to make up for it. Exiting the cheap full set can lure those who were originally just hobbyists into the fever stage and then buy high-end lenses and bodies. In fact, it is not a technical problem, and the D600 and D800 are purely for the level of product pricing and to capture the people with different needs.

To further boost the "national SLR", and then sell the lens, do you think about whether the body makes money or the lens makes money? The profit of the full-frame lens is definitely greater than that of the C-format!!

Competition, Canon has to have Nikon, otherwise it will lose market share.

Khan: This sentence is really suspicious of scolding, could it be that LZ just bought a psychological imbalance?

, what is ultra-high pixels, how much is high? What's the point of having high pixels? How big can you wash **? How many years did Nikon's 1200W D700 and Canon's 2100W's 5D2 fight against each other, and Canon was a real high-pixel back then.

Pixels are just a gimmick for the body, and you can't tell the difference between 3600W and 1600W in general. As for how big the coms are, that's just the result of the manufacturer's negotiation, if a pixel is high, the focus is good, how to upgrade in the future, how to fool people to buy again and again.

It depends on what you're for, if the stars of the rice country in space take a picture of how many pickle jars are placed in your cellar, this statement will make a lot of sense, hahaha.

Ultra-high pixels are mainly related to more sensitive sensors, and the high-end lenses of Canon and Nikon are the same as Zeiss, and the quality is absolutely fine. Ultra-high pixel SLR camera, you can query Hasselblad, the main thing is the large area of the image sensor.

In another example, Penn has a medium format 645D camera with 40 million pixels, far more than Canon Malaysia and Nikon D3 and D4 series, but it still uses Pentax lenses used on the K7 and K5.

So, let's put it this way, if the Canon Red Circle Lens is equipped with a 40-million-pixel medium-format CMOS, wouldn't it still surpass the quality of the Pentax 645D?

Nikon Canon and Sony will not launch a 120-format digital camera, the 120-format digital camera market is very small, and the people who do this are not big companies. Now I am mainly doing the 4 of Phase One - Mamiya Hasselblad - Fuji Pentax and Toli - Zeiss. And Leica has also mixed in with the ranks of medium format digital cameras.

A 135-format camera is a camera with an image area height of 24mm and a width of 36mm, and of course Hasselblad has a wide 135-format film camera.

The 120 camera only has an image height of 58mm, and there are many kinds of widths, ranging from 45mm-58mm-70mm-90mm-120mm-170mm-220mm.

There are generally two types of 120 film cameras: 120 film and 220 film, both with a height of 60mm and a different length.

It's hard to say.

If I were a senior executive at the company, I wouldn't! Because the company's goal is the mass market, although the medium format application is very high-end in the professional field, it is only used by a small number of people, the market is too small, there are already upstairs manufacturers competing, and they can't get high profits when they join, and the R&D budget is too high.

Mass market emphasizes that:"Short, small, light, thin"Just like the recently launched mirrorless mirror, it has all the functions and capabilities of SLR, which can indeed meet the needs of the vast market. Therefore, there is a market for investing in the development of mirrorless lenses than increasing special needs.

If mirrorless lenses can appear with APS-C or full-frame effects, it will greatly improve market acceptance and bring more considerable profitability to the company. (PS: Very optimistic about mirrorless and its lens, especially technology will make up for the shortcomings of lenses, optical machinery will also have breakthroughs, may get results in the near future).

In terms of investment returns, investing 100 can earn 1000 and investing 100 can only earn 10 (maybe still lose 90), what kind of investment will you make?

Capable but not because their sales theme is clear and they don't put effort into some specific small group.

Yes, Canon may also have two telephoto heads, EF400 and EF600 prime lenses, which will be released with the full-frame micro-single this time.

Nikon and Canon are Japan's two major camera production companies, the difference between the two is that Nikon is similar to Japan's first, the main production enterprise of the military, and Canon is a private enterprise in Japan, the two have been equal in the competition of cameras at the same price, before the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, it has always been Canon to occupy the initiative, Nikon has not launched new products for several years and affected, before the Olympic Games, Nikon launched Nikon D3, a hit, and soon regained most of the market share in the professional digital camera market, and then the two have launched new products, but on the whole, Canon's product upgrade is faster than Nikon's, but most of its products will have various problems after they are launched, and Nikon's product performance stability is slightly better than Canon's. In terms of overall evaluation, I personally feel that Nikon's is slightly better, and Nikon's noise immunity and stability are better than Canon's. Just a personal opinion, I hope it helps you.

The two large camera manufacturers have thousands of fans, and they all say that they are good, and they are generally comparable, as long as they like whichever brand they like.

But be careful, after buying this brand of camera, the lens can only choose this brand.

Consider the purpose first, the lens. For example, in terms of licensed goods, the cheapest one now is only D3100, so I don't have to choose. The 4000 body can have D5200 and 700D D90.

At this time, if you want to have image quality, you need D5200, if you want to control, you need D90, and if you want to go up to 50mm, you will have to set 700D, because it is cheap. Therefore, the good depends on the comparison.

It is generally believed that at the same price, Nikon's low-midrange is more generous than Canon

If you don't have to think about adapting to old lenses, I think that Canon is good.

Both are actually similar, in general, both have extremely rich accessories and lens groups, in the low and mid-range machine market, I personally feel that Nikon is more reliable, and the high-end market has its own characteristics. The key is to look at your preferences, generally speaking, Canon imaging is vivid, Nikon imaging is sharp, Canon's focus is a bit off track, not very reliable, Nikon's low-end camera lenses take a long time or are not stored properly and are easy to gray. If I had to compare the two of them, I could only say that they were equal, half a catty and eight taels.

The Canon of 12 years ago was good, and the future is about the same, depending on personal preference.

There is no direct competition model at the same price, and the default misalignment competition between the two companies together achieves the maximization of the second benefit.

Almost, let's see which one is easy to buy for yourself.

The Nikon D3000 was launched three years ago and has now been discontinued and replaced by the D3100, which is a low-end entry-level SLR with less than the high-end card players. You should still consider a DSLR like D7000. Otherwise, play with the card machine for a few years.

3100 is good, if you have enough meters, you can get 90.