# Updated Canon 2016 Roadmap



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 10, 2016)

```
<p>There has been a lot of new information come out in the last few months about what we can expect from Canon in 2016. I’m just going to give a round-up of what to expect for the folks that missed some things, or are new here (yes, we do get new readers).</p>
<p><strong>EOS DSLR Bodies for 2016:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Canon EOS  5D Mark IV (confirmed)

<em>No other DSLRs are expected from Canon in 2016. We expect the announcement in August, with delivery coming soon after Photokina.</em></li>
</ul>
<p><strong>EF Lenses for 2016:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM (confirmed)

<del><em>We expect to see this lens announced some time this month.</em></del><em> It looks like the announcement has been moved closer to Photokina.</em></li>
<li>Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS II USM (confirmed)

<del><em>We expect to see this announced before Photokina in September.</em></del><em> Still scheduled for 2016, but will be coming after Photokina</em></li>
<li>Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS II USM (confirmed)

<em>We expect to see this announced alongside the EOS 5D Mark IV in August.</em></li>
</ul>
<p><strong>EOS M Bodies for 2016:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>A “prosumer” EOS M body (not full frame) (confirmed)

<em>We think we’ll get a new APS-C “prosumer” EOS M body some time before the end of 2016.</em></li>
</ul>
<p><strong>EOS M Lenses for 2016:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Unknown at this time</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Cinema EOS Bodies for 2016:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Canon Cinema EOS C700 (confirmed)

<em>We should see this announced the first few days of September.</em></li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Cinema EOS Lenses for 2016:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Anamorphic Lenses

<em>We think you’ll see at least one anamorphic lens announced with the Cinema EOS C700</em></li>
</ul>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Woody (Jun 10, 2016)

So, all the early CR2 rumors about Canon FF MILC have just evaporated:

"The second camera, which may actually be announced first will be Canon’s first “prosumer” focused mirrorless camera. Two sources have said that the camera will use a newly designed 24mp full frame image sensor. This camera will be designed to use EF lenses, but how that’s going to be done is presently unknown to us. Details beyond that are quite fuzzy, but we’re pressing for more."

- http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29576.msg590197#msg590197


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 10, 2016)

Woody said:


> So, all the early rumors about Canon FF MILC have just evaporated:
> 
> "The second camera, which may actually be announced first will be Canon’s first “prosumer” focused mirrorless camera. Two sources have said that the camera will use a newly designed 24mp full frame image sensor. This camera will be designed to use EF lenses, but how that’s going to be done is presently unknown to us. Details beyond that are quite fuzzy, but we’re pressing for more."
> 
> - http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29576.msg590197#msg590197



They haven't "evaporated", it's just not coming in 2016. More on that in the coming weeks.


----------



## ozwineguy (Jun 10, 2016)

Oh how I wish a 50mm or 85mm 1.2 or 1.4L (or both) was on that list. 

Having tried the Sigma Arts (35mm and 50mm) and being unsatisfied with the AF performance, I'm really looking forward to an updated fast prime from Canon. As I'm not shooting much at 35mm or wider recently, I'm looking forward to a 50mm in particular for everyday use and an 85mm for band nights.


----------



## pwp (Jun 10, 2016)

A stabilised 50mm would have been good to see on this list. Having sold off a bunch of primes when I got the 24-70 f/2.8II, I recently bought another 50 f/1.2L (pre-owned). I must have been dreaming. It was a particularly good copy, but sold it again inside eight weeks. For the low light shots I was chasing with it, I really wanted IS. It got so little use, so off it went. Made $50 on it ....whoo-hoo.

Everything else on the Updated Canon 2016 Roadmap will be warmly received. Oh yes, where's that FF MILC?

-pw


----------



## brad-man (Jun 10, 2016)

Disappointing, but sadly not unexpected, progress in the EF-M lens development lane. I'm looking forward to there being more competition in the APS-C mirrorless market.


----------



## miz (Jun 10, 2016)

where is promised 50 1.4 replecement?


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 10, 2016)

miz said:


> where is promised 50 1.4 replecement?



Maybe in early 2017?


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 10, 2016)

To me this looks like a more than decent Canon year respective to new products.
Of course there will always be something missing, but it looks promising.
And of course it is also depending on the performance of the new products, esp. the 5D4.
But I am sure, looking at the latest releases, Canon will deliver here.
And I am sure, there will be a lot people being really pleased with the quality while a loud minority will whine over missed opportunities and MP or DR and noise or high prices 



miz said:


> where is promised 50 1.4 replecement?


That is something I am missing: some good primes like a new 50 or 85 mm lens.
In the latest rumors it was stated that a 50/1.4 replacement was soon to be announced. 
But it also was said that "soon" would be a Canon "soon", so it will arrive in 2017, presumably  .


----------



## whothafunk (Jun 10, 2016)

jesus christ who's leg do we need to hump to get a new freaking decent 50mm around here?


----------



## transpo1 (Jun 10, 2016)

If indeed true, kudos to Canon for updating the 24-105mm- it's the most useful walk around lens and a great lens for filmmaking with full frame. Now, let's just confirm the video specs- we need it to exceed the video quality of the 1DXII.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 10, 2016)

whothafunk said:


> jesus christ who's leg do we need to hump to get a new freaking decent 50mm around here?




Using the Lord's name in vain won't expedite. [Confirmed]


----------



## weixing (Jun 10, 2016)

Hi,
If the next EOS M have a "remote control" jack, then I might consider getting one.

Have a nice day.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 10, 2016)

With the 5DS and 5DSr announced and launched in 2015, the 1D X MKII announced & launched Qtr 1 2016 and the rumored annoucement and launch of the 5D MKIV in Qtr 3 2016 we would have four high end F/F cameras from Canon. 
Given the shorter life cycles of the amateur APS-C cameras Im somewhat surprised we will not see the replacement for the 6D in 2016 given this is more aimed at amateurs & enthusiasts. The 11 point AF really doesnt cut it anymore & it should be able to cope with f8 on long lenses with at least a 1.4 converter particularly if you have shelled out for these lenses from Canon. 

Good news regarding a replacement for the EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM hopefully it will have similar IQ to the EF 16-35mm f4L IS USM if it does however sales of the EF 24-70mm f4L IS USM will dip unless it takes a price drop Im certainly not impressed with my example.


----------



## 1Zach1 (Jun 10, 2016)

I just hope the "prosumer" M stays a similar size to the M3 and isn't just a mirrorless system in a T6 sized body.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 10, 2016)

I think is a very good change to see the 600mm DO released at Photokina. What do you guys think?


----------



## rpiotr01 (Jun 10, 2016)

What's the roadmap for possible 6D replacement? Feels like it's been almost a year since we last heard anything.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 10, 2016)

rpiotr01 said:


> What's the roadmap for possible 6D replacement? Feels like it's been almost a year since we last heard anything.



Likely a 2017 release. This far out, it's unlikely you'll hear anything reliable.


----------



## grainier (Jun 10, 2016)

miz said:


> where is promised 50 1.4 replecement?



It's coming mañana.


----------



## RGF (Jun 10, 2016)

interesting .. no surprises.

Question for me. To upgrade the 5D M3 to 5D M4? Need to see how much better it is.


----------



## Khufu (Jun 10, 2016)

I believe that the 6D was created primarily to lap up as many would-be used-5D2 sales as possible, with the added benefit of marketing it as a lightweight and smaller alternative...

I can't see Canon dropping the 5D4 before planting the idea in everyone's mind of an upcoming and exciting "mostly-better-than-a-used-5D3" 6D2. It'll probably have the 70D/7D style AF system, another world's smallest & lightest claim and a flippy-floppy screen, just in time for Christmas!


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2016)

rpiotr01 said:


> What's the roadmap for possible 6D replacement? Feels like it's been almost a year since we last heard anything.



That's because the 5D4 gets all the attention for a half year or so window -- announce / buzz / pre-order / ship / first reviews. Once all of that is passed, the 6D2 hype machine will get going.

Makes sense for a lot of reasons: 


It protects the price of premium offerings at launch. The 1DX2 gets launched first while there is no concurrent 5D4 product on offer to steal some of its business at a lower price. Same thing goes for the 6D2 possibly stealing the 5D4 business -- so I don't expect an announcement on it until the 5D4 is fully launched.


It lets Canon focus all its marketing resources on one big product at a time.


With only 3 major non-cinema lines (4 if you count the 7D line) on a 4-5 year cycle, this leaves gaps in the 'what are we rolling out now?' schedule for Canon to surprise us (SL1), join the fray (EOS-M), or enter new markets (XC10, Cinema lines, etc.). The tricky bit is that the 6D is much more enthusiast focused and would _seem_ to warrant a quicker refresh than the 1D and 5D lines, but what do I know?

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2016)

RGF said:


> interesting .. no surprises.
> 
> Question for me. To upgrade the 5D M3 to 5D M4? Need to see how much better it is.



That's a pass for me. My 5D3 is doing just fine and as I don't shoot video, the 4K is wasted on me. 

Further, my camera remains far more capable at capturing images than I am. I need to keep shooting and get better, so I'll focus my photo budget on glass for this cycle.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2016)

Overall with this thread:


It's a fine slate of products. Kudos to CR for mapping all this out so well in advance. _Many Bothan spies died to bring us this information._


How an EF 50mm f/nooneknows IS USM is not more important than a non-L EF 70-300 lens boggles the mind. 


Does prosumer EOS-M have a viewfinder built-in? I'm so excited for Canon to deem the *interchangeable lens point and shoot* market worthy of an integral EVF. Now it'll be a real big boy camera! 


- A


----------



## j-nord (Jun 10, 2016)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I think is a very good change to see the 600mm DO released at Photokina. What do you guys think?


I'm going to go with probably not. I don't see Canon in a hurry to release that lens. It's not going to retail for a price that is suddenly 'affordable' when compared to a 600ii. It would probably be north of $8k maybe even north of $9k.


----------



## Azathoth (Jun 10, 2016)

Strange. I think they would release the 6dmk2 sooner than the 5dmk4. Who will buy a 5Ds when there is a new 5d?? Their prices will probably be very similar.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2016)

Azathoth said:


> Strange. I think they would release the 6dmk2 sooner than the 5dmk4. Who will buy a 5Ds when there is a new 5d?? Their prices will probably be very similar.



Canon really shot themselves in the foot by calling the 5DS what they did b/c many folks will ask the very same question you did.

Answer to your question: they are different products for different people. The 5D4 is the all-arounder for the 'I shoot it all' camp, while the 5DS gives up some things to get all those pixels, namely fps and high ISO performance. Expect the 5D4 to have a higher burst, 4K, and better high ISO performance.

(I'm not saying the 5DS _can't_ do it all, I'm just saying mo pixels / mo problems for file size, throughput affecting fps, noise, etc. Noise is tempered with downsampling of course, but I still expect the 5D4 to beat a downsampled high ISO shot from the 5DS.)

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 10, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Canon really shot themselves in the foot by calling the 5DS what they did b/c many folks will ask the very same question you did.



I don't think most people in the market for $3,500+ camera bodies will be swayed by naming conventions. If they want super high res, they aren't going to opt for a mk 4.


----------



## TeT (Jun 10, 2016)

EF M 28 macro doesnt make the list...

What happened to the M 35 1.8; Next year?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Canon really shot themselves in the foot by calling the 5DS what they did b/c many folks will ask the very same question you did.
> ...



I still think it confuses well-funded enthusiasts who may simply want the newest / best thing out there. Most traditional product markets have some sort of a good / better / best trimline setup, and the branding reinforces those positions. So having various different products with different value propositions in the 5D universe can be confusing, that's all.

Consider: Azathoth's original question: "Who will buy a 5Ds when there is a new 5d??" as an example. Also, Tony Northrup himself think the 5D4 is more than a year away while absurdly explaining it away here. 

The branding + comments like these give weight to the notion that the 5DS *is* the followup to the 5D3, and that a new 5D won't be coming out anytime soon as a result. 

Most folks here would believe that to be incorrect for a host of reasons, but that belief is still out there nonetheless.

- A


----------



## douglaurent (Jun 10, 2016)

If the Sony A9 is released with expected specs this year, it might be a camera that beats the whole combination of Canon flagships 5DsR, 1DX2 and 5D4 in one product.

Does Canon really want to start with serious mirrorless offerings in 2017 or 2018, when Sony already has the third or fourth generation of large sensor mirrorless cameras out there?

Even the lens lineup offers only a few lenses that are first choice, like the 11-24/4, 35/1.4 or 100-400 - while the whole obvious trend of stabilized fast primes is not targeted at all yet. 

Canon please hurry, nobody wants to wait until 2023 for a complete modern product lineup!


----------



## FECHariot (Jun 10, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > jesus christ who's leg do we need to hump to get a new freaking decent 50mm around here?
> ...



It's a safe bet he won't be helping.


----------



## FECHariot (Jun 10, 2016)

What about the updates to the 10-22 and or 17-55 that were mentioned in the last 2016 update?


----------



## rpiotr01 (Jun 10, 2016)

My 5DIII also remains more than capable right now, but as I've really been shooting primarily manual focus lenses a lot of the 5D-line AF enhancements are wasted on me and I'd like to shave a little size and weight off of my gear without sacrificing IQ, so the 6Dii would be appealing to me whenever it comes. So would an EF mount mirrorless camera but that's an altogether different thread...


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> If the Sony A9 is released with expected specs this year, it might be a camera that beats the whole combination of Canon flagships 5DsR, 1DX2 and 5D4 in one product.
> 
> Does Canon really want to start with serious mirrorless offerings in 2017 or 2018, when Sony already has the third or fourth generation of large sensor mirrorless cameras out there?
> 
> ...



Sony presently has a few very nice things going for it:


Wonderful sensors
A boatload of technology, features, etc.
A mad lunatic executive flogging his engineers to work faster
A strategic plan to systematically whack-a-mole away all the reasons why folks don't migrate to mirrorless

*But they have yet to roll that into something as sexy as the spec sheet implies it to be*. I believe that's because one major element not on my list above is 'decades of photography experience'. Sony would do well to pluck some Canon/Nikon/Pentax user experience / ergonomics / handling / interface people and have them go to town on the A7 platform.

Because the a9 and its (rumored) 20 fps, 6K, integral grip, etc. is not what's missing right now for them -- unless they want to corner the market on internet forum / enthusiasts / technology 'firsters' who post spec sheets on the wall like it's a pinup girl. 

Professionals want familiarity, intuitiveness, responsiveness, quality, service, options, etc. -- it's a completely different approach than what Sony is taking today.

- A


----------



## scrup (Jun 10, 2016)

No FF Mirrorless. Was really hoping to see something this year. Even just an announcement would of been nice to see that have plans.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2016)

scrup said:


> No FF Mirrorless. Was really hoping to see something this year. Even just an announcement would of been nice to see that have plans.



Agree, and that product could really be introduced without care vs. the FF SLR timelines. It wouldn't threaten 5D4 price/sales in any large numbers like a closely following 6D2 announcement might. It would be a side offering for the early adopters to fight through and have fun with like the first EOS-M.

I still think they need an 80D in EOS-M first -- a fully thought out APS-C setup with a great integral EVF, DPAF, etc. before they risk having a first FF mirrorless not work well. 

I also still think a fixed lens FF mirrorless a la the Leica Q or Sony RX1R platform makes sense to gain EVF / handling / battery / interface experience before going big with a modular lens offering.

- A


----------



## j-nord (Jun 10, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> TeT said:
> 
> 
> > EF M 28 macro doesnt make the list...
> ...



Guess you guys missed the boat... the EF-M 28mm macro was already announced by Canon. Go pre-order it on B&H


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 10, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...


As an owner of the 5DS and a 6D and access to work 5D MKIII I see differences in all three. The 6D has been a great travel camera with its wi-fi and GPS, but it has crappy AF for anything thats not static. The 5D MKIII really is an all round camera able to cover anything but its IQ is no better than the 6D. The 5DS has unbelievable resolution & detail whilst retaining the key elements of the 5D MKIII AF system and improving the metering. It also adds better mirror lock-up options. The DR is however its undoing compared to Sony or Nikon. 

The new 5D MKIV and the 6D MKII will likely be extensions of the present cameras and the 5DS / r will retain their resolution advantage. I will likely wait to see what both the 5D MKIV and the 6D MKII bring before deciding on the replacement for my 6D but it will not be a replacement for the 5DS.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> The new 5D MKIV and the 6D MKII will likely be extensions of the present cameras and the 5DS / r will retain their resolution advantage. I will likely wait to see what both the 5D MKIV and the 6D MKII bring before deciding on the replacement for my 6D but it will not be a replacement for the 5DS.



Yep, and Canon firmly wants you to pull the trigger on the 5D4 at full value and *not* wait for the 6D2.

_How they do that_ will be tricky, because spec-sheet-wise, I think we know what we'll get with the 5D4 over the 5D3:


1DX2 AF or some close variant of it
Slight bump to resolution, fps, buffer, etc.
Anti-flicker + DPAF
Possibly Wi-fi
Possibly the 5DS mirror lockup options (not as critical in the 24 MP neighborhood, but still, it's easy to implement)
DPAF might very well mean a touchscreen is coming
_The promise of a better sensor..._

Which is a lovely list, but let's face it, the biggest reason for 5D3 stills-only folks to get a 5D4 is likely the hardest one to prove on a spec sheet -- the sensor performance. Whereas 50 MP got people pulling out the credit cards on day one, the 5D4's biggest selling feature (besides 4K under $6,000) is the new sensor's IQ, which we can't discern on a spec sheet like black and white specs such as resolution / fps / etc.

Canon might have to wait for the deluge of orders until thorough reviews demonstrate a base ISO DR improvement or better high ISO performance... That may, in turn, delay the timing of the 6D2 announcement.

- A


----------



## frankchn (Jun 10, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> If the Sony A9 is released with expected specs this year, it might be a camera that beats the whole combination of Canon flagships 5DsR, 1DX2 and 5D4 in one product.
> 
> Does Canon really want to start with serious mirrorless offerings in 2017 or 2018, when Sony already has the third or fourth generation of large sensor mirrorless cameras out there?
> 
> ...



The A9 has been rumored to be in the works for a long time, but I don't think Sony will bother introduce such a camera at a $4k+ price point. Not a lot of amateur hobbyists will spend nearly $5k for a camera.

Meanwhile, photojournalists and other users of 1D/D5-class cameras are not going to switch without access to a complete lens collection (e.g. 200-400/4, 400/2.8, 600/4, fast primes from 24 through to 135+). In fact, Sony hasn't even announced a price or an availability date for the 70-200/2.8 GM lens yet, so Sony should focus on getting those lenses out first. 

These users are also big on ergonomics (you are holding 4 or 5 pounds of weight for hours and hours at a time, and a big comfortable grip helps) and user interface (there is a reason why Canon didn't change button layouts from the 1DX to the 1DX2 at all -- so pro users can just pick up the new camera and go) and Sony is still somewhat lacking that. 

I suspect most sports/news journalists would also still prefer OVFs for accurate framing and tracking fast action in low light, and they don't need or care for most of the benefits that EVFs provide (e.g. in-EVF histograms, etc...).

Image quality is of course important (and this is where Sony shines) but past a certain point, it isn't a concern any more to those users. I'd argue that basically every DSLR/mirrorless camera on the market right now is past that point for most people.


----------



## entlassen (Jun 10, 2016)

I thought I read some rumors maybe a year or so ago on this site that a replacement for the "Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS" was somewhere in the not-so-distant future. Did I remember correctly, and is it still on the roadmap for, say 2017?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2016)

entlassen said:


> I thought I read some rumors maybe a year or so ago on this site that a replacement for the "Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS" was somewhere in the not-so-distant future. Did I remember correctly, and is it still on the roadmap for, say 2017?



EF-M 28mm 1.2:1 macro = 2016
EF 50mm 1:2 macro = 1987
EF-S 60mm 1:1 macro = 2005
MP-E 65mm 5:1 macro = 1999
EF 100mm 1:1 macro = 2000
EF 100L 1:1 macro = 2009
EF 180L 1:1 macro = 1996 

Other than the whirring of the IS in the 100L, I have a hard time finding fault with it. In fairness, I'm no professional flora/fauna/product macro person who focus-stacks all day in a studio with it.

My money on a new macro would be (a) an EF-S version of that front element LED EF-M 28mm that just came out for the Rebel crowd or (b) an update to replace the 180L (IS and faster-than-molasses AF would be appreciated, I'm sure). 

- A


----------



## HaroldC3 (Jun 10, 2016)

So much for Canon making a splash with the M line in 2016. People got all excited when they released the 28mm macro thinking Canon was going to get serious but it sure doesn't look that way based on the roadmap. My hunch is the M4 will be just an incremental update of the M3.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 10, 2016)

HaroldC3 said:


> So much for Canon making a splash with the M line in 2016. People got all excited when they released the 28mm macro thinking Canon was going to get serious but it sure doesn't look that way based on the roadmap. My hunch is the M4 will be just an incremental update of the M3.



We're on _year four_ of the brand's existence without an integral EVF. Forget 'getting serious' -- I'm still waiting for 'fulfilling basic expectations of a camera'. 

Canon continues to market this rig for people other than us, and that very well may be (a) smart to protect SLR sales and (b) make them new money from people other than us. But someday, I'd like to use one of these and not feel like I've not been demoted to a fancy P&S that is disturbingly making congress with L glass.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 10, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> HaroldC3 said:
> 
> 
> > So much for Canon making a splash with the M line in 2016. People got all excited when they released the 28mm macro thinking Canon was going to get serious but it sure doesn't look that way based on the roadmap. My hunch is the M4 will be just an incremental update of the M3.
> ...



I like the M form factor as is and absolutely do not want a larger body with built in EVF. If I want an EVF I am very happy with the current implementation of clip on, just like most people and grips on DSLR's. I would prefer the clip on EVF to have a hotshoe on top of it though.


----------



## jd7 (Jun 11, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> HaroldC3 said:
> 
> 
> > So much for Canon making a splash with the M line in 2016. People got all excited when they released the 28mm macro thinking Canon was going to get serious but it sure doesn't look that way based on the roadmap. My hunch is the M4 will be just an incremental update of the M3.
> ...



Hi ahansford

I see a lot of comments on the internet along the lines of your speculation that Canon might be protecting DSLR sales, but I have to say I just don't follow the reasoning about that. If a customer buys a Canon camera (or at least an interchange lens one), why would Canon care whether that is a dslr or mirrorless? Assuming Canon is able to charge a similar mark up, canon is making similar money either way. And in fact, if Canon had a mirrorless camera along the lines of what you looking for, surely that is likely to simply increase Canon's sales as people upgrade/side-grade/whatever you want to call it - and if it is to a camera with EF-M mount, is likely to prompt EF-M lens sales too.

Am I missing something?

My guess is Canon simply sees the strength of mirrorless at this point in time as being the ability to make it small and light, and they think it has too many limitations (eg AF, battery life, EVF v OVF) to be a direct competitor to DSLRs (and could manufacturing cost be a factor there too?). I think we will see a Canon mirrorless which is a direct competitor with DSLRs when the technology is there so that the present limitations have been removed or are at least minimal (although we will have to see if the small size is sacrificed at least to some extent at that point, and query what lens mount it will use).


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 11, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > HaroldC3 said:
> ...


I agree!

I think the future is mirrorless, but nothing says that all mirrorless have to be the same size..... There is a place for tiny mirrorless cameras like the "m" and a place for full sized bodies with all the controls we love on our high end cameras. The M is successful because it fills a need.... start adding things on to it and bulking it up and you are looking at a different market.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 11, 2016)

jd7 said:


> Hi ahansford
> 
> I see a lot of comments on the internet along the lines of your speculation that Canon might be protecting DSLR sales, but I have to say I just don't follow the reasoning about that.
> [truncated]
> ...



jd7, I argue that technology exists _today_:

* DPAF + Canon's history with LiveView implies they have the AF and realtime EVF content they need today
* They have EVFs galore on other products that they could leverage
* A high-ish burst rate (say 6-8 fps) should be _easier_ to accomplish than without a mirrorbox to consider -- it might appear that Canon has nerfed EOS-M to not be too sexy.

So -- for some reason -- Canon is offering a finely built system that is underwhelming spec-sheet wise and lacks basic SLR-level functionality. It absolutely has the tech to make a much better system, _yet they choose not to_. 

I argue that reason is that SLRs -- particularly the consumer-level ones you see in Best Buy and Target -- are Canon's bread and butter volume- and margins-wise. A better mirrorless rig would split Canon's single huge Rebel market / production base / inventory into two different camps, two different assembly lines, etc. and their profits would suffer. 

So for now, Canon's printing money with SLRs and will do so as long as they can before caving to the inevitable mirrorless future.

- A


----------



## IglooEater (Jun 11, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > jesus christ who's leg do we need to hump to get a new freaking decent 50mm around here?
> ...



Amen Preach it brother.


----------



## brad-man (Jun 11, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > HaroldC3 said:
> ...



+1, although I would prefer a second hot shoe for flash as I like the articulating feature of the EVF-DC1. Larger more full featured versions will inevitably come along either way, so keep one model as small as possible.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 11, 2016)

Still waiting for replacement of EF 50mm Compact macro.


----------



## Bennymiata (Jun 11, 2016)

I'm still waiting for the 1 -1000mm F1.0 lens.


----------



## Gorm (Jun 11, 2016)

i really wonder what 5D Mk3 user want from the 5D Mk4.

what can canon do to make the 5D MK4 worthwhile for the majority of current 5D MK3 owners?

4k video is maybe nice for some but i doubt many will cash out 3500$ just for 4K.

it seems that MP wise the 5D Mk4 will not compete with nikon or sony.

i find the AF of the 5D MK3 so good, i really don´t need a better AF for my kind of photography. i also know many 5D MK3 user who are just overwhelmed by the AF functions. they barely make use of 50% of it´s potential.

as a landscaper i envy the sony sensors. the 5DS is a nice camera but it doesn´t have the latest sensor technology from canon. i want the analog digital converter on the sensor.
for 3500 euro it feels like buying an already outdated camera.

so my wish would be that the 5D MK4 gets more in the nikon 810 direction.
~30+ MP and main focus on sensor technology/image quality.
when they also put 4K in and the 1DX II AF i could see the 5D Mk4 becoming a real success like the 5D MK2.


the 5D MK3 is such a great camera. i don´t see me updating for just 4K and some improvements i barely notice in every day situations.

to make me spend 3500 euro on the 5D Mk4 canon has to really excite me this time.

or maybe i should spend the money on a nice drone?


----------



## racebit (Jun 11, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Exceptions are the RX series, they have their own glass, darn good at that. RX100IV and RX10III are solid bets as they have good glass and sensor/body, and you can't swap the glass of course. Color rendition still stinks, and no touchscreen, but they're monsters otherwise. Those I could solidly recommend.


Sony RX = poor AF
Only acceptable alternatives today to Phase Detect are Canon Dual Pixel and Panasonic Depth From Defocus.
That is why until Canon brings Dual pixel to non-DSLRs, I only consider Panasonic for non-DSLR cameras.


----------



## nightscape123 (Jun 11, 2016)

I'm just waiting for the 6D II myself. Though the updated 24-105 is intriguing. The sooner the 5D IV comes out the sooner we can start hearing about the 6D II, so bring it on.


----------



## marcodiclemente (Jun 11, 2016)

I thought EOS M was dead...

Anyways, very excited about the lenses. I'm almost certain that the 5D IV will be in the $4000s.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 11, 2016)

Gorm said:


> i really wonder what 5D Mk3 user want from the 5D Mk4.
> 
> ... truncated ...



You sound like a number of folks here (you are not the only one at all) that wants 'one FF sensor to rule them all' -- great for everything: high resolution, huge base ISO DR for exposure / post-processing lattitude, low high ISO noise, etc. In the SLR world, there's only one sensor that does that: the D810 (or the two D800s that immediately preceded the D810).

But Canon doesn't have a good/better/best segmentation like Nikon does with the D610/D750/D810. Canon would rather beat the D810 in resolution (5DS) or beat it in frame rate / high ISO / video (5D3 --> 5D4).

Which leaves some Canon folks in a bit of a pickle:


5D4 will have better AF, burst, video, high ISO than the 5DS --> that speaks to general handheld field work: reportage, events, street, documentary work, astro (not handheld but certainly high ISO), candids, and wildlife (if 6-8 fps will do it for you)


5DS will have the best detail --> that speaks to tripod / studio folks shooting landscapes, architecture, portraiture, product/food photography, macro, etc.


*But it's not a clear cut split* -- the 5DS still has the 5D3/1DX AF system so it will capture moving subjects well (with limited fps). The 5DS can also probably come close noise-wise with the 5D4 if you downsample to the 5D4's resolution. 

On the other hand, the 5D4 will certainly be able to work the tripod well and take landscapes/studio work well (with limited detail). 

- A


----------



## dak723 (Jun 12, 2016)

Gorm said:


> i really wonder what 5D Mk3 user want from the 5D Mk4.
> 
> what can canon do to make the 5D MK4 worthwhile for the majority of current 5D MK3 owners?
> 
> ...



Just guessing and trying to think from the point of view of a professional photographer rather than a gear-head...

My guess is Canon's main objective when they release a new camera is not that they expect owners of the previous version to upgrade - because all upgrades in every camera line have been minor. They expect 5D mk II users to get this camera, as well as 6D owners who want to step up, as well as 7D or 70D owners who want to go FF. 5D mk3 owners who have been happy and have put in so many shutter actuations that they are ready to get a new camera will do so - not because of the new features, but because of the same old reliability and quality.

MP wise, more MPs is not the desire for most photographers, if I had to guess. So 24 or 28 MPs is an _advantage_ over Sony and Nikon, unless you need to print billboard size. 

As a landscaper, if you shoot primarily in daylight situations, I doubt you will find much difference with the Sony sensors. Their advantage seems to be in low-light, indoor shots, where noise is much more noticeable. Having bought the Sony A7, I found its pics virtually identical to those taken with my 6D. So no reason to envy the Sony sensor. 

These are just my opinions and guesses.


----------



## et31 (Jun 12, 2016)

I am really looking forward for my new Nikon D5 to arrive in the mail! :
Folks, lighten up! Great engineering takes time to create for optics and camera bodies, especially when you own and develop the majority of patents that define your company. The 5D Mark IV will be a great tool with many improvements over the 5D Mark III; nevertheless, it will not make people better photographers - it just provides those with features that allows them to be creative faster and more efficiently. The element of taking a professional photograph has to come from the individual first; technique, rules, lighting, and creativity to say the least! Millions of beautiful award winning photos were taken with the previous generation(s) of cameras and lenses by Canon all around the world. 

Now, if you really want to complain and follow suit on this forum's tradition, then why is Canon not releasing a 7D Mark III to improve the lack luster sensor of the Mark II that fails on DR with only a max of ISO 16,000, when Nikon recently released the D500 that has a native ISO of up to 51,000? If you are shooting with plenty of light, then there is no problem with the MII; however, do anything without the available light and boost ISO past 1,600, then you are suffering on IQ and noise. I'm not buying a Canon 1Dx MII for $6K when I still need my APS-C to do the work I need to do with max resolution and focal range. Do I really have to wait several more years before Canon says "ok, the Mark III's new ISO range is 100-51,000", when Nikon will release the D510 with ISO 32-210,000 and 200 points of AF w/ 99 cross-type points and no low-pass filter? ;D 

Come on Canon! Get back ahead of the game!
The "bubo virginianuseses" 1/4 mile away at 4pm during the winter months with a 
(400mm f/2.8 + 2x MIII extender) x (1.6 crop) = 1,280mm @ f/5.6 deserve better!


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 12, 2016)

dilbert said:


> To be perhaps more clear on this, I've never seen a professional at a sports event using something other than a "big body" DSLR. Rinse and repeat for events. CR took the 1DXII to Rwanda.



Agree on wildlife and sports, but what the 1D rigs 'are designed for' and what they are _used_ for tend to be two different things. I think many people have learned to drop a 5D3 in the place of a 1DX unless it's absolutely necessary for framerate or survivability in terrible (arctic / desert / rainforest) sort of conditions. I see documentarians, independent filmmakers, and especially weddings/social events/concert folks get by with an overwhelmingly larger number of 5D3's than 1DX's out here in Southern California.

(Granted, SoCal ain't Rwanda. Pick the right tool for the job.)



dilbert said:


> However I agree that Canon's camera lineup (6D, 5D, 5Ds) doesn't really compare the same as Nikon's (D610, D750, D810), especially when it comes to the feature culling that Canon does.



Correction: I said Canon doesn't have the same market segmentation, _not that they don't compare or compete_. And you continue to conflate better sensors with better cameras, which I strongly disagree with. If better sensors made better cameras, we'd all own A7R II's and shoot Canon glass on it. The fact that isn't happening in large numbers today is testament to the notion that cameras have value propositions, and Canon's overall vale proposition is pretty damn great.

The D610 / D750 / D810 have lovely sensors, but they lack so many great pieces of tech: LiveView for Canon is far better, and Canon has DPAF, anti-flicker, better ergonomics/controls/menus, etc.

The only thing I truly covet from Nikon is spot metering at any AF point being deemed a $500 price point camera feature, while we have to give Canon $6k for it. 

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > To be perhaps more clear on this, I've never seen a professional at a sports event using something other than a "big body" DSLR. Rinse and repeat for events. CR took the 1DXII to Rwanda.
> ...


There are so many variables involved, such as cost, size, features, glass, preferences, subject matter, lighting, etc, that the concept of a mass market camera designed for one particular application is ludicrous.... Cameras are designed for a range of activities under a range of conditions and there is a great deal of overlap between models. 

To pick on CR guy for a moment..... of he goes to Rwanda with a 1DX2..... if the camera fails he is SOL for the trip. If I go on a trip to New York City and my camera fails, 30 minutes later I can have a brand new one. For one trip reliability is paramount, for the other it does not matter.... and this is just one variable.....


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 12, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


As someone who bought a 7D2 for its tough build and have taken it to sea, on canoe trips, to the Arctic, and hikes on rainy days, I fully agree with that point....


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 12, 2016)

dilbert said:


> <snip>
> No, Canon have different ergonomics/controls/menus to Nikon. Imagine being used to Nikon and trying to use a Canon camera. Heck, there are even some Canon cameras that I can't use effectively because of layout not being familiar to me. Getting into a feature vs feature is not really very interesting. Reviews do that.


one of my best friends has a D500 and loves it. He finds the Canon user interface weird and hard to use, while I find the same of the Nikon interface. I think a lot depends on which one you are used to.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 12, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > To be perhaps more clear on this, I've never seen a professional at a sports event using something other than a "big body" DSLR. Rinse and repeat for events. CR took the 1DXII to Rwanda.
> ...


A "pro" uses the right tool for the job. A great example of this is in motor sports. You are looking at tens of millions of dollars in cars, spare engines, parts, and electronics.... Where a 1DX2 with a 600F4 is a trivial cost, and you see GoPros by the dozens......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y20CLumT2Sg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6wI_lBj3mc


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


Yes, the 5D2 has an unfortunate history of not dealing well with wet weather. That's why, despite the presence of a 5D2 in the next room, I got a 7D2..... (and an umbrella  ) Apparently, even my old 60D with it's tilt/swivel screen was more waterproof than the 5D2


----------



## FECHariot (Jun 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> The camera used by the wedding photographer depends on the photographer. The cheap/amateur wedding photographers that I see use cameras other than the body + grip. The professionals use body+grip style (D# Nikon, 1D Canon.)



So you think a wedding photographer using a 5d3 without a grip is a cheap/amateur?


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 13, 2016)

FECHariot said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > The camera used by the wedding photographer depends on the photographer. The cheap/amateur wedding photographers that I see use cameras other than the body + grip. The professionals use body+grip style (D# Nikon, 1D Canon.)
> ...


It is the concept that a "pro" is defined by their gear that I find funny.... Does this mean that if I shoot weddings with a 1DX and a 5D3 as my backup camera that I am a semi-pro?

A pro also looks at factors such as cost.... one has to keep the business profitable in order to survive and a lot of that depends on your market. You might be able to afford a 1DX2 for your business in the big city, but out here in a small town the market is smaller and the clientele is less affluent and that makes expensive gear an economic noose. Only a hobbyist spends more on gear than they make in profit...


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jun 13, 2016)

I'm a 5D3 owner. I'm very happy with what I have now and would only consider an upgrade if Canon figured out a way to allow a much higher flash synch speed... presumably with some kind of electronic shutter system. I'd pay a lot for that. 

I have absolutely no interest in 4K video. How the heck can you post that stuff on Facebook or YouTube? Have you seen what those sites do to high-res video? LOL


----------



## davidmurray (Jun 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Gorm said:
> 
> 
> > i really wonder what 5D Mk3 user want from the 5D Mk4.
> ...



I find it hard to believe anyone could describe the successor to the Canon 5D3 as producing images "with limited detail".
Using my 5D3 and a 70-200 L f2.8 IS with a 2x extender I photographed a TV transmission tower/antenna that was about 5km distant. When I did the pixel peeping I found I could even see the steel cables that brace the tower against the wind.
Not a bad level of detail out of a 35mm DSLR.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > FECHariot said:
> ...



If they put a $2,000 lens on the front and their portfolio looked good, sure. But when booking a photographer I ask to see their portfolio, not their gear. 

I wonder when people contract Alex Majoli, Magnum photographer, they are more concerned about the pictures he takes or the fact he could well be taking them with Olympus point-and-shoots? 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_page8c1c.html?cid=7-6468-7844


----------



## Berty Rampkin (Jun 13, 2016)

I would like to see a body that has inbuilt ND filters (similar to C100).


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


With respect they are 7 & 9 year old reports. The 5D MKIII is much better sealed than the MKII in fact the 6D is better sealed than the MKII. Ive been on Dartmoor in torrential rain caught away from protection and my 6D lived to tell the tail as did the EF 24-105mm fitted. The 5DS I have Ive been caught out in sudden sea spray and again after a careful clean down it was OK. The one failure I had was with an Olympus E500 in South Africa shooting African Penguins with a mixture of wind and sand it gave up permanently. 
The worst thing to deal with is humidity that forms inside a lens or a camera Ive had this on the Camel Trophy and their is nothing you can do about it in the tropics.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 13, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> The worst thing to deal with is humidity that forms inside a lens or a camera Ive had this on the Camel Trophy and their is nothing you can do about it in the tropics.


That's one of the reasons why I love the 70-200F4.... as a constant length lens you are not pumping air through it every time you zoom and that's WAY better for dealing with high humidity....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Pretty sure it's the same sensor.



dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > FECHariot said:
> ...



If by "wedding photographer" you mean "person who professionally photographs weddings," then of course: yes.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



That's kinda weird.

I don't see what pay rate or equipment used have to do with one doing something professionally. Is Willie Nelson not a professional musician because he uses this piece of garbage?







But hey, to each his own.

FYI:



> pro·fes·sion·al
> prəˈfeSH(ə)n(ə)l/
> adjective
> adjective: professional
> ...





> pro·fes·sion
> prəˈfeSHən/
> noun
> noun: profession; plural noun: professions
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Jun 13, 2016)

Hah! Once again, dear Dilbert doubles down on his wrongheadedness. Just digging himself a deeper hole. Why is it so difficult for some people to simply admit they are wrong?

By the way, without going down the rabbit hole of "professional" I will say this: If you are in business, it is very bad strategy to buy what you don't need.

Good business practice follows the old saying, "cash is king." 

Your cash is the most flexible asset you have. It can quickly be converted to anything you need. In contrast, should you need to convert an asset into cash, you will likely lose a portion of your investment and lose precious time trying to convert that asset. 

That's why smart business people buy the least expensive item that will do the job. If a 6D will do the job, it's bad business to buy a 1D. Of course, you must look at the life of the equipment (cost per use) and the appropriateness of the equipment to the job you have to do. (If you need the features of a 1D, you need a 1D.) No smart business person pays for features they don't need if they can avoid it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 13, 2016)

unfocused said:


> That's why smart business people buy the least expensive item that will do the job. If a 6D will do the job, it's bad business to buy a 1D. Of course, you must look at the life of the equipment (cost per use) and the appropriateness of the equipment to the job you have to do. (If you need the features of a 1D, you need a 1D.) No smart business person pays for features they don't need if they can avoid it.



Then again, there are likely additional people who will judge your worthiness in part on how expensive your equipment looks, so while a 6D may do the job, merely having access to a 1D may land you more work and thus be a worthwhile marketing investment.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 13, 2016)

that says more about the customer than about the professionalism of the photographer (which is what dilbert was talking about)


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 13, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> that says more about the customer than about the professionalism of the photographer (*which is what dilbert was talking about*)



I don't think so. He was pretty specifically talking about equipment, not professionalism.

And sure, using equipment* insufficient to the task* is not an act of professionalism, but who wants to raise a hand to say that a single-battery body isn't up to the task of taking pictures primarily of people standing still, people posing, people dancing, and still lifes?

Not I.


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 13, 2016)

Really surprised we havent heard about a new 50 L prime considering the new 35. I hope Canon surprises us this year. Really waiting for that one


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 13, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> Really surprised we havent heard about a new 50 L prime considering the new 35. I hope Canon surprises us this year. Really waiting for that one



Canon put out a new 50 prime just last year, the 50mm f/1.8 STM. That should *completely* address any 50mm prime needs for everyone for the foreseeable future. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Really surprised we havent heard about a new 50 L prime considering the new 35. I hope Canon surprises us this year. Really waiting for that one
> ...



Also:


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 13, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> that says more about the customer than about the professionalism of the photographer (which is what dilbert was talking about)


It was pretty clear.... he claims that gear defines the professional and that if you are not using a 1 series body that you are not a pro......

The thing is, the 5D2 was seen as THE wedding photographers camera until the 5D3 came out, and then it was seen as THE wedding photographer's camera..... I don't know a single wedding photographer (but I am sure there are some) who shoots with a 1DX..... they (at least the Canon ones) shoot with 5D3's, 5D2's, 6D's, 7D's, 7D2's, and yes, several have 70D's too.....

A wedding is not like the big game. You don't need that 14FPS burst to try and catch the ball as the bat hits it, or to catch the split second as the tag is made...... you don't need that 1DX high voltage battery to drive that 600F4 lens.... for some inexplicable reason, the wedding party poses for you! They hold still! They let you move around for different angles.... they let you get close enough so you don't need that supertelephoto... they even keep posed until after you get the ring shot..... Instead of trying to get that 100th of a second contact with the ball, you have 2 hours to get that picture of Uncle Fred dancing.....

Different tools for different jobs! A real pro chooses the right tool for the task rather than letting the tool define the task.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 13, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> The thing is, the 5D2 was seen as THE wedding photographers camera until the 5D3 came out, and then it was seen as THE wedding photographer's camera..... I don't know a single wedding photographer (but I am sure there are some) who shoots with a 1DX..... they (at least the Canon ones) shoot with 5D3's, 5D2's, 6D's, 7D's, 7D2's, and yes, several have 70D's too.....



I'm no pro, but one would think the a camera with a silent shutter is a wedding game-changer for non-posed / available light shots. 

I realize that's not the majority of your classic posed / lit portraiture, but when you're shooting 'street' at a wedding and want to catch attendees unawares or don't want to distract the bride and groom, I would imagine silent shutter is gold for that.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 13, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> I don't know a single wedding photographer (but I am sure there are some) who shoots with a 1DX.....



There are lots. Think about it, AF and low light performance for both IQ and AF are two stellar reasons. 

Negatives are cost, size, and lack of silent shutter. As for cost, that largely depends on your market segment and pricing strategy, there are a lot more sub $1,000 a wedding shooters than +$5,000 stills wedding shooters. Size? Well I see comparatively few wedding shooters using 5 series cameras without a grip so the size argument for many is utterly moot. Silent shutter, now that is a bugbear, I was asked to stop shooting a showjumping event over the weekend because even though I was 30' away from the ring and 60-80' from the horses even using silent mode in a 1Ds MkIII the horses were distracted! It was an amateur event though and neither the riders nor horses were not used to photographers.

Very high profile 1DX wedding shooters? Scott Kelby and Jeff Ascough would be two. Ascough, who is a Canon Ambassador, has taken to the high iso IQ and the AF accuracy in low light the 1DX MkII gives him over his 5D MkIII's.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Is what you're telling that it isn't necessary for a professional wedding photographer to use a Canon DSLR?



No. I am saying it isn't necessary to use (and here I am quoting you)



> body+grip style (D# Nikon, 1D Canon.)



My comment was not brand specific at all and my reference to Alex Majoli was to show a Magnum photographer who uses a point-and-shoot on a professional assignment. 
So either you are unable to udnerstand a counter argument or you are deliberately obfuscating. Then I realised it is Dilbert I am conversing with....


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 13, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> I don't think so. He was pretty specifically talking about equipment, not professionalism.
> 
> And sure, using equipment* insufficient to the task* is not an act of professionalism, but who wants to raise a hand to say that a single-battery body isn't up to the task of taking pictures primarily of people standing still, people posing, people dancing, and still lifes?
> 
> Not I.



But Dilbert clearly was. 
Apparently a professional used a body+grip style. So anyone who chooses not to use such a style camera is not being professional ergo, anyone choosing to not uses a body+grip style is not showing a degree of professionalism in their approach.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



When I got married, I reviewed *the work* of several local photographers within budget. I didn't ask them about makes and models, and wouldn't care if they volunteered the info - it is of no consequence.

When I downselected, we directly discussed what I liked in her portfolio, what I did not like, and what my expectations were. None of them had to do with makes or models. We did discuss what lighting she would bring since it affects the ambiance of the event, but again I wouldn't disqualify her for using yongnuo triggers for example. 

If she were unable to deliver because she selected gear which wasn't sufficient to return the expected results (relative to her portfolio), there would have been a problem. There was not, and FWIW she wasn't using full-sized bodies.


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 13, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Really surprised we havent heard about a new 50 L prime considering the new 35. I hope Canon surprises us this year. Really waiting for that one
> ...



But the 50 1.8 and the 50L are two completely different lenses. With a new 35L II, a new 50L II should almost be a given, particularly with the new optical formula they employed for it


----------



## unfocused (Jun 13, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Very high profile 1DX wedding shooters? Scott Kelby and Jeff Ascough would be two.



Not to nit pick too much, but Kelby is primarily a sports photographer. I was at one of his seminars a year or so ago and he said he is trying to concentrate on sports, because he enjoys it the most. I suspect that he uses a 1D X because he needs it for sports, rather than for the occasional wedding shoot.

Just for fun, I took a look at some of my Creative Live courses. Lindsay Adler and Roberto Valenzuela were both shooting non-gripped Canons. 

I guess they are not up to Dilbert's standards.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 13, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



My posting _might_ have been in jest. (I admit I was subtle: sarcasm, bold/underline for emphasis, winky face, etc. :)

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 13, 2016)

unfocused said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Very high profile 1DX wedding shooters? Scott Kelby and Jeff Ascough would be two.
> ...



There are a lot of high end pros shooting the 5D MkIII and 5DS/R ungripped, including probably the greatest portrait shooter currently working (IMHO), Gregory Heisler, they cross the entire gamut of shooting scenarios and include people like Joel Grimes, Jasmin Star, Joey L, Peter Hurley and on and on and on. But they aren't wedding shooters (apart from Star) so Dilbert will ignore them. Though to your point on Kelby, he can have whatever gear he wants and if he wanted to shoot weddings with a 5D anything he could, he shoots weddings with the 1DX because he wants to.

A great photographer can get great images with just about any camera made in the last five or so years. For the vast majority of us, the not so great, equipment can make more of a difference, for instance if you have faster AF and are a slower person you can get images you couldn't without the faster AF, or if you have more exposure latitude you can be less conscious of exposure. But the greats are the ones who work to a level where the gear is close to irrelevant, it is simply an extension of their vision and having a grip or not is as irrelevant as having f1.4 or f1.2, their content will trump any perceived equipment 'limitations'.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 13, 2016)

dilbert said:


> I think that it is wonderful that you find this person to be an excellent example of a professional photographer using a MILC style camera in lieu of a traditional DSLR.



Do I take the opinion of a Magnum photographer over someone who spends time living fantasies on a Rumors forum? 




dilbert said:


> Since you have pointed out that using a DSLR is not a requirement for professional photography, do you see this as a threat to Canon's business?


Nope. I think it is fair to say that pros see the 5D/1D series offering functions and rugged build that make is worthwhile and Canon is servicing that market. If there was no such market those cameras would not exist.



dilbert said:


> If an Olympus MILC can do the job of a much more expensive Canon DSLR, why would anyone prefer the expensive option?


Image quality comes from a combination of the lens and the sensor. The body merely offers functionality and has virtually no effect on image quality. The xxxD sensors are also used in the xxD and 7D bodies so there will be no image quality difference between them. And given many pros use the 7D, why is it a problem using the xxxD models? People were shooting superb wedding photos with the 3MP and 8MP early digital models and it is still possible.
I have long contended that the idea of pros using modern 36MP/50MP bodies with ISO capabilities into 52,000 is more about their ego than about what really matters to the general public. 
Or are you saying that the award-winning National Geographic magazine spreads shot on 35mm transparency are, quite frankly, amateurish rubbish because we now have 50MP bodies?


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 14, 2016)

I checked the websites for all (that I could find) 28 wedding photographers that I could find within a 100 kilometer radius of where I live.

0 out of 28 mentioned the cameras that they shoot with. 0! NONE! 

On 2 of the websites you could see a picture of the photographer holding a camera, and in both cases it was a non-1 series Canon without a grip.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 14, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> I checked the websites for all (that I could find) 28 wedding photographers that I could find within a 100 kilometer radius of where I live.
> 
> 0 out of 28 mentioned the cameras that they shoot with. 0! NONE!
> 
> On 2 of the websites you could see a picture of the photographer holding a camera, and in both cases it was a non-1 series Canon.



Wow, you should become a wedding photographer. Once you aquire and advertise access to the properly-shaped camera body, as the only clear professional within a 100km radius, you'll have your pick of clients and be able to name your price.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 14, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I checked the websites for all (that I could find) 28 wedding photographers that I could find within a 100 kilometer radius of where I live.
> ...


Apparently all I need is a 20D and a BG-EN2 grip for it, no skill required!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 14, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Well the actual qualification suggested was a full-sized body: "body+grip style (D# Nikon, 1D Canon.)"

But with a 20D and some Bondo, you could probably fake it.


----------



## FECHariot (Jun 14, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Would you consider a wedding photographer using an Rebel as their main camera a pro?



Guess one question that was never asked when I was looking at my photographer's portfolio before we hired her to shoot our wedding: "You're not going to be using a Rebel are you?"


----------



## FECHariot (Jun 14, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Just for fun, I took a look at some of my Creative Live courses. Lindsay Adler and Roberto Valenzuela were both shooting non-gripped Canons.
> 
> I guess they are not up to Dilbert's standards.



Lindsay didn't even use L glass and shot all Sigma. Now that might have changed now that she is a Canon EOL.


----------



## midluk (Jun 14, 2016)

While I was at the zoo last year with my gripped 70D (and a 100-400 II) I heard two women talking about the photographer at a wedding one of them attended. She complained about the "unprofessional photographer" who only had an inappropriate camera (likely some mirrorless), much smaller than the professional camera I was using. She said, she would never have hired her, although I don't think she has had a look at the resulting pictures (which are likely better than what I could have taken with my skill level and my camera).
So at least for perception of professionalism in the uninformed public, camera size matters. But I think few could distinguish a 1D from a gripped xxD (unless seen side by side). And many would likely see a 1DX(II) as disturbing because of shutter sound.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 14, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Of course you don't, you expect them to be professionals and show up with professional equipment. The expectations might not be written down or verbalized but they are there.



Well I would hope that by the time they turn up to the venue you have already seen the quality of their work and hired them based on that, by which time you should be beyond caring how they got those images. 
I guess you would cancel them on the spot and prefer to go without any photos at all.

And if they turned up with a 5DSR instead of 1Dx how would you feel then?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2016)

Feed it as much as you want, you can't satiate a troll.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Feed it as much as you want, you can't satiate a troll.


It's like a pet.... every now and then it poops on the rug, but you keep it anyway.... perhaps because it can do amusing things like digging itself into a hole or playing dodge-ball with facts....


----------



## BobG (Jun 14, 2016)

What happened to the reported Canon EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS being a 2016 lens?


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 14, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Feed it as much as you want, you can't satiate a troll.



I don't think he's trolling here, he's merely over-generalizing. (over-generalizing seems to be a major feature of Dilbert's posts) I'm an amateur, but there've been several occasions where I've been at an event with my XXD, "big" 24-105 lens, and possibly a shoe-mounted flash, and the other people just get out of my way so I can take the shot. Looking the part has advantages. For the same reasons physicians wear those silly lab coats, and lawyers wear fine suits to spew coarse logic.

We can all agree that an experienced photographer can probably do an excellent job with a Rebel and kit lens, but a pro- or semi-pro body and L-glass are likely more reliable.


----------



## zim (Jun 14, 2016)

I seem to recall my wedding tog using a Hasselblad, bloody amateur, if only I'd known


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 14, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> I'm an amateur, but there've been several occasions where I've been at an event with my XXD, "big" 24-105 lens, and possibly a shoe-mounted flash, and the other people just get out of my way so I can take the shot. Looking the part has advantages.



Hell, at most concerts I attend, "professional cameras" are not permitted without a press pass, and the distinction made is typically whether the lens is removable. I'd LOVE if they'd adopt the Dilbert principal.



dilbert said:


> Yes. There are always "exceptions to the rule"



So, for the record, what is the rule? To be considered a "professional photographer," one must use a full-sized SLR body?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. There are always "exceptions to the rule"
> ...



Dilbert was quite specific – a 1-series Canon or D# series from Nikon is a prerequisite to be considered a 'professional wedding photographer'. Those using a 5-series Canon or a D8x0 Nikon are not professionals and are bilking their clients as a result. Skill, experience an portfolio are irrelevant. In dilbertland, I qualify as a professional wedding photographer. Thank goodness I'll never visit that fantasyland.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 14, 2016)

God, you people must have a lot of time to kill. Don´t you ever get bored with this childish ranting, harassment and word splitting?

Every single thread ends up in a meaningless twisting and distortion of what someone has said, into something they never intended. Dilbert´s posts are not always the best, but your ranting and harassment is a lot worse. A 10-year old understands the meaning of what was said, but apparently not a bunch of grown men.

Get a life!


----------



## j-nord (Jun 14, 2016)

Eldar said:


> God, you people must have a lot of time to kill. Don´t you ever get bored with this childish ranting, harassment and word splitting?
> 
> Every single thread ends up in a meaningless twisting and distortion of what someone has said, into something they never intended. Dilbert´s posts are not always the best, but your ranting and harassment is a lot worse. A 10-year old understands the meaning of what was said, but apparently not a bunch of grown men.
> 
> Get a life!


I hope you realize you are only feeding the trolls and off topic banter.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 14, 2016)

Eldar said:


> ...Every single thread ends up in a meaningless twisting and distortion of what someone has said, into something they never intended. Dilbert´s posts are not always the best, but your ranting and harassment is a lot worse...



Pretty good advice. I try to resist Dilbert's deliberate inanity, but frequently fail. I hope to get better.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 14, 2016)

Okay, I know I'm violating my own resolution (and just minutes after making it). So, I promise to do better after adding this one comment.

Did anyone else notice the irony of our biggest Sony fan arguing in favor of oversize "professional-looking" cameras? Certainly no photographer carrying those puny little Sonys could be a professional. 

Okay, I'm going to really, really, try to be better.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 14, 2016)

BobG said:


> What happened to the reported Canon EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS being a 2016 lens?



Many believe the 200-600 f4.5-5.6 is a unicorn. Fun to fantasize about, but unlikely to ever be seen in the wild. (At least not for under $2,500)


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2016)

Maybe my point was too subtle before.

Anybody that tries to pigeonhole the skill level or abilities of an individual photographer by the equipment they appear to be using is either an uninformed member of the public or a wannabe photographer forum addict. There is no correlation.

Just today we have the story of an accredited pro photographer with NASA access who is 16 years old and shooting with an entry level D3300 and kit lens ($359.95 without grip). If I was to start a thread here on what camera should I use to take close up shots of a rocket launch, I doubt many here would suggest the D3300! It would be _"you need durability", "weather sealing", "1 series",_ blah blah blah, meanwhile there is a 16 year old kid out there doing it with a Rebel equivalent.............


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 14, 2016)

Eldar said:


> A 10-year old understands the meaning of what was said



I can only guess what the meaning was because was said was so far afield. Maybe that's because my brain is less developed than that of a 10-year old, but maybe it's because he's so dug in.

I initially thought he was joking (especially considering "Is what you're telling that it isn't necessary for a professional wedding photographer to use a Canon DSLR?"), and, while I could assume he was generalizing about the appearance of a professional photographer (which to me, for whatever reason) conjures up an image of Jimmy Olsen from the Superman films,







that assumption was invalidated by his asking me personally if I'd hire someone based on what they say they'll be using.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 14, 2016)

unfocused said:


> BobG said:
> 
> 
> > What happened to the reported Canon EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6 IS being a 2016 lens?
> ...



Will it happen? Yes. That lens has some nasty headwinds -- competitors' very low prices, Canon insisting EF to be f/5.6 at the slowest, the rumor saying 600mm and not a far more reasonable price-wise 500mm, etc. -- but Canon could make it if they were so inclined.

Will it be cheap like the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 VR for $1399? Unlikely, especially if it goes to 600mm. But I suppose Canon could (very uncharacteristically) give it away at cost if the D500 + 200-500 combo was stealing birders/wildlife users en masse from Canon. Anything's possible.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > BobG said:
> ...



D500 $2,995.95
200-500 $1,396.95
Total $4392.90

7D MkII $1,349.00
100-400 MkII $2,099.00
Total $3448.00

I doubt if those numbers are going to push Canon into doing anything. If anybody gets hung up on 500 is better than 400 then a smart salesman would sell them any of the third party 150-600's and make more commission anyway (and save them a ton on the Canon deal).


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 14, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> D500 $2,995.95
> 200-500 $1,396.95
> Total $4392.90
> 
> ...



D500 costs _$1,995_, not $2,995 (at least in the US), and 500mm > 400mm, and that's a big deal for the reach-obsessed.

I'm not singing the praises of the Nikon by any stretch, but Canon isn't exactly considering an inexpensive superzoom because Tamron and Sigma are making money on them. They are considering one because a first party offering from Nikon represents (to a small degree) a threat to steal an entire user group from Canon: amateur/starting wildlife and birding folks. 

Presently, the D500 + 200-500 is a shade cheaper than the 7D2 + 100-400, and the Nikon folks have the bump of a new rig with fancy tech on it (better sensor, tilty-flippy, 4K, epic buffer, etc.) as the bright shiny light to draw people. Again, I'm not going out to buy one, but right now, Nikon has arrows in the quiver for this segment that Canon does not.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > D500 $2,995.95
> ...



My mistake, sorry. DOH! 

You'd have to be mad to pay more for a 7D MkII and 100-400 than a D500 and 200-500.

How do you know "Canon is considering an inexpensive superzoom"? If Canon worked the way half the people here think they work, in response to something Nikon puts out, they'd be in a worse financial mess than Nikon themselves are. Nikon is not the first or second 'threat', changing markets and costs are far more important to Canon, vastly so, than anything Nikon does. 

if I were a market analyst I'd advise Canon to do the opposite of pretty much anything Nikon does.


----------



## et31 (Jun 14, 2016)

Obviously Yoichi Okamoto was the worst photographer in the world because he used a silly SLR with manual focus. There was no way that he was able to capture the moment. Gasp! How could he have been so careless? : 
So many 21st century photographers in an infant DSLR era are 1/2 the photographers of the giants of the past. 
Photo below: Yoichi is not using a Canon 1Dx Mark II or a Nikon D5. For shame. ??? :  ;D 






A true photographer knows the rules of lighting and composition like second nature without having to rely on the "playback" image or automatic modes, in addition to having the eye, skill, ability to deliver! 

Yes, forum trolls, there are plenty of other factors and variables in photography to consider. But my point is that to make a claim that only certain types of events can be shot with a certain class of DSLR cameras is ludicrous. We are living in a spoiled generation!


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 14, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> How do you know "Canon is considering an inexpensive superzoom"? If Canon worked the way half the people here think they work, in response to something Nikon puts out, they'd be in a worse financial mess than Nikon themselves are. Nikon is not the first or second 'threat', changing markets and costs are far more important to Canon, vastly so, than anything Nikon does.
> 
> if I were a market analyst I'd advise Canon to do the opposite of pretty much anything Nikon does.



Ha, fair! No, there's been a number of different rumors (including here at CR) about a 200-600 f/slow lens materializing at Canon.

The rumor started off as being borne out of 'anything Sigma or Tamron can do, Canon can do better for 2x the cost'  But the more you think about it, those 3rd party lenses are just canaries in a mine, and they are thriving. They imply Canon could also make money there.

_Nikon listened to those canaries first_, and even though they were just chasing a few bucks in a new market, the release of that 200-500 alongside what appears to be a pretty solid D500 offering makes a compelling sales pitch to the enthusiast birder/wildlife folks.

To me, the Tamron and Sigma represent a chance for Canon to put out a $3-4k instrument to outclass the segment. But the Nikon offering, especially at $1,400, is potentially a small threat to steal users to the FX mount. I argue the Nikon lens is far more disruptive to Canon's plans than the Sigma/Tamron, and it will force Canon to go 'cheaper' rather than 'sexier' on this supertele zoom.

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2016)

et31 said:


> Obviously Yoichi Okamoto was the worst photographer in the world because he used a silly SLR with manual focus. There was no way that he was able to capture the moment. Gasp! How could he have been so careless? :
> So many 21st century photographers in an infant DSLR era are 1/2 the photographers of the giants of the past.
> Photo below: Yoichi is not using a Canon 1Dx Mark II or a Nikon D5. For shame. ??? :  ;D
> 
> ...



Not really relevant as the Rangefinders of the time were by no means the poorer cousins to the interchangable lens 135 format cameras at the time.

However Pete Souza, the current White House official photographer, shoots primarily with an ungripped 5D MkIII, before that he used an ungripped 5D MkII. Go figure.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/27019200873/


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 14, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> However Pete Souza, the current White House official photographer, shoots primarily with an ungripped 5D MkIII, before that he used an ungripped 5D MkII. Go figure.
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/27019200873/



Yep, my brother proudly points out his alma mater produced Pete Souza.

That guy does a great job: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/may/29/pete-souza-photographing-the-real-barack-obama

(The hair touching and spider man shots are phenomenal.)

- A


----------



## et31 (Jun 14, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > However Pete Souza, the current White House official photographer, shoots primarily with an ungripped 5D MkIII, before that he used an ungripped 5D MkII. Go figure.
> ...



Exactly! All of these professionals use the tool that works the best for their purposes and still capture award winning, emotional, and historically significant photographs. For Canon users, the 5D series provides photographers with industry workhorses.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 14, 2016)

et31 said:


> Exactly! All of these professionals use the tool that works the best for their purposes and still capture award winning, emotional, and historically significant photographs. For Canon users, the 5D series provides photographers with industry workhorses.



Except to DXO, who calls the 5D line a 'semi-professional' line of cameras.

- A


----------



## slclick (Jun 14, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> et31 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly! All of these professionals use the tool that works the best for their purposes and still capture award winning, emotional, and historically significant photographs. For Canon users, the 5D series provides photographers with industry workhorses.
> ...



We all know Jérôme Ménière sleeps on one of these


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 14, 2016)

Had lunch with my favorite photographer today.... She read through this thread and commented "What do you expect, it's a gear site...... people are obsessed with gear and can't see other things. Nobody is going to carry a pair of those all day"


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 14, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > BobG said:
> ...


The "can't be slower than F5.6" mantra we keep hearing may not be cast in stone..... I offer up the CANON EF-M 55-200MM F4.5-6.3 ZOOM LENS as evidence to the contrary.....


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 14, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



That's *EF-M*. I want to say it was Neuro who indicated that the EF mount requires f/5.6 (or wider) lens max aperture for proper AF function.

Sure enough, not a single current production Canon built EF or EF-S lens has an f/6.3 max aperture. Everything is f/5.6 or faster.

Third parties go with f/6.3 lenses, but Canon doesn't.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Jun 14, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> ...I want to say it was Neuro who indicated that the EF mount requires f/5.6 (or wider) lens max aperture for proper AF function.
> 
> Sure enough, not a single current production Canon built EF or EF-S lens has an f/6.3 max aperture. Everything is f/5.6 or faster...



I think the issue is that an f6.3 lens must "fool" the camera body into thinking it is f5.6 in order to focus on bodies that do not have f8 autofocus. The thinking is that Canon would not want to "Rube Goldberg" their own bodies and lenses to make them work with one another.

On a related note: I actually think that is one reason why Canon is now offering multiple f8 focus points on its new cameras. The ability to select multiple focus points on a 100-400 with 1.4 extender makes the lens much more competitive with the third party options. And, actually, as I think about this, the f8 autofocus points could also make an f6.3 lens more likely.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 14, 2016)

dilbert said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Having bought both the 100-400mm MKII and the 1.4ex MKIII (roughly £ 2,120 combined) I DO expect them to just work in the Canon system. I will never purchase the 2X because it doesn't. I also think Canon should make them work with Rebel cameras if someone has spent that kind of money on lenses. 
I played around with both the Sigma and Tamron 150-600 zooms and none of them were as well made as the Canon 100-400 and personally at the short end 150 is too long. 
Having used the 100-400 in South Africa on safari I only had two occasions where I needed a longer reach and the 1.4 would be enough of an extension.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 14, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Yes, it's quite apparent that Canon doesn't consider the 5-series to be pro cameras...in dilbertland. The rest of us live in a place called reality.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 15, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> That's *EF-M*. I want to say it was Neuro who indicated that the EF mount requires f/5.6 (or wider) lens max aperture for proper AF function.
> 
> Sure enough, not a single current production Canon built EF or EF-S lens has an f/6.3 max aperture. Everything is f/5.6 or faster.



Quite true, but the presence of cameras that AF at F8, plus that the EOS-M has a native F6.3 lens, are all indications that F5.6 is no longer the brick wall it once was. It will be interesting to see what the future brings... who knows? The next EOS-M with F8 AF points? A rebel?

<EDIT> One of the big things (pun intended) with the M series is the compact size.... allowing slower lenses (and that means smaller size) allows Canon to add some longer focal lengths to the system and still keep to a small and relatively inexpensive size..... and the same could happen to Rebels! </EDIT>


----------



## Ryananthony (Jun 15, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > That's *EF-M*. I want to say it was Neuro who indicated that the EF mount requires f/5.6 (or wider) lens max aperture for proper AF function.
> ...



does the EOS M use phase detect AF with the native f6.3 lens?


----------



## FECHariot (Jun 15, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> And if they turned up with a 5DSR instead of 1Dx how would you feel then?



Well if Hanson Fong shows up to your wedding with his 5Dsr, you gotta kick him to the curb. lol


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 15, 2016)

dilbert said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Clearly unable to understand the difference between 2 concepts:
- If you are a professional you must use this camera
- Professionals demand a well-built, rugged camera that is more durable than those normally expected by the hobbyist. So Canon have designed these cameras to meet that demand.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 15, 2016)

Personally, I don't believe in the concept of "professional" gear. It is marketing hype.... nothing more, nothing less.

What you have is a variety of imaging devices with different features and different build quality at different prices. A professional will select the tool(s) that best meet their imaging and budgetary requirements.

Lunch is almost over..... I am heading back to the lab with my "pro" spectrum analyzers, my "pro" computers, my "pro" toolkit, and my cup of "pro" coffee......


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 15, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Rather than just look for a reason where "dilbert is wrong"



Really, no one ever needs to _look_. :


----------



## slclick (Jun 15, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Personally, I don't believe in the concept of "professional" gear. It is marketing hype.... nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> What you have is a variety of imaging devices with different features and different build quality at different prices. A professional will select the tool(s) that best meet their imaging and budgetary requirements.
> 
> Lunch is almost over..... I am heading back to the lab with my "pro" spectrum analyzers, my "pro" computers, my "pro" toolkit, and my cup of "pro" coffee......



Have you tried the Pro Nikon Half and Half? DxO gives it a 97 compared to Canon's 2% at 88


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 15, 2016)

slclick said:


> Have you tried the Pro Nikon Half and Half? DxO gives it a 97 compared to Canon's 2% at 88



Yep. I tried the exact same Zeiss coffee in a Nikon mug and a Canon mug. DXO declared the Nikon cup to be "outstanding" but the Canon was deemed to be "limited".

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 16, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Have you tried the Pro Nikon Half and Half? DxO gives it a 97 compared to Canon's 2% at 88
> ...


The best way to determine if you are drinking "pro" level coffee is by the red ring on the mug......


----------



## FECHariot (Jun 16, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...


EF-S 28-135/2.5 USM L II?


----------



## Eldar (Jun 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Rather than just look for a reason where "dilbert is wrong"
> ...


Then why waste hundreds of posts arguing??


----------



## slclick (Jun 16, 2016)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I hate wasted posts.


----------



## et31 (Jun 17, 2016)

Too many Vancome ladies in this forum! 
Typical thread post: ;D
Shaaaaa.....you know what? Nuh huh!






I'm sorry, but here at "weknowitallforum", you're always wrong. 
La la la! La la la! 









aaaaand you're done! Thank you very much! Ok, bye, bye!


----------



## hkenneth (Jun 17, 2016)

1Zach1 said:


> I just hope the "prosumer" M stays a similar size to the M3 and isn't just a mirrorless system in a T6 sized body.



A Canon A-1 digital. I would like to see that lol


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 18, 2016)

hkenneth said:


> 1Zach1 said:
> 
> 
> > I just hope the "prosumer" M stays a similar size to the M3 and isn't just a mirrorless system in a T6 sized body.
> ...


You can have the tiny size of the current "m" cameras, but you can't put a DSLR like user interface onto that small of a body.... you need the real estate of a larger body for the ergonomics.

That raises the interesting possibility that a "prosumer" mirrorless would be in a body of similar size and with a similar user interface to an 80D.... but with some even more interesting possibilities..... like a 60FPS burst rate (take that 1DX2  ) and a quality integrated EVF....


----------



## jd7 (Jun 18, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi ahansford
> ...



Sorry for the delayed reply ... and that I remain sceptical 

My thinking goes like this:

A higher burst speed probably would have required more buffer and/or faster processing, which would have increased cost (and perhaps size).

Further, it is difficult to imagine that putting a faster burst speed on the M would have been of any real practical value with the AF like it is - so any costs or other disadvantages associated with increasing the burst speed would have been for nothing in practical terms.

DPAF might provide the answer to the AF problem - it seems to be clearly a step in the right direction. However, as I understand it, DPAF has proved very good for video AF in combination with STM lenses where you want smooth precise transitions. Does it (at least at this stage of its development) provide fast enough AF for stills photography (including for AF tracking) to be competitive with the PDAF on many DSLRs? 

Also, Canon is on record as saying that DPAF sensors are more expensive to make, so related to the previous point, the question becomes would using a DPAF sensor provide a sufficient practical benefit to warrant the cost?

Certainly Canon has plenty of EVFs, but the question is whether they are good enough to be an attractive alternative to an OVF? I realise there is a great deal of subjectivity in answering that - some people are big fans of the functionality EVFs can offer - but I guess Canon is looking at what will appeal to a substantial portion of its target audience for the camera. For my own part, I am yet to use an EVF which I enjoyed as much as using an OVF

The effect of an EVF on battery life also needs to be considered. Some people will not hesitate to buy a bunch of batteries and carry them, so they may dismiss battery life as a serious problem. However, again I assume Canon has any eye on what it thinks its target audience for the camera cares about.

The question is not whether Canon has the tech to make a better mirrorless than the M, the question is whether Canon has the tech to make a mirrorless camera which can properly compete with its DSLRs with acceptable price and profitablity? 

If the answer to that last question is no, I can see why it might make sense for Canon to make the M a different product - very much focused on the advantages mirrorless can deliver today (ie be small and light).

The only reason I can think of why Canon would deliberately want to "protect" its Rebel line from a Canon mirrorless camera is if Canon wants people to buy a camera which can use EF lenses natively ... so that if the user eventually decides to move to full frame, hopefully they will have acquired a few EF lenses already, which will encourage them to move to a Canon full frame rather than have to sell everything and start from scratch with a new brand. However, given the stats seems to suggest the bulk of Rebel buyers don't buy additional lenses, I don't know how much of an issue that is really in the big scheme of things.

So, I still think we will see a Canon mirrorless which is competitive with DSLRs when Canon can make one which is genuinely competitive and do it cost effectively. That day is presumably getting closer - and you never know, it might arrive with the M4. That said, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the M system remains focused on being small and light, even if that means sacrificing performance, and when Canon makes a mirrorless camera which is competitive with a DSLR, it will be closer in size to an existing Rebel and use an EF-S mount. (I realise that would mean having a Canon mirrorless camera which is not part of the M ecosystem, but there is no reason it would have to bear the M moniker, and outside of the gear-obsessed denizens of forums like CR (I guess that would be people like us  ), I think most buyers care about things like size/weight/AF/what lenses a camera can use, without caring at all about what technology is inside.)


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


As someone who gets into arguments with dilbert from time to time, let me state the following.

1) Most of the time I agree with him.
2) When I disagree with him, I wonder if what we are both trying to say is similar, but with the limitations of texting, sounds different. Both Dilbert and myself sometimes do an inadequate job of explaining our position.
3) Sometimes I definitely disagree with him, but it makes for an interesting discussion that I hope the both of us learn from.
4) I believe that sometimes he trolls.... but if you look at his posting history you will see that it is a fairly small proportion of his posts.
5) I think that the forum would be a poorer spot without him.
6) if he ever shows up at my door, I'm going to grab a couple of steaks for the Barbie and a couple of cold ones.
7) I wish he would post more of his images....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 18, 2016)

To Don's post let me add:

I enjoy his posts too, when they aren't based on a cynical broad-brush view.

And while I am certainly guilty of engaging when it is perhaps unwarranted, I hope people similarly engage me. This site can be both entertaining and educational, and having ideas challenged is a fantastic way to learn.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 18, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> To Don's post let me add:
> 
> I enjoy his posts too, when they aren't based on a cynical broad-brush view.
> 
> And while I am certainly guilty of engaging when it is perhaps unwarranted, I hope people similarly engage me. This site can be both entertaining and educational, and having ideas challenged is a fantastic way to learn.


When Neuro/John is sharing his knowledge and skills, he is a very valuable poster and one I have learned a lot from. However, when we get 10 condescending, cynical, word-splitting and sandbox argumentative posts, every time Dilbert or any other Canon critical person dears to post something, that value is lost.

So John, I expect you read this. Stay on as Dr. Jeckyll and get rid of your Mr. Hyde. You are a valuable and appreciated poster when you do.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 18, 2016)

Eldar said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > To Don's post let me add:
> ...



I have no problem with Dilbert's posts that are critical of Canon, per se. I have a problem when his or others' posts are based on a complete disregard for facts, supported by boneheadedness. 'Canon is behind the MILC competition because they don't offer a 4K dSLR,' and when challenged with the existence of the 1D C, 'I wouldn't call that a dSLR.' 

When a member posts an honest question or a reasonable and fact-based criticism, I endeavor to respond with a helpful and cogent reply. When a member is manifestly trolling or posts a ridiculous assertion and backs it up with incorrect information, and has a long history of doing so, I'll respond with ridicule and scorn, and do so unapologetically.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 18, 2016)

Give me a break!!!

Let's set the record straight here.

Everyone knows I've never hesitated to call Neuro out and stand up to him when I find him bullying. I've been particularly critical of him when he lashes out at those who have only a brief history of posting on this site. In fairness though, that is often times in response to a goofy statement from someone who has spent too much time on the internet repeating myths as though they were facts. 

Neuro backs up his arguments with facts. He has repeatedly and patiently citied the realities of the market and Canon's position in that market, in response to plainly ignorant posts that use overarching statements to externalize and universalize people's individual preferences and biases. 

A classic example being another forum participant who constantly insists that Canon is "stupid" because it does not produce the exact version of certain products that the individual wants for himself, with no regard to the realities of the marketplace which clearly show that his preferred product is not viable.

In sharp contrast, Dilbert's posts are noticeably deficient in facts and generally don't even have much basis in reality. He opines on things of which he clearly has no personal knowledge and then when confronted by persons who actually have some real life experience, he doubles down and shifts the facts, simultaneously distorting what others have said while shuffling his own statements. In Dilbert's world there are no facts, only ill-informed opinions. 

Now, Dilbert comes and writes some self-serving little treatise on how he is so misunderstood and Neuro is such a poor pathetic person. So GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

Dilbert is misunderstood because he constantly shifts his arguments to new territory whenever his previous points have been disproved. He is a classic goal-post mover and subject-changer. Despite the many preposterous positions he has taken, he has NEVER admitted he is wrong. 

Yes, once in a rare while Dilbert may make a correct statement. And, in fact, you all know that I have frequently acknowledged that and even come to his support at times. (Only, of course, to have the little cubicle inhabiting troll bite my hand) 

I have tried to deal with him patiently, hoping to seem improvement in his behavior. Yet, it often seems that for every step toward the light, he immediately retreats two steps backward under the bridge. He simply enjoys trolling and stirring things up with outrageous statements.

Of late, he has sought to create a persona of being a truth-teller persecuted for seeing the world differently than others. Don't be hoodwinked by his self-pitying. 

Ultimately, it comes down to this: Neuro can be persuaded to engage in an intelligent debate involving legitimate, but informed, differences of opinion. Dilbert frustrates so many people (it is not just Neuro, it is many of us who have been longstanding participants) because he follows no rules of engagement or even logic. He makes clear statements that are factually incorrect and then a few posts later revises those statements to claim he was simply misunderstood. 

The problem with troll like that is that it is simply impossible to ever engage in a rational discussion because of their ever-shifting versions of reality.


----------



## ritholtz (Jun 18, 2016)

I think, he is even suggested people to look alternatives if DR is important. His views are against trashing down cameras like 1dx and 7d2 for lack of base ISO DR. Now guardians of D(p)R also spoken about how less important base iso dr for d5 and suggested age old ETTR approach. Actually that is what Neuro is preaching all along.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 19, 2016)

If Dilbert is what you say, ignore him.


----------



## slclick (Jun 19, 2016)

Eldar said:


> If Dilbert is what you say, ignore him.



Now you have me pining for the old ignore function.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2016)

'Worse' is refusing to acknowledge one's mistakes. 
'Worse' is failing to learn from one's mistakes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2016)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 'Worse' is refusing to acknowledge one's mistakes.
> ...



Thanks for your advice, which is as pithy and cogent as the knowledge of facts you routinely demonstrate on this forum.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> When a member is manifestly trolling or posts a ridiculous assertion and backs it up with incorrect information, and has a long history of doing so, I'll *respond with ridicule and scorn*, and do so unapologetically.





neuroanatomist said:


> 'Worse' is refusing to acknowledge one's mistakes.
> 'Worse' is *failing to learn *from one's mistakes.



Responding with ridicule and scorn has been ineffective. You may wish to try some other approach.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > When a member is manifestly trolling or posts a ridiculous assertion and backs it up with incorrect information, and has a long history of doing so, I'll *respond with ridicule and scorn*, and do so unapologetically.
> ...



Your judgement regarding effectiveness (or lack thereof) is predicated on an assumption regarding my intent. You may with to consider if that assumption is warranted.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 25, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


True 'nuff.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2016)




----------



## bvukich (Aug 1, 2016)

I'm a month late, but I have to say I mostly agree with Dilbert in principle. 

Before everyone started attacking him, and arguing about minutia, his basic premise was correct. If some yahoo shows up to shoot a wedding with a Rebel, they are without a doubt not getting the results they could with a better body, and I would hesitate to call someone that would do that a professional; because that is a very unprofessional move. 

I disagree with the 1-series body cutoff, but that seemed to appear later after everyone jumped on him. I personally would include the 5-series, and the 6D at least in a second/backup capacity. 

Equipment isn't everything, no one is arguing that it is. For a talent-less hack such as myself, the capabilities of a 1DX would be largely wasted. But there is no way to successfully argue against the fact that you can get better results with better equipment.


----------



## Kwwund (Aug 2, 2016)

I don't agree with the notion that you can tell a professional by the camera he or she carries. If I were hiring a wedding photographer, I'd look at his portfolio and make my decision without even asking what kind of camera he carried. 

By the way, I'm a yahoo with a T3i. I'm not a great photographer, and I wouldn't suddenly become a professional if I bought a 1-series camera. I doubt anyone would be fooled.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 2, 2016)

bvukich said:


> If some yahoo shows up to shoot a wedding with a Rebel, they are without a doubt not getting the results they could with a better body,



I've heard from people who say it cuts both ways: one of the faults of the 1-series is that it encourages machine-gun style photography. A person could argue that the inferior speed and AF of a Rebel (and those are primarily the qualities we're talking about) would encourage a photographer to be more thoughtful about their work. Occasionally I hear of people playing a game of "digital 36:" go out with your digital camera for a shoot and take exactly one "roll" of film.

If the client's expectation is PJ-style capture of a fast-moving event then you are correct, a Rebel will not keep up. If the purpose is to create beautiful photos, I'd say the lens, and the person behind it, are much more important.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 2, 2016)

bvukich said:


> If some yahoo shows up to shoot a wedding with a Rebel, they are without a doubt not getting the results they could with a better body



The question isn't whether they could get better results, its whether the results they get are good enough, and more specifically

1. Are the rebel cameras inferior to the film cameras wedding photographers used, say, 20 years ago?

2. If a rebel is good enough, why would a pro pay extra?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 2, 2016)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Late to this thread and just skimming. I really wonder this myself. I can only surmise it's that persistence will finally eliminate the "problem". With my crystal ball I'll venture that it won't.

I might add that for the most part I don't enjoy reading what Dilbert posts and so I just skip his comments, consistently. I have no animosity towards anyone on CR including Dilbert but I now ignore him. I'm sure Dilbert doesn't mind if I ignore him and he's free to ignore me. Win-win. 

unfocused, hit the nail on the head with his thorough assessment IMHO.

I vote against pointless bickering but sometimes it's hard to control one's self, especially when the topic is gear that competes with Canon! OTOH, sometimes the bickering (excluding pointless putdowns) can be pretty humourous!! 

Jack


----------

