# Video Capabilities Will Be at the Heart of All Future Canon Prosumer Camera Bodies [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 12, 2018)

```
We’re told a big selling point of all future Canon prosumer camera bodies will be video capabilities. Internally Canon has had a lot of discussion about improving the perceived feature set of prosumer cameras to match the likes of Sony and Panasonic.</p>
<p>We consider a prosumer DSLR to be anything EOS 7D Mark II and up. That said, we don’t think Canon has anything currently we’d consider prosumer in the mirrorless space, as much as I like the EOS M5 and EOS M50. Feel free to disagree on the latter.</p>
<p>The source claims that Canon no longer wants to lose the “spec war” with their future camera releases. This way of thinking is trickling down to various Canon subsidiaries around the globe to prepare for the changes coming.</p>
<p>As <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/whats-next-from-canon-2/">we mentioned yesterday</a>, there’s likely going to be an accelerated product development cycle over the next 18-24 months, and video will be central to it.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Etienne (Jun 12, 2018)

More than 10 years after the release of the 5D2. 
That has to be the slowest corporate response in the history of slow corporate responses.


----------



## fingerstein (Jun 12, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> there’s likely going to be an accelerated product development cycle over the next 18-24 months, and video will be central to it.</p>



Ok! But I need it now! In two years my business can be bankrupt if I don't move on, with the competition.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 12, 2018)

We will believe when we see a tangible upgrade from Canon rather than a castration spree of upgrades that have been a norm for last couple of years.


----------



## gsealy (Jun 12, 2018)

Canon can start with the GH5/GH5s specs and go from there. We'll see.


----------



## Quackator (Jun 12, 2018)

fingerstein said:


> Ok! But I need it now! In two years my business can be bankrupt if I don't move on, with the competition.



If what you think really is that a new camera will prevent you from going bankrupt,
you will for sure go bankrupt.


----------



## amorse (Jun 12, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> The source claims that Canon no longer wants to lose the “spec war” with their future camera releases. This way of thinking is trickling down to various Canon subsidiaries around the globe to prepare for the changes coming.


Interesting sentiment - I wonder if the constant presentation of Canon lagging behind competition on several websites is starting to take its toll on Canon's leadership. 

I am more interested in what this means for Canon's development cycles - if they're going to try and compete on spec sheet stats, what will that mean for reliability and the number of camera lines in the long run? I've always been of the opinion that Canon does things really slowly to allow them to manage a lot of different camera lines at once and making sure that everything works with a very high degree of reliability on day one. If they're going to compete on spec sheets, then some cameras will need accelerated release schedules, and that additional development resource has to come from somewhere... I guess I'm wondering if that means they will reduce the number of lines they manage or reduce the amount of work that goes into one line before release.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 12, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> The source claims that Canon no longer wants to lose the “spec war” with their future camera releases. This way of thinking is trickling down to various Canon subsidiaries around the globe to prepare for the changes coming.



That is laughable, they could reverse that perception overnight with a couple of firmware upgrades. There is no reason on earth why the 1DX MkII couldn't be the first and only camera to output 4K 60P to ProRes RAW over HDMI, that would make it the forum darling overnight. Or they could open it up for C-Log, or maybe even just output 4K through the HDMI port. Etc etc... Oh, they could open up the touchscreen for anything instead of only focusing in video!


----------



## sanj (Jun 12, 2018)

Etienne said:


> More than 10 years after the release of the 5D2.
> That has to be the slowest corporate response in the history of slow corporate responses.



Hahaha. True. They feeling the heat now.


----------



## BillB (Jun 12, 2018)

amorse said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > The source claims that Canon no longer wants to lose the “spec war” with their future camera releases. This way of thinking is trickling down to various Canon subsidiaries around the globe to prepare for the changes coming.
> ...



I think that part of what has been going on is Canon's stubbornness about making up its own mind about which specs are important and which are not, and trusting its own judgement about what will sell and what will not. As a result they taken a pounding on things like 4K and FF mirrorless from the internet buzzards. So are these sources saying that Canon is going to play the spec game to generate better internet buzz? Another piece of the puzzle is that dual pixel technology was Canon's lead technology for mirrorless and video, and that is well established, so maybe it is time to rock and roll.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 12, 2018)

Two comments:

1) Someone must have really been stomping across the bridge this morning because we seem to have woken up all the trolls.

2) I don't see Canon abandoning anything in their formula that is working, but rather just making a few modest adjustments. 

They may shorten the release cycles slightly to reflect increased consumer impatience. We seem to be in an era where its popular to release modest updates more frequently so certain buyers can brag that they have the latest and greatest, even if it isn't much changed from the previous model. (70-200 2.8 III being a good example of the kind of modest update we might see).

A shorter release cycle doesn't mean releasing anything that is still in "beta" but rather making to more feasible to defer some some feature releases until the next cycle.

Of course, if this is true, I would note that they seem to be taking their sweet time with the 5Ds and 7DIII.


----------



## rjbray01 (Jun 12, 2018)

Laughable or tragic ?

I can't help thinking that Canon have lost a lot of good engineers and simply no longer have the technical competence to compete even if they want to.

They can't compete with Sigma Art lenses on resolution and seem totally incapable of providing features such as In Body stabilization or the processing / heatsink capabilities required for high resolution images at even half-reasonable frames per second.

It seems to me their main selling points these days are ergonomics, colour and a lot of customers with existing lenses who don't want to play leapfrog/jump-ship.

Anyone remember Wang ?


----------



## sanj (Jun 12, 2018)

If they truly match the specs, Sony and Panasonic will have to reinvent themselves.


----------



## photogdan (Jun 12, 2018)

Etienne said:


> More than 10 years after the release of the 5D2.
> That has to be the slowest corporate response in the history of slow corporate responses.



Exactly. They are not going to change their market leading strategy overnight. This is a statement by hangers-on, directed specifically to hangers-on in order to keep them, well... hanging-on.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 12, 2018)

At last! [Said like an overly dramatic 7 year old] _Canon is going to do what the fanboys want like I've been saying all along! I'll show Timmy my spec sheet will kick his spec sheet's butt! I'm going to record 8K video of me reading my spec sheet!_

: [looks for the hand to face emoji and fails to find it.]

Sorry. This story may actually be a decent get by CR Guy and may absolutely end up happening, but the lack of specifics and the "spec war" bit reads like pure, uncut internet forum catnip. 

My 'delete my only post on this thread so it stays out of my New Replies list for years to come' Spidey sense is going bonkers right now. This thread is going to be crazy.

- A


----------



## mrzero (Jun 12, 2018)

So, why the lackluster output on servo zoom for lenses? Thus far, we have one servo controller with two fixed speeds, and it only works on one consumer-grade lens. On top of that, they just announced upgrades to two major L zoom lenses that don't include the servo connection. Imagine the video quality of a 70-200/4 or 2.8 L IS with a proper servo control. We won't have it, at least not any time soon.


----------



## Cochese (Jun 12, 2018)

I'd rather image quality be at the heart of all DSLRs going forward. Then again, I just picked up a 5D MIV and despite renting it for a couple of weddings, it's still blowing my mind how much better it is than the 5D MIII. In every conceivable way.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 12, 2018)

mrzero said:


> So, why the lackluster output on servo zoom for lenses? Thus far, we have one servo controller with two fixed speeds, and it only works on one consumer-grade lens. On top of that, they just announced upgrades to two major L zoom lenses that don't include the servo connection. Imagine the video quality of a 70-200/4 or 2.8 L IS with a proper servo control. We won't have it, at least not any time soon.



I could be wrong, but I believe that servo control would require the lens to move to a manual focus by wire (FBW) design like Nano USM or STM. Just about all AF L lenses made today are Ring USM with full-time mechanical focusing. So to make a higher-end or L lens with Nano USM for video would be considered a downgrade by the stills photography camp, and so far we haven't seen one.

That said, we should never say never. There are some rare exceptions -- I want to say the 85 f/1.2L II is both FBW _and_ Ring USM, but that one AF'd like molasses. 

Who knows? Maybe we get one of these (below) on a future lens. 

- A


----------



## Talys (Jun 12, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Oh, they could open up the touchscreen for anything instead of only focusing in video!



You could tell Sony the same thing, LOL.


----------



## skyshooter (Jun 12, 2018)

I just noticed that the M6 15-45 kits are down to $600 on the usual sites. That seems to be a recent discount if I'm not mistaken. Hopefully an updated M6 for those of us that don't care for an EVF?


----------



## canonic (Jun 12, 2018)

Till then, why not make the C200 (and C100) cheaper?!


----------



## timmy_650 (Jun 12, 2018)

They might be trying to adapt to sony. When it was Canon vs Nikon, Nikon was winning the spec battle but not winning the camera war. It feels like sony does care which body you buy from them, as long as you are buying sony. The difference between the a7iii and the a9 is small compared when you think of Canon and nikon. The difference between the 6Dii and 1dxii is huge.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 12, 2018)

rjbray01 said:


> Laughable or tragic ?
> 
> I can't help thinking that Canon have lost a lot of good engineers and simply no longer have the technical competence to compete even if they want to.



Any evidence for that, or is it pure supposition?



rjbray01 said:


> They can't compete with Sigma Art lenses on resolution and seem totally incapable of providing features such as In Body stabilization or the processing / heatsink capabilities required for high resolution images at even half-reasonable frames per second.



Has it occurred to you they might not implement certain features because either they can't infringe other companies' patents, or because they think it can be done better in a different way? It's well established that Canon thinks in-lens IS is better for many purposes. PS which company's cameras have a reputation fo overheating? Deserved or not, it ain't Canon.



rjbray01 said:


> It seems to me their main selling points these days are ergonomics, colour and a lot of customers with existing lenses who don't want to play leapfrog/jump-ship.



A lot of people - and I would argue professionals especially - want gear that works, reliably, in a range of conditions. Canon is as good as anyone at providing that, and better than most.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 12, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re told a big selling point of all future Canon prosumer camera bodies will be video capabilities.


I think that goes without saying. At least some percentage of the market will want video capability. This drives the hardware design in ways still photography does not (especially thermal and data management). It would be a waste of resources to design a stills-centric camera when they can piggyback off the video infrastructure.


----------



## NeverPlayMonopoly (Jun 12, 2018)

Etienne said:


> More than 10 years after the release of the 5D2.
> That has to be the slowest corporate response in the history of slow corporate responses.




Canon thought we'd all hate video on a dslr, I guess. 

Also, speaking of the 5d2, I remember around the time it was being announced there was so much praise and hype for it. 99% sure that one part of the marketing mix was an episode of the TV series House, where they filmed a good portion on 5d2. How did that not encourage them to double down hard and fast?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 12, 2018)

NeverPlayMonopoly said:


> Also, speaking of the 5d2, I remember around the time it was being announced there was so much praise and hype for it. 99% sure that one part of the marketing mix was an episode of the TV series House, where they filmed a good portion on 5d2. How did that not encourage them to double down hard and fast?



They did. It's called the Cinema EOS line. 

While everyone is chasing Panasonic doing all sorts of fun video things with consumer grade multi-purpose tech, Canon is selling far far far more lucrative items much higher up the feeding chain. Can you blame them?

- A


----------



## ashmadux (Jun 12, 2018)

This post makes me furious as a Canon customer.  

So basically, this modern dinosaur of a camera maker was content to hold on off on a multitude of features/upgrades, but now has _reconsidered_ because sony is making them look lethargic?

UTTERLY RIDICULOUS and insulting to it's customer base.* Making the best cameras should be their priority, PERIOD. * 

This headline alone should be a wake up call to us canon lovers - as two companies which we rely on for our image making (Canon+adobe) have gotten fat, stupid and lazy. Its just beyond ridiculous at this point. Our cameras are starting to resemble ATM machines compared to the UI & OS abilities of phone chips. That's just 'Trump SAD'.

*PS ** *Right now is the best time to start diversifying or workflows and hardware. Relying on these dopey organizations exclusively is bound to screw us over. 
Friggin Canon


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 12, 2018)

ashmadux said:


> .* Making the best cameras should be their priority, PERIOD. *



Nice sentiment but a bit naive. All camera manufacturers exist to make profits as best they can.

Note the OP refers to “perceived” feature sets. While most of canon’s cameras are not spec sheet warriors, in many ways they outperform the competition. I prefer a solid camera to one which is just a hodgepodge of features, so I hope this rumor doesn’t portend a change in canon’s development processes from a thorough balanced design to a pursuit of paper tigers.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jun 12, 2018)

I suppose that Canon assumed that since a very small percentage of ILC camera buyers actually use them to shoot video that video specs didn’t matter. Apparently they’re reconsidering. I expect that even infrequent video shooters harbor some video aspirations and don’t like being short changed. 

The video features available in Canons better DSLRs today should really only be viewed as a hands on demo unit for their Cinema line. It becomes obvious very quickly when you use them for video production that they are intentionally designed to make day to day production use as difficult as possible. I give them a pass on MJPEG and assume that is an inconvenient but necessary evil but why is the 1080p so soft? Seems like good 1080p should be a given in 2018 and I think my stock 5D3 shot better 1080p than either the 5D4 or 1DX2. 

The 1DX2, with its excellent read speeds, on board processing, throughout and thermal dispersion could be a much better tool than it’s allowed to be. Full sensor 4K 30p would be a nice start. That should be well within it’s capabilities. Don’t even get me started on log. I can’t use log on the 5D4 and then cut in 1DX2 footage without causing a grading nightmare. The list of intentionally downgraded features is long and well documented so I won’t rehash them all here

As things stand right now I’ll probably be looking elsewhere for my next video cam. I’m sure the c200 is nice but it sounds like Canon plays the same games with those. No broadcast codec. Only internal RAW yada yada yada. It’s all getting very old IMO.


----------



## justawriter (Jun 12, 2018)

But don't worry all you Debbie Downers, (Canon Clowners?) even if Canon does eventually win the spec sheet wars by replacing the mirrorbox with a popcorn popper, you will always have DR to complain about. ;D


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 13, 2018)

Etienne said:


> More than 10 years after the release of the 5D2.
> That has to be the slowest corporate response in the history of slow corporate responses.


All the while leading in sales and profit. Sounds like they made the right (corporate) decision so far.


----------



## David Hull (Jun 13, 2018)

"That said, we don’t think Canon has anything currently we’d consider prosumer in the mirrorless space, as much as I like the EOS M5 and EOS M50. Feel free to disagree on the latter"

What would the M5 need to have to make it be "ProSumer"? I have never thought much about that. I have both a 5DIII and an M5 and I use the M5 a lot for travel (which I have been doing a lot). I actually wish the thing was a bit bigger so I could work the controls a bit easier like I can with the DSLR's.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 13, 2018)

David Hull said:


> What would the M5 need to have to make it be "ProSumer"?



A little extra volume so the controls would bit easier to operate, like their DSLR's.


----------



## David Hull (Jun 13, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > What would the M5 need to have to make it be "ProSumer"?
> ...



Yep I agree there. The M5 seems to have everything there but it's size makes it a bit hard to work particularly if you adapt on a standard sized EOS lens. It sure makes a nice travel kit, though, I have it, a flash a couple lenses in a little ThinkTank sling bag and that kit bag it is a lot lighter than the 5D III kit bag.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 13, 2018)

NeverPlayMonopoly said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > More than 10 years after the release of the 5D2.
> ...



The final House episode of the season around that time was shot entirely on 5D2 cameras. The hype that started it was a short film "Reverie" shot by Vincent Laforet. Canon gave him a camera before it's release and told him to see what he could do. That short film set the indie video world on fire.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 13, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I suppose that Canon assumed that since a very small percentage of ILC camera buyers actually use them to shoot video that video specs didn’t matter. Apparently they’re reconsidering. I expect that even infrequent video shooters harbor some video aspirations and don’t like being short changed.
> 
> The video features available in Canons better DSLRs today should really only be viewed as a hands on demo unit for their Cinema line. It becomes obvious very quickly when you use them for video production that they are intentionally designed to make day to day production use as difficult as possible. I give them a pass on MJPEG and assume that is an inconvenient but necessary evil but why is the 1080p so soft? Seems like good 1080p should be a given in 2018 and I think my stock 5D3 shot better 1080p than either the 5D4 or 1DX2.
> 
> ...



Absolutely true, it is getting very old. 10 years ago owners of other brands looked upon Canon users with envy. Not today. Canon played their "safe" game holding back for a decade, but the cracks, grey hair and creaky bones can't be ignored. I don't think they can afford to do that anymore.


----------



## rjbray01 (Jun 13, 2018)

scyrene said:


> rjbray01 said:
> 
> 
> > Laughable or tragic ?
> ...



Err ... fact !

On release of the 5Div Canon did an interview and blamed their half-baked 4K implementation on the fact that their engineers were unable to overcome heat problems ... problems which other manufacturers clearly overcame a long time ago.

And if Canon are being pipped prevented from delivering engineering solutions because other company engineers are coming up with patented inventions first then again this doesn't reflect well on Canon.

So overall it looks to me like Canon are struggling from an engineering perspective ... and its just blind or naive optimism that their delivery of 2nd rate products is a bizarre but winning commercial strategy ...


----------



## BillB (Jun 13, 2018)

rjbray01 said:


> So overall it looks to me like Canon are struggling from an engineering perspective ... and its just blind or naive optimism that their delivery of 2nd rate products is a bizarre but winning commercial strategy ...



So, Canon has accidentally stumbled on a winning strategy. If that works for you, cool. My take is that dual pixel has been Canon's leading technology for mirrorless and video, and they have been willing to accept the delays in getting serious mirrorless and video to market to wait on it. Now that dual pixel is in place, the next question is whether they will come up with the processing power to rock and roll. Maybe they will or maybe they won't, but we shall see. Don't see any point in guessing.


----------



## rjbray01 (Jun 13, 2018)

BillB said:


> rjbray01 said:
> 
> 
> > So overall it looks to me like Canon are struggling from an engineering perspective ... and its just blind or naive optimism that their delivery of 2nd rate products is a bizarre but winning commercial strategy ...
> ...



No, I don't think there is any accident to Canon's winning strategy. It was achieved though both engineering prowess and commercial nouse. 

Great products don't come about by accident : they are the result of years of investment in R&D more often than stumbling across solutions.

Whilst I totally "get" the economics of stratification of the market, and that car companies for example don't fit all their top technology into every model, generally large corporations try to "cover" the market.

In this case Canon have found themselves with a huge gaping gap for some considerable period of time ... which doesn't add up commercially.

The dual pixel technology has no doubt served them well ... I have owned an 80D since it was first released and been delighted with it.

But that was a long time ago in terms of product innovation.

What I am suggesting is that a lack of engineering prowess in R&D which started a long time ago is now coming to bear.

Whilst we know that Magic Lantern have been able to eek-out extra features which Canon have decided to withhold for commercial reasons, there are other features which seem distinctly lacking.

Whilst its easy to argue Lens Stabilization over In Body stabilization in the DSLR world as the former has benefits in stabilizing the viewfinder image, the latter has greater benefits in the mirrorless world : not least of which in that it allows lenses to be simpler and hence cheaper and to achieve the sort of resolutions we are seeing from the Sigma Art primes.

My logic goes like this ... Canon had to fit IS to their recent EF 85mm f/1.4 prime because they had no IBIS. To sell at a decent profit margin they had to compromise image quality. Had they been able to dispense with the IS requirement then this might have allowed them to focus both their R&D and manufacturing costs exclusively on the IQ. 

Selling cameras without IS may have a short-term gain of locking customers into buying Canon's lenses with IS, but in the long term we have seen what happens to companies who try to lock in their customer base : think IBM PC or Wang word processors ... few anti-competitive behaviours last forever, but make way for more open-minded competitors to enter the market (Compaq, Dell etc ..)

I find it extremely difficult to believe that Canon are deliberately manufacturing their best L primes to a lower standard than they are capable of for a given price point .. if they had IBIS then they could probably compete more effectively with Sigma et al

As you say, they may well have goodies in the pipeline. Or maybe not.

By the way, I've forgotten, is it still OK to speculate on CR or is this rumors site actually for hard facts only ?


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 13, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I suppose that Canon assumed that since a very small percentage of ILC camera buyers actually use them to shoot video that video specs didn’t matter. Apparently they’re reconsidering.



there's no real evidence that they are changing anything other than what they have been planning all along.

Until DIGIC 8 there was no possibility for video improvements in the DSLR's, now that DIGIC 8 opens the door to 4k h.264, Canon can do things they couldn't before.

It certainly doesn't mean that the world as changed and the few people that yell and scream about video in a DSLR are still anything other than a minor percentage point.

DIGIC 8 and faster possibly stacked sensors from Canon will bring a very quick change to the Canon landscape for cameras IMO that couldn't happen until now, from a Canon's perspective.


----------



## rjbray01 (Jun 13, 2018)

Here's a free idea for you Canon ... a completely new feature which I believe would cost you little and make a huge difference to a large number of people ...

Make the diopter easy to adjust !

Many of your customers are professionals and are the only users of their cameras. 

BUT many are not. Many are one of a couple of users - my wife and I share our cameras.

We are both over 50 years old - as are just about all the local camera club members ... and most have diminishing eyesight.

Every time we pass the camera we have to reset the diopter.

Its difficult on our 5D and diabolical on the M5 ...

If you really want to get into the features war then why not find a way of adjusting the diopter without the trial-and-error-and trial-and-error-and-trial-and-on-and-on method ...

Some cars allow you to get into them and they "remember" your seat settings (presets) ... how about a camera which has preset diopter settings ?

This would save me hours of frustration every year ... and I strongly suspect I'm not the only person suffering !


----------



## scyrene (Jun 13, 2018)

rjbray01 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > rjbray01 said:
> ...



Yeah... you can't just say 'fact'. We're not schoolchildren.

Regarding heat, is it better to build cameras around engineering limitations (that affect all manufacturers), or ignore them and cause problems for consumers down the line? Overheating in sealed camera bodies (especially whilst implementing 4K) is hardly a Canon-only problem.

As for patents - well each company is 'pipped' by others. That Canon doesn't implement a particular technology you want doesn't mean they don't have other innovations they have patented themselves - e.g. DPAF.

'Struggling', erm yeah, right. They're a conservative company, and that frustrates some people. But they produce devices that satisfy the needs of more people than anyone else - at least enough for people to keep buying them. Your needs may differ, in which case go and buy a rival product that suits you better. Simple!


----------



## Mr1Dx (Jun 13, 2018)

a7 III for $2k is a "bomb" Sony dropped in FF market. I'm sure both Canon/Nikon are not appreciated.


----------



## rjbray01 (Jun 13, 2018)

scyrene said:


> rjbray01 said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



"fact" was short for "its a fact that Canon gave an interview expressing the fact that they were "constrained" by heat problems regarding 4K performance .... 

I've been reading CR for some time now and one thing is very, very clear to me : its forum contributors are an extremely bright bunch of people and woe betide anyone who treats their audience as school children.

I realize that I'm overshadowed by many here on all counts ... however I think my point stands reason : namely that Canon are currently found wanting in the technical department and its difficult to imagine that they have left large gaping holes in their product line up as a commercial "strategy" ... more likely they have fallen behind on an R&D front.

Very conservative doesn't necessarily mean very low risk !


----------



## ashmadux (Jun 13, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> ashmadux said:
> 
> 
> > .* Making the best cameras should be their priority, PERIOD. *
> ...




The sentiment is not naive at all ; profit is the motivator for all business, however how much effort you actually put into your product is entirely a business decision. And we know canon has been trying it's best, eh? Well, maybe not.

There are cheap dells and then there are apple laptops. Both businesses chose what sector to be in, and how they want to be perceived and perform. It is no different for cameras.

A camera either has features or it doesn't. It works well or it doesn't. It can be quite a binary experience.


----------



## mrzero (Jun 13, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> mrzero said:
> 
> 
> > So, why the lackluster output on servo zoom for lenses? Thus far, we have one servo controller with two fixed speeds, and it only works on one consumer-grade lens. On top of that, they just announced upgrades to two major L zoom lenses that don't include the servo connection. Imagine the video quality of a 70-200/4 or 2.8 L IS with a proper servo control. We won't have it, at least not any time soon.
> ...



That would be a fair reason not to hook the servo into the high end L lenses, but Canon has come out with at least one non-L lens that uses Nano USM that they could have put the servo connection on, the new 70-300 4-5.6 IS II. I see now that Dustin Abbott also noted this omission in his review of that lens https://dustinabbott.net/2017/02/canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-5-6-ii-usm-review/.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 13, 2018)

rjbray01 said:


> "fact" was short for "its a fact that Canon gave an interview expressing the fact that they were "constrained" by heat problems regarding 4K performance ....



Oh, I see. Fair enough. But I think your assertion that all the other manufacturers have figured out how to implement 4K in FF bodies ("problems which other manufacturers clearly overcame a long time ago") with no compromises is unfounded.



rjbray01 said:


> I realize that I'm overshadowed by many here on all counts ... however I think my point stands reason : namely that Canon are currently found wanting in the technical department and its difficult to imagine that they have left large gaping holes in their product line up as a commercial "strategy" ... more likely they have fallen behind on an R&D front.



Well, we are all gazing into a crystal ball because we don't have access to Canon's internal strategy or a detailed breakdown of sales. Some people assume (perhaps too readily) that they always know what they're doing. Others lean too far the other way. Perhaps they saw the success of the 5D2 and decided the cinema line was where they would shift that market, as some have asserted. Maybe they were complacent about DSLR video. Maybe (as others have said) the DSLR isn't really suitable for professional video work (whatever those pioneers did with the 5D2) and people are asking for unrealistic things, or maybe the amount it would shift sales is just too little. The problem is we only see what they do, and occasionally hear garbled messages like this 'rumour', none of which allows us to form a clear idea of what Canon really thinks about DSLR video (or mirrorless for that matter).

As for 'gaping holes' though, I don't really know what you mean. Can you be more specific? Do you mean they lack a diect competitor with a rival's product? Different companies' lineups will never exactly match, of course...


----------



## Kit. (Jun 13, 2018)

ashmadux said:


> There are cheap dells and then there are apple laptops. Both businesses chose what sector to be in, and how they want to be perceived and perform. It is no different for cameras.


What sector_s_ to be in. There are quite expensive Dells as well (I use one to write these lines).

And then there is Sony, that used to have a nice VAIO S line of laptops (I still own one), but decided that it is no longer interested in the whole PC business.



ashmadux said:


> A camera either has features or it doesn't. It works well or it doesn't. It can be quite a binary experience.


Unfortunately, there are (a lot of) cameras that have features that don't work well. And no, features that don't work well are not something from which Canon brand is magically protected.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 13, 2018)

mrzero said:


> That would be a fair reason not to hook the servo into the high end L lenses, but Canon has come out with at least one non-L lens that uses Nano USM that they could have put the servo connection on, the new 70-300 4-5.6 IS II.



Canon has only put out _two_ Nano USM lenses to date if I'm not mistaken -- the 18-135 and the 70-300. I expect more, but Canon seems to have abandoned the premium non-L price point in favor of 'budget' / 'cheap L' / 'pricey L' offerings. (This kills me, of course, because my future 50 prime is in that premium non-L bucket.)

Upon checking the power zoom adaptor, it is formally listed as just being compatible with the 18-135 -- but that compatibility list could surely grow. I see that adaptor being a key component for the 80D soccer mom / hockey dad crowd -- one little $149 doo-dad and your SLR drives more like a camcorder. Perhaps we see another compatible lens come out it with the 90D next year, or possibly the next Rebel 18-55 lens is made to be compatible.

- A


----------



## Talys (Jun 13, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> mrzero said:
> 
> 
> > That would be a fair reason not to hook the servo into the high end L lenses, but Canon has come out with at least one non-L lens that uses Nano USM that they could have put the servo connection on, the new 70-300 4-5.6 IS II.
> ...



I own both the 18-135 and the 70-300 -- even though they're both "nano USM", they're quite different in the implementation.

The 18-135 is a technological marvel, the Secretariat of autofocus lenses. It's super-duper blazing fast and makes almost no sound at all, faster than any other lens I've seen, and so quick and sure that I often don't realize It has re-focused. Also, as you've mentioned, it has the servo control adapter mount on the bottom.

The 70-300 is a great lens, but while the autofocus is great for a consumer lens, it is not a standout in comparison with professional lenses. My copy isn't as consistent, either. The little LCD screen on the top is something new, but I think it's kind of pointless.

In both cases, I really dislike the focus by wire. There is an acceleration thing going, such that if you turn the ring faster, it moves the manual focus faster, and if you twist it slowly, it is more accurate. That sounds great, but in practice, it prevents someone who manually focuses a lot from know that x twist = y travel. 

The difference is that on the 18-135, the AF performance almost makes it worth the loss of ring USM (it certainly makes a good case for it), while the 70-300 doesn't hit that mark, at least not for me.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 13, 2018)

ashmadux said:


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



Sure they are, within whatever cost constraints their market and business analyses allow.




ashmadux said:


> A camera either has features or it doesn't. It works well or it doesn't. It can be quite a binary experience.



Work or doesn’t work is a binary situation, sure. “The best cameras PERIOD” is not, rather, it’s open ended. Is the 1dxii good? Yes. Is it the best? Well no, it doesn’t have a phase one 100MP feature, a red 8k prores feature, a global shutter feature, etc.

Product design without cost constraint can be fun, but it’s niche. Bugatti does it. I can’t think of anyone else who does.


----------



## Durf (Jun 13, 2018)

Talys said:


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



I also own the 70-300mm IS USM ii Lens and use it a lot as it's an awesome lens. My copy of it is extremely sharp all throughout the focal range; slightly better looking images on the 6D2 but super good on the 80D. It's almost always on my 80D. 

It's hard to believe the 18-135mm is faster. My 70-300mm is amazingly fast (but not always 100% accurate, it sometimes hunts in low contrast or low light situations). It is also quite good for video too.

A friend of mine has the 18-135mm for his 80D and uses it almost only for video with the auto zoom thing and loves it.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 13, 2018)

The 70-300 Nano USM has been reviewed to be crazy fast with the AF:

https://www.lenstip.com/503.10-Lens_review-Canon_EF_70-300_mm_f_4-5.6_IS_II_USM_Autofocus.html
_
"the autofocus performance is sensationally fast. Running through the whole distance scale and confirming the focus at the shorter end of the focal lengths spectrum takes 0.1-0.2 of a second; for the longer focal lengths the process is by 0.1-0.2 of a second longer.

To be honest I am a bit surprised that, for the first time, such technology appears in completely amateur constructions. The working culture of the autofocus, its noiselessness, 100% accuracy, and superior speed put to shame even some professional lenses. A round of applause for Canon!"_

For perspective, those are similar focus speed numbers to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, which seemingly instantaneously teleports the elements to the right position for me.

- A


----------



## Talys (Jun 13, 2018)

The next time you guys are at a camera store, just ask them to throw a efs 18-135 usm on an 80D and try it for yourself. I promise you will be impressed. 

There is no part of the AF travel that takes anywhere close to 0.4 seconds. It is more like the human eye, when you glance from a newspaper to the horizon. 

The 70-300 is definitely slower than both its EFS nano cousin, and the 70-200 II. However, the 70-200 is probably one of the fastest lenses I've used, and certainly the fastest lens use with any frequency. Of course, to be fair, the 70-300 has a greater travel distance for the focusing elements than the 18-135. 

Optically, neither of the consumer lenses are anywhere close to L lens performance. The 18-135 is pretty cruddy at both ends of the focal range compared to L's and has pretty lousy corners, though I am surprised at how good it is with CA. The 70-300, my to main issues are corner sharpness and poor AF consistency. It is essentially not worth bothering to set AFMA because it fluctuates by more than 10 points.

When birding with it, some shots of bird portraits are very clear while others are not tack sharp, and you're just at the mercy of chance. Outside the center 50%, I do not think the lens is acceptable for enthusiast bird crops. For example, a heron that is an eighth of the frame horizontally in flight near either edge will be partially blurry, even when it's a panning shot and there is no reason for it to be.


----------



## SkynetTX (Jun 13, 2018)

What if sensors with better noise performance, faster image processors and lenses would be in the heart of Camera development? Let video capabilities to be in the heart of camcorder and Cinema line camera development.


----------



## Durf (Jun 13, 2018)

Talys said:


> The next time you guys are at a camera store, just ask them to throw a efs 18-135 usm on an 80D and try it for yourself. I promise you will be impressed.
> 
> There is no part of the AF travel that takes anywhere close to 0.4 seconds. It is more like the human eye, when you glance from a newspaper to the horizon.
> 
> ...



My 70-300 copy in no way fluctuates by 10 pt's, I've shot a few thousand pics or more with it at least and surely would of noticed that type of focusing inconsistency. i'm wondering if you got a glitched copy or I just got lucky with my copy?
My copy is a tad bit soft in the corners but not too bad and sharpness is very usable most of the time unless I screw up taking the photo.
Mines not as good as a L-Lens of course, but my copy seems to work quite a bit better than you describe your copies performance.


----------



## Talys (Jun 13, 2018)

Durf said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > The next time you guys are at a camera store, just ask them to throw a efs 18-135 usm on an 80D and try it for yourself. I promise you will be impressed.
> ...



It is totally possible that my 70-300 isn't a great copy. It surely is not that _every_ photo is off by 10 points; however, when I use FoCal with either my 80D or 6D2, the variance for AFMA is very high. I can't recall the exact numbers, but running it 10 times will yield 5 different AFMA values from -x to +x, low confidence scores each time, and a curve that doesn't look like a nice bell.

I mean, don't get me wrong: it's a nice lens; I like to keep it paired with my older T6s, and the 70-300 is something I'll take when I want reach and don't want to take expensive gear because of where I am -- for example, some hikes, where camera equipment has a higher chance of getting damaged, or at least, nicked. However, it is a far, far cry from the 100-400LII, its "pro" equivalent -- and also five times as expensive, or something like that, and obviously, it's not a comparison to the 70-200II for the things that the much more expensive lens excels at, for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is f/2.8. 

To put it in perspective, my copy has a lower consistency of autofocus than the Sigma 150-600 (but it's way, way faster, of course).


----------



## Durf (Jun 14, 2018)

Talys said:


> Durf said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



Just curious; have you ever used the 70-300mm IS USM L series lens?

If I was to upgrade I think this is the one I'd like to get.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jun 14, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > The source claims that Canon no longer wants to lose the “spec war” with their future camera releases. This way of thinking is trickling down to various Canon subsidiaries around the globe to prepare for the changes coming.
> ...



   And we wait ... without holding our breath.

Jack


----------



## pj1974 (Jun 14, 2018)

Durf said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Durf said:
> ...



I have the 80D and have used the 18-135mm nano USM, which is indeed blazingly fast, particularly in optical AF, but also very quick in Live View / DPAF! (As I wrote in another post a few weeks ago, I concur that the AF speed is impressive in terms of speed & accuracy). I do not own the 18-135mm nano USM, but my go to / general purpose lens is the 15-85mm USM, but I also have the 18-135mm STM, handy for video & when I require a bit of extra reach. I do not plan to get the 18-135mm nano USM as it does not offer enough (in terms of its quicker AF) benefit over my existing 'general purpose' (15-85mm & 18-135mm STM).

I own the 70-300mm L - which is a lens I love... great image quality, very versatile, and good AF (fast and accurate, particularly in good light, with decent contrast). From what I have heard of the 70-300mm II nano USM doesn't quite have the IQ that I would need. I do hope that Canon continues to moves forward with the marrying of its DPAF and nano USM technology, which I can see will benefit both videographers and still photographers. At this stage, I plan to keep my existing lenses, but the future is interesting...

Paul


----------



## PureClassA (Jun 14, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > The source claims that Canon no longer wants to lose the “spec war” with their future camera releases. This way of thinking is trickling down to various Canon subsidiaries around the globe to prepare for the changes coming.
> ...



Absolutely! I have even called and emailed as a CPS member requesting just that about a year ago. There is zero reason that camera can't do that. The 6 year old 1DC managed Log and no one should think Dual Digic 6 and 7 (and beyond) processors could not sling out RAW 4K through an HDMI. Without a 1DC2, I can't understand why Canon would choose to lock such features out. The lower tier offerings of such devices from Sony and Panasonic for half the price of the DX2 can at least sling (non RAW) 4K out from the HDMI. Canon restricted the DX2 from doing even that. It absolutely can be made to do it. I'd be perfectly happy with even just taking the existing Motion JPEG codec via HMDI out at 4K. But nope. Not yet. C-Log? Nah, only the (far less useful for video thanks to a crazy crop factor of 1.75 or so) 5D4 gets it. It has become very frustrating as a Canon guy who is trying to do more simple video work. The DX2 does beautiful filming but it's cumbersome and irritating not be able to do it externally and more efficiently and with a Log format. Sony has indeed proven you can make a lower price video machine with great features and NOT destroy your dedicated upper range cinema line. They really are two different markets.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jun 14, 2018)

The market for video must be bigger than I imagine and/or I must run in different circles. I have not once shot video on my 5D cameras, I don't even know how, and I have zero interest. None of my photographer friends shoot video either. Honestly I wish they made an alternate model of each SLR without a video switch. I would gladly buy it even if it cost the same as the video-enabled model.


----------



## BillB (Jun 14, 2018)

PureClassA said:


> Absolutely! I have even called and emailed as a CPS member requesting just that about a year ago. There is zero reason that camera can't do that. The 6 year old 1DC managed Log and no one should think Dual Digic 6 and 7 (and beyond) processors could not sling out RAW 4K through an HDMI. Without a 1DC2, I can't understand why Canon would choose to lock such features out. The lower tier offerings of such devices from Sony and Panasonic for half the price of the DX2 can at least sling (non RAW) 4K out from the HDMI. Canon restricted the DX2 from doing even that. It absolutely can be made to do it. I'd be perfectly happy with even just taking the existing Motion JPEG codec via HMDI out at 4K. But nope. Not yet. C-Log? Nah, only the (far less useful for video thanks to a crazy crop factor of 1.75 or so) 5D4 gets it. It has become very frustrating as a Canon guy who is trying to do more simple video work. The DX2 does beautiful filming but it's cumbersome and irritating not be able to do it externally and more efficiently and with a Log format. Sony has indeed proven you can make a lower price video machine with great features and NOT destroy your dedicated upper range cinema line. They really are two different markets.



And how do you know that Canon did what it did to protect its upper level cinema line? Or is that just paranoid speculation on your part?


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 14, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> The market for video must be bigger than I imagine and/or I must run in different circles.


That would be a fair assessment



> Honestly I wish they made an alternate model of each SLR without a video switch. I would gladly buy it even if it cost the same as the video-enabled model.


We had a full conversation about that several years ago, with many arguing that a stills-only would cost more due to much lower volume. The Nikon Df proved that correct, resoundingly.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 14, 2018)

If I want to shoot video I buy a proper video camera not one DSLR is in that category. Ive never shot video on a DSLR and like Mr PhotoFool my circle of photography friends never shoot video on the mainly Canon DSLRs they own. 
Ive no doubt people do shoot video with them but to me ergonomically a DSLR is clumsy for video shooting, the control layout poor and the codec, sound etc. all better in a dedicated 4K video camera.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 14, 2018)

PureClassA said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



you clearly don't understand anything about hardware and anything about canon's CINI lineup if you really think that a 1DX is any sort of competition with a Cini camera, and if you really think that half the things you mention here are even in the realm of happening in simply "firmware".


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 14, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> We had a full conversation about that several years ago, with many arguing that a stills-only would cost more due to much lower volume. The Nikon Df proved that correct, resoundingly.



no it didn't.

the DF proved that a old fashioned analog centered stills camera doesn't sell as well as forum warriors think it should.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 14, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> The market for video must be bigger than I imagine and/or I must run in different circles. I have not once shot video on my 5D cameras, I don't even know how, and I have zero interest. None of my photographer friends shoot video either. Honestly I wish they made an alternate model of each SLR without a video switch. I would gladly buy it even if it cost the same as the video-enabled model.



the amount of hand wringing about video is far larger than it's market IMO.

if the reverse was true, people would have left canon in droves for mirrorless cameras which no matter what video canon puts on a DSLR, they are simply better at it then a DSLR could be.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Jun 14, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> If I want to shoot video I buy a proper video camera not one DSLR is in that category. Ive never shot video on a DSLR and like Mr PhotoFool my circle of photography friends never shoot video on the mainly Canon DSLRs they own.
> Ive no doubt people do shoot video with them but to me ergonomically a DSLR is clumsy for video shooting, the control layout poor and the codec, sound etc. all better in a dedicated 4K video camera.



At the end of the day, a camera is a sensor with a recording device. The day live view was added to the cameras was the day video technology was enabled on a camera, hence why even the Canon 50D photography camera produces incredible HD RAW video.

If DSLR cameras were not handy for shooting video, then I'm really confused why all of the video shooters where I work are all using the DSLR cameras over the video dedicated cameras. We prefer the DSLR cameras for a few reasons, one is because they're small and more comfortable while being able to capture incredible pictures. The DSLR feels like an extension to our hands, they fit comfortably. Combined with holding the camera out and pushing against the neck strap, we're able to get very stable video footage. We can also shoot photos with the same cameras after an interview session and can carry less gear as a result. The more mobile we are, the better we can tell a story. If we need to, we can easily throw them on a small and cheap gimbal for incredibly stable moving shots. And the best part, we hardly raise an eyebrow walking around with a DSLR, whereas the video oriented 4K cameras always draw unwanted attention.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 14, 2018)

crazyrunner33 said:


> ...a camera is a sensor with a recording device. The day live view was added to the cameras was the day video technology was enabled on a camera..



I've been trying to get this through the heads of the "I don't want to pay for video on my stills camera" people for years. 

All digital cameras are video cameras.


----------



## bhf3737 (Jun 14, 2018)

crazyrunner33 said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > If I want to shoot video I buy a proper video camera not one DSLR is in that category. Ive never shot video on a DSLR and like Mr PhotoFool my circle of photography friends never shoot video on the mainly Canon DSLRs they own.
> ...



I think the argument that a video cam is a still camera in live view mode is a bit off and ignores the essential technology that are in a video cam. It is like saying that a car is essentially a motor bike but runs on four wheels! 
A still camera can be considered as an awkward bare-bone video cam and you add additional hardware, such as microphone, ND filter, focus rails, gimbal, etc., to make it ready to capture video. And most of the time, you end up with an assembled system that is much larger and less flexible and less reliable than a dedicated video cam. But that is not the end, your assembled device also needs the processor, buffer, heat management and software (e.g. codecs, focus tracking, luma waveform, multiple audio channels, triggers, false color, vector scope, timecode, peaking, zebras, etc.) that are not native to still cameras, and even if added, they are implemented on a still camera in a bare minimum way. Compare the audio you get from a built-in microphone of a still cam and a shutgun and try to record a whole 2-hours concert with a still camera. 
The typical video capability added to a still camera may be enough for casual and limited use but definitely not anything more than that. If the video shooters where you work with are all using DSLR cameras over the video dedicated cameras, they are either using it for casual work or they are sacrificing quality for the sake of lower investment/cost.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 14, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> I think the argument that a video cam is a still camera in live view mode is a bit off and ignores the essential technology that are in a video cam. It is like saying that a car is essentially a motor bike but runs on four wheels!
> A still camera can be considered as an awkward bare-bone video cam and you add additional hardware, such as microphone, ND filter, focus rails, gimbal, etc., to make it ready to capture video. And most of the time, you end up with an assembled system that is much larger and less flexible and less reliable than a dedicated video cam. But that is not the end, your assembled device also needs the processor, buffer, heat management and software (e.g. codecs, focus tracking, luma waveform, multiple audio channels, triggers, false color, vector scope, timecode, peaking, zebras, etc.) that are not native to still cameras, and even if added, they are implemented on a still camera in a bare minimum way. Compare the audio you get from a built-in microphone of a still cam and a shutgun and try to record a whole 2-hours concert with a still camera.
> The typical video capability added to a still camera may be enough for casual and limited use but definitely not anything more than that. If the video shooters where you work with are all using DSLR cameras over the video dedicated cameras, they are either using it for casual work or they are sacrificing quality for the sake of lower investment/cost.



can this be framed and posted in every thread to do with video in a DSLR?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 14, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> can this be framed and posted in every thread to do with video in a DSLR?


Why? It is naive and simply ignores all the good reasons many pros end up shooting video and the hybrid nature of many pros work. Ever try to shoot quality stills with a video camera?


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 14, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > can this be framed and posted in every thread to do with video in a DSLR?
> ...



if many pros did they would have already adopted mirrorless versus a DSLR that requires even more addons to do the functional job of a CINI camera.

and it's not naive at all. it's more reality than anything.

canon was quoted in a comment here on CR if memory serves me correct when the 5D Mark III came out as saying that video really didn't sell that much more units than the 5D Mark II did solely for stills, and they decided not to put alot of effort into video because of that reason.

Sony's had good 4K on full frame for two generations now, and what has moved the needle more? the stills and ergonomic improvements of the III series, not the video.

Panasonic has had great video for 2+ generations and they still are languishing as a afterthought in the market.

if a hybrid video and stills solution was SO important, the choices have been there for at least two generations of cameras, instead Canon's overall marketshare has increased with video as basically an afterthought.

why is canon spending more effort in video? because the reviews and commentary and the negativity is getting to be significant and Nikon has 4K running on just about everything soon, and Canon responds to Nikon, no one else really.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 15, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> A still camera can be considered as an awkward bare-bone video cam and you add additional hardware, such as microphone, ND filter, focus rails, gimbal, etc., to make it ready to capture video.



That is as opposed to video cameras which come out of the box like this:


----------



## bhf3737 (Jun 15, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > can this be framed and posted in every thread to do with video in a DSLR?
> ...



I am not against hybrid work and actually I use both still (5D4, 5DSR, M5) and video cams (C200 and XF400) together, not as a replacement of each other, when needed. My point was that better know the limits of the tools we select and use them appropriately. 
When we discuss users expectations and what picture/video recording tools exist, I wouldn't expect all video related features be readily available in a still camera (regardless of being mirrorless or DSLR) and all the still related features be in a video cam.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 15, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > We had a full conversation about that several years ago, with many arguing that a stills-only would cost more due to much lower volume. The Nikon Df proved that correct, resoundingly.
> ...



Yes, it did. 

Otherwise, Nikon would have followed-up with a non-old-fashioned stills camera. You seem to assume that Nikon did no market research for the Df, which is absurd. Would Nikon have come out with the Df if they thought another stills-only design would do better? If you think Nikon doesn't know their market was well as you do, then....whatever...


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 15, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > no it didn't.
> ...



The Df, much like the RX1R II, are different cameras for different folks and I don't think using them as evidence of something working / not working in the market is a sound move. Hear me out.

I firmly believe they are in the Leica Q category of 'impressive thing for a wealthy person to take really pretty pictures with'. There is something unique about these two cameras -- the RX1R's uniquely small nested lens FF design and the Df retro swiss watch vibe -- that says they are aimed at people other than the enthusiast or working pro. I think they are going for the prestige crowd with money in their pockets but aren't collectors of gear like we are. They want a really nice camera to take better pictures than their friend's iPhones or (maybe) RX100s, Fuji X100, etc.

And both cameras are sitting at the initial very high asking price _3y and 4y+ after first offering! _ The Leica Q is as well. Our meat and potatoes ILCs -- even the high end ones -- dream of such price retention over time. But the catch is this: we don't know durable the demand is for the product at that price... or if Sony and Nikon have simply carved in stone that those products will never be sold under initial asking.

So it's difficult to use a $2750 super niche retro rig as some hard read on what the market wants. Yeah, it didn't have video, but that is far from the only thing it differed from w.r.t. the contemporary D6xx/D750/D8xx rigs beside it.

- A


----------



## BillB (Jun 15, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



We can assume that there is a niche market for these cameras, and that the size of the niche is greater than zero. We shouldn't assume that the size of the niche is large enough for anybody to break even, certainly we can't assume that anybody is making a killing with them. By that reasoning Canon is making a killing on all those lenses that it keeps in its catalog for years without reducing the price. There must be a reason why these cameras are still on the market at the same price, but I don't think the reason is to generate sales directly. It seems more likely it's about brand image, maybe with some stubbornness and inertia.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 15, 2018)

BillB said:


> We can assume that there is a niche market for these cameras, and that the size of the niche is greater than zero. We shouldn't assume that the size of the niche is large enough for anybody to break even, certainly we can't assume that anybody is making a killing with them. By that reasoning Canon is making a killing on all those lenses that it keeps in its catalog for years without reducing the price. There must be a reason why these cameras are still on the market at the same price, but I don't think the reason is to generate sales directly. It seems more likely it's about brand image, maybe with some stubbornness and inertia.



Quite possible. 

I'm just stressing caution in referencing the Df as proof a video-free camera must be more expensive -- I bet it was slated around that D800 price point the minute the project was green lit, possibly before getting specs selected.

Now, if a company would be brave enough to leave video out of a more standard line meat and potatoes rig with higher volumes, we've have our perfect test case. But I don't see that happening.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 15, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



and you seem to assume that Nikon did market research and it was wrong.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 16, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...


Yes. I can't imagine any major company investing the effort needed for such a distinct product without substantial market research; to do so would be financially negligent.


> and it was wrong.


Not quite: market research is about figuring out a (sufficiently) profitable product, not necessarily a cash cow. My guess is that the Df has at least broken even, and may have been mildly profitable. Assuming Nikon did market research, they probably asked themselves something like "what stills-only camera designs would be profitable, and which would be profitable enough to be worthwhile." Assuming the Df was at the top of the list, and its sales were mediocre, we can reasonably assume that the products below it on the "stills-only" list would be much less profitable.


----------



## dak723 (Jun 16, 2018)

Good grief. The Nikon Df is totally a niche product that is aimed at those few wanting a retro look camera. The fact that it is stills only has almost nothing to do with it's marketing and target market, which is obviously those with disposable income looking for a unique product. It never was a camera aimed at the general population. If you are trying to use this camera in any sort of debate on video vs. stills only, it is ridiculous. Which is, unfortunately, about the usual level of argument here on CR.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 16, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Good grief. The Nikon Df is totally a niche product that is aimed at those few wanting a retro look camera. The fact that it is stills only has almost nothing to do with it's marketing and target market, which is obviously those with disposable income looking for a unique product. It never was a camera aimed at the general population. If you are trying to use this camera in any sort of debate on video vs. stills only, it is ridiculous. Which is, unfortunately, about the usual level of argument here on CR.



And yet it's the one stills-only digital camera released in the last few years by a major brand. If you'd like to suggest a second data point I'd be willing to listen. Also, it could have been done retro with video, but it wasn't; that can't have been an accident.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 16, 2018)

fingerstein said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > there’s likely going to be an accelerated product development cycle over the next 18-24 months, and video will be central to it.</p>
> ...



If that's the urgency, then best to move on now. Or yesterday.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 16, 2018)

rjbray01 said:


> Here's a free idea for you Canon ... a completely new feature which I believe would cost you little and make a huge difference to a large number of people ...
> 
> Make the diopter easy to adjust !
> 
> ...



Suffering. : Just spring for another camera. Is it really that hard to remember how many clicks left or right? I'm an older guy too, but my goodness, if it is so frustrating that you are suffering... buy a camera for the wife. Cars do what they do with plenty of room for the mechanicals. Can't imagine the internal real estate this idea would consume... even if just having a powered diopter. My guess is that not many people are suffering.

You'd have to spring for a new camera to get the feature anyway. Just buy a new camera for the wife.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 16, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > The market for video must be bigger than I imagine and/or I must run in different circles.
> ...



hehe. I remember starting a thread saying I just want a stills camera. I still do, but give it to me in medium format (great big sensor). ;D However, I know it ain't happening. Not a biggy. I just never flip the switch.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 16, 2018)

rjbray01 said:


> Here's a free idea for you Canon ... a completely new feature which I believe would cost you little and make a huge difference to a large number of people ...
> 
> Make the diopter easy to adjust !...



I agree that the diopter is a pain. But...

Up until 2-3 months ago I consistently used the diopter. Did so for years. Problem was, I was forever mislaying my glasses. So one day (I think I was shooting a baseball game) I decided to try just wearing my glasses and setting the diopter back to zero.

Worked great. The thing I discovered is that the eye relief on all my Canons is sufficient that I don't need to take my glasses off.

So, while Canon needs to make diopter adjustment easier, try wearing your glasses instead. You might be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 16, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > bhf3737 said:
> ...



More to the point, it ignores the crux of the argument, which revolves around the relative cost of having video features in or out of a still camera. The discussion was never about the convenience of a form factor, but rather about the fact that the essential technology used in a still camera today and the essential technology used in a dedicated video camera are one and same -- digital recording of images.

Still cameras no longer use film. Video cameras no longer use tape. They use the same digital technology.


----------



## johnhenry (Jun 16, 2018)

Gee after getting left behind for years they noticed "Maybe people want a 4K + video" on a prosummer camera.

They didnt think the 6D II was worthy of this?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

This is the reason I bought mine USED, not new. And then watched as my decision looked good as they started dropping the price for its various letdowns.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 16, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Good grief. The Nikon Df is totally a niche product that is aimed at those few wanting a retro look camera. The fact that it is stills only has almost nothing to do with it's marketing and target market, which is obviously those with disposable income looking for a unique product. It never was a camera aimed at the general population. If you are trying to use this camera in any sort of debate on video vs. stills only, it is ridiculous.



This is what I was trying to say (perhaps a bit more gently than Dak did ).

- A


----------



## bhf3737 (Jun 16, 2018)

unfocused said:


> More to the point, it ignores the crux of the argument, which revolves around the relative cost of having video features in or out of a still camera. The discussion was never about the convenience of a form factor, but rather about the fact that the essential technology used in a still camera today and the essential technology used in a dedicated video camera are one and same -- digital recording of images.
> 
> Still cameras no longer use film. Video cameras no longer use tape. They use the same digital technology.



IMHO, there are some common technologies shared between still and video cams, such as AF, focus tracking, histogram, and perhaps focus peaking and zebras. But there are some essential features for video cameras (such as: codecs, luma waveform, multiple audio channels, triggers, false color, vector scope, timecode, etc.) that are not necessarily needed in still only cameras. Some of these features (such as codecs and multi-channel audio) are very CPU, memory, bandwidth, power demanding and costly. 
Some companies, including Canon, may offer a subset of consumer-oriented implementation of these features in a DSLR/mirrorless form factor. But today, there is no hybrid camera that has full and professional implementation of all these features, and I guess it will never happen. That is why Canon has two separate Cine and EOS product lines.


----------



## dak723 (Jun 16, 2018)

unfocused said:


> rjbray01 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a free idea for you Canon ... a completely new feature which I believe would cost you little and make a huge difference to a large number of people ...
> ...



It really helps of you actually read the entire post by someone before commenting. The problem the poster mentions is that there are TWO users of the camera. Each needs a different diopter setting.



> Many of your customers are professionals and are the only users of their cameras.
> 
> BUT many are not. Many are one of a couple of users - my wife and I share our cameras.
> 
> ...


----------



## dak723 (Jun 16, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > More to the point, it ignores the crux of the argument, which revolves around the relative cost of having video features in or out of a still camera. The discussion was never about the convenience of a form factor, but rather about the fact that the essential technology used in a still camera today and the essential technology used in a dedicated video camera are one and same -- digital recording of images.
> ...



I would think - in terms of cost - that the biggest difference between a still-only and stills/video camera is the heat management designs needed for video. Seems like it would add substantially to the cost, but that is just a guess.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 16, 2018)

johnhenry said:


> Gee after getting left behind for years they noticed "Maybe people want a 4K + video" on a prosummer camera.
> 
> They didnt think the 6D II was worthy of this?!?!?!?!?!?!??!
> 
> This is the reason I bought mine USED, not new. And then watched as my decision looked good as they started dropping the price for its various letdowns.



People have said this before, but it's worth addressing whenever it comes up. What other full frame camera in the same price bracket as the 6D2 (what did it come out at? ~$2.1k?) had 4K at the time the 6D2 was released?


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 16, 2018)

scyrene said:


> People have said this before, but it's worth addressing whenever it comes up. What other full frame camera in the same price bracket as the 6D2 (what did it come out at? ~$2.1k?) had 4K at the time the 6D2 was released?



Sony A7 II didn't. 

Pentax K-1 didn't.

Nikon D610 (now a completely abandoned segment by Nikon?) didn't.

I can't think of one. A7S II was in a pricier segment when it was released.

- A


----------



## zim (Jun 16, 2018)

dak723 said:


> bhf3737 said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



I'd think that too but wouldn't that heat sink also be advantageous to stills, reducing sensor noise?


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 16, 2018)

The video capabilities of these cameras continues to surprise me.
Personally I think its a nice to have for users but that most camera owners use it very little for video.
I know lots of people who take photographs but very few who regularly take video.
I find very few people at all who are capable of editing video especially 4K as you need a fair bit of computing power. 5K, 6K or 8K would increase those requirements.
It must be a dream for people who are into video making as between the cameras and lens you can produce very high quality video - good enough for film making or TV programme making.
It's a great option to have but I use it so little it shouldn't be part of my decision making on purchasing cameras but nonetheless it has an influence.
I think we would save money as photographers if the cameras didn't have video capability.
So I would be surprised if "video capabilities will be at the heart of all future Canon prosumer camera bodies" but Canon are better at knowing consumers decision making processes than I am. Video capability must be high on peoples list even if I think they won't use it much afterwards.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 16, 2018)

dak723 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > rjbray01 said:
> ...



It really helps if you actually read *my* post. 

Two users. (or 100 users, it doesn't matter) Both presumably wear something to correct their vision: glasses or contacts most likely.

If their vision is corrected, the eye relief on any modern Canon camera is sufficient to allow you to use the camera and focus without removing the eye correction. At least that is what I have found and that is what I was explaining.


----------



## Talys (Jun 16, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Two users. (or 100 users, it doesn't matter) Both presumably wear something to correct their vision: glasses or contacts most likely.
> 
> If their vision is corrected, the eye relief on any modern Canon camera is sufficient to allow you to use the camera and focus without removing the eye correction. At least that is what I have found and that is what I was explaining.



You have described my situation perfectly


----------



## Kit. (Jun 17, 2018)

unfocused said:


> More to the point, it ignores the crux of the argument, which revolves around the relative cost of having video features in or out of a still camera. The discussion was never about the convenience of a form factor, but rather about the fact that the essential technology used in a still camera today and the essential technology used in a dedicated video camera are one and same -- digital recording of images.
> 
> Still cameras no longer use film. Video cameras no longer use tape. They use the same digital technology.


Actually, the 35 mm film was originally a cinema film. So, if your argument is correct, the same could be said about film cameras.

Still, 35 mm photo film cameras and 35 mm cinema film cameras were completely different beasts. Maybe there's something wrong in your argument.


----------



## dak723 (Jun 17, 2018)

unfocused said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Sorry. I jumped to the conclusion that the husband and wife are wearing their glasses (or contacts) when they use the camera and still need to change the adjustment. Unless rjbray01 responds, we may never know. Since virtually everyone I know (including myself) keeps their glasses on while taking photos, I assumed that the husband and wife did as well. If I am wrong, I apologize. :-[


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 18, 2018)

That might be a smart move. I purchased nothing but Canon (well than for a couple Tamron and one Rokinon lens) from 1986 until a few years ago, but they haven't gotten a dollar from me in a few years now.


----------

