# 5DIV, 7DII and future of upgrades



## unfocused (Dec 2, 2013)

Reading some of the excellent commentary here, especial Jon Rista's take on the amount of headroom that remains in ISO improvements (I don't for a second pretend to understand terms like quantum efficiency, so I have to take his word for it)...re-reading some columns by Nikonista Thom Hogan...and seeing that Fuji is announcing another new, free firmware upgrade for the X-Pro-1, got me thinking about the future of DSLR upgrades. 

I recall Canon's commitment when it released the original F1 that they would *not* release a new model for at least a decade. Their purpose was to demonstrate to professional photographers that they were committed to their pro-level SLR and that photographers could purchase the camera knowing it would be fully supported. 

For most of the past decade, gear enthusiasts have been spoiled by the remarkable and near continuous improvements in DSLRs. But, those improvements are increasingly coming at the margins. Higher megapixels, increased dynamic range, high and low ISO improvements, while nice, are generally needed only under very specific conditions for very specific purposes. 

Any honest assessment would acknowledge that for 90-95% of subjects and conditions, the cheapest entry-level Canon and Nikon will produce results that under real world conditions will be indistinguishable from the flagship models. 

Fuji has followed a path with their X-Pro-1 of releasing firmware updates to keep the camera current and boost customer satisfaction and loyalty. (To be fair, Canon did much the same thing when it released it's major firmware upgrade of the 7D – extending the practical life of the camera and effectively giving customers a free "7D.20" version of the original.)

So, having said all that, I am going to go out on a limb and predict that the upgrade cycle for the 5DIII to 5DIV will equal or exceed the cycle between the 7D and 7DII and that we are entering an era in which upgrades will be fewer and further between. 

At the same time, I am going to suggest/hope that Canon and Nikon will offer more significant firmware upgrades during the interim. 

This will certainly require some adjustments to their business model, but in a sense they are simply going back to the model that both companies followed successfully for decades. That's one reason why I believe Nikon and Canon are better positioned for long-term success than companies like Sony, which got into the digital camera market during the boom era and do not have the institutional memory or experience to easily adopt to longer development cycles and more modest sales growth. 

I see Canon as particularly well-positioned for this change. They have aggressively developed products for new markets, especially the booming cinema market where growth is fed by the seemingly unquenchable thirst of the internet for new video content. Their recent emphasis on security cameras also shows they are prepared to move into another fast growing emerging market. I am less convinced that Nikon is equally well-positioned, but then I don't follow them as closely as I do Canon.

So what's the point?

In part to feed off the idea of "10 years from now" and in part to get people out of the rut of trading insults over dynamic range and other esoteric subjects that do not sell cameras and do not matter to the vast majority of photographers. 

What is your prediction? Will we see fewer upgrades in the future? Will we see more substantial firmware upgrades? Given that Canon and Nikon need to continue to sell products, do you think they will become more aggressive at selling lenses, strobes and other peripherals? Will you spend less money on photography in the future, or will you just spend it differently and how?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2013)

I think we're already seeing that for the higher end models. Product cycles are getting longer. The 5DII got manual audio, the 7D got a buffer boost and more customization, the 1D X and 5DIII got f/8 AF, the latter got clean HDMI, the 1D C and 1D X have significant feature upgrades coming in Dec/Jan via firmware. These go beyond fixes for bugs/problems. 

I think the consumer models (Rebel/xxxD) will stay on an annual refresh. DPAF soon, small MP bumps, etc. 

Will I spend less? Well, the 300mm f/2.8L IS II that I plan to buy costs less than 600mm f/4L IS II that I already bought...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 2, 2013)

People need to understand that a photographic camera is not a computer,  although it has a computer in it . The speed of advances in computer technology is much greater than in other areas of electronics, optics, video , etc... The mentality of the user 1Dx is a long-term investor, while the mentality user SX50 is much more immediate, and relates only to short term. Generally, investments in Canon or Nikon DSLR and lenses keeps giving the expected return by the end of expected lifetime. On the other hand, Sony has treated its DSLR users in the same way that users point and shoot, with updates in short periods, and programmed obsolescence. A good example is the Sony flash shoe (reversed) that was recently abandoned, and left old users angry with the prejudice to have Flash incompatible with current cameras. Those people who expect huge advances in DSLR every five years will be disappointed. ??? I still wonder what Nikon planning when replaced D700 (12 megapixel) by D800 (36 megapixel). : This was a risky strategy that displeased many Nikon users. I'm sure Canon will release a camera with more than 30 megapixel, but will continue to offer 20 megapixel options such as 6D.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 2, 2013)

I would not be surprised if the update strategy for the higher end cameras became offering a send-it-back-to-the-factory arrangement to have some of the electronics swapped out.

Realistically, the image sensors are becoming a mature technology... let's pick on the 7D2 when it eventually arrives.... give it a few years in the marketplace and there will not be any really big improvements to it's imaging capacities, but what will change is that Digic chips will be faster and more complex data processing algorithms will emerge... with more computing power features can be added. The upgrade path may end up being for Canon to release a 7D3 which is electronically identical to the 7D2 except for the computing sub-circuitry.... and allow users to send in the Mark 2 to upgrade to a Mark 3...

just my wild guess


----------



## unfocused (Dec 3, 2013)

Great comments all. I especially like this:



ajfotofilmagem said:


> People need to understand that a photographic camera is not a computer,  although it has a computer in it...



We've been so programmed to expect huge advancements and effective price cuts in electronics that it can be hard to recognize that not everything with electronic components in it is subject to Moore's law.



Don Haines said:


> I would not be surprised if the update strategy for the higher end cameras became offering a send-it-back-to-the-factory arrangement to have some of the electronics swapped out.



I've thought about that as well. One of those things I'd like to see, but don't know how cost effective it would be. As a consumer, I'd love it.



neuroanatomist said:


> I think we're already seeing that for the higher end models...The 5DII got manual audio, the 7D got a buffer boost and more customization, the 1D X and 5DIII got f/8 AF, the latter got clean HDMI, the 1D C and 1D X have significant feature upgrades coming in Dec/Jan via firmware. These go beyond fixes for bugs/problems...



Yes, good examples. I forgot about those other upgrades. I could definitely see a scenario where Canon upgrades the 6D with a 6DII that has a 7D style improved autofocus and a few new consumer oriented features like touch screen, vari-angle screen, etc. and then offers a 5DIII firmware upgrade to widen the gap a bit between the 6D and 5D. I think there is plenty of room between the 6D and 5DIII to allow for a 6DII without significantly hurting 5D sales.


----------



## dolina (Dec 3, 2013)

I think we should enjoy photography today and keep the rumormongering to the professionals like CR guy. 

Kidding aside I am looking forward to future bodies as well.

I need a new toy! ;D


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 3, 2013)

Those are all great concepts. Think of it. I send my 5DIII off and for say $300-$500USD get a 5DIV, get tuned and cleaned. Don't have to put out 4K. I keep my camera in good shape. Not too bad. I'm sure Canon will get my money some other way.

Sounds like a great concept to me.

scott



dolina said:


> I think we should enjoy photography today and keep the rumormongering to the professionals like CR guy.
> 
> Kidding aside I am looking forward to future bodies as well.
> 
> I need a new toy! ;D


----------



## darrellrhodesmiller (Dec 3, 2013)

i bought a 5Dmk3 right when it came out and upgraded from a rebel. i really think this will be the last DSLR i buy.. it really does amazing things, it really has all the megapixels i need, and plenty of low light capability. i wish it had GPS and maybe wireless functionality.. but more than anything i wish it was smaller and lighter. i do mostly portraits and street photography.. i dont want a camera that draws a lot of attention or intimidates the person i'm trying to take pics of. the 5dmk3 is an AMAZING camera.. but when i whip it out.. people take notice.. 

i'm really curious to see how canon (if canon) tries to compete with the sony a7 and a7r.. and the olympus OMD.. 

there will always be a need for a fast focusing powerhouse camera.. i wont sell my 5d mk3 anytime soon.. but i think the real advances will be in other directions.. 

there is a lot of good things to come..


----------



## Richard8971 (Dec 3, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> The mentality of the user 1Dx is a long-term investor, while the mentality user SX50 is much more immediate, and relates only to short term.



+1

I think this sums up exactly how I feel about my current camera set up. It does EXACTLY what I want and how I want it done. I don't have a need to upgrade at each and every camera body that comes out. It would be different if I was looking to buy a new camera because I didn't own one, or if in some really important way, my current body wasn't getting the job done. 

I think we all have speculations of what could happen in the future or what we would LIKE to see, but I agree with the majority of people on here. Improvements will likely be small and progressive unless some radical new technology becomes available and changes the whole nature of digital photography. It could happen, look at what perpendicular recording did for hard drive storage space and low cost active matrix LCD's did for TV's.

I do believe that other companies like Sony and Panasonic will change the market in which mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras operate and what they CAN do. The options with mirrorless are as endless as the dreams we can come up with.

D

D


----------



## Richard8971 (Dec 3, 2013)

darrellrhodesmiller said:


> i'm really curious to see how canon (if canon) tries to compete with the sony a7 and a7r.. and the olympus OMD..
> 
> there will always be a need for a fast focusing powerhouse camera.. i wont sell my 5d mk3 anytime soon.. but i think the real advances will be in other directions..
> 
> there is a lot of good things to come..



Here is a post I put together the other day on my vision for a serious mirrorless camera body.

"I think Canon in part will be influenced by the camera offerings by companies that are taking (in my opinion) mirrorless technology a bit more serious right now. Maybe Canon has something up their "mirrorless sleeve", maybe they don't, who knows?

I think cameras like the Sony A7/A7R are going to change, for the better, how mirrorless cameras CAN be designed and SHOULD be designed. I think a lot of people were surprised by a serious mirrorless FF camera body being announced AND from a company other than Nikon or Canon. 

Here is what I see possible from a serious FF MIRRORLESS camera. I don't think you can do this with current DSLR technology.

They can design a FF camera that can take APS-H and APS-C images from the same body. I am NOT talking about any kind of JPEG cropping OR any kind of weird, "cheating" in camera processing. Look, the idea is very simple. My 7D in which the full resolution of the sensor is 5,184 x 3,456 pixels, can ALSO take HD video at a resolution of 1920 x 1080. It simply uses the pixels it NEEDS, nothing more, nothing less. Now HOW it does it, is not the important part, the fact that it CAN do it, is.

So you design a 5D2 sized (or so) FF mirrorless body, one that has a mount that can accept EF AND EF-s lenses. Wait... EF-s lenses on a FF camera? You can't do this on one that has a mirror, but with a MIRRORLESS camera you can! There will be NO mirror to slap up and strike the rear of the EF-s lens!

So you take (for the sake of argument) a sensor that is, say 36MP (7360 x 4912), so cropped down to APS-H (the sensor would only use the pixels that would make up an APS-H sized sensor) would make it about 22MP (5867 x 3888). In APS-C mode, the sensor would only use the innermost pixels making up an APS-C sized sensor giving you a 13MP (4538 x 3029) sized image. The crop factor would take place too. In FF mode, no crop. In the other modes, 1.3x and 1.6x respectfully. (The Nikon D7100 already has a 1.3 crop mode that is VERY similar to what I am speaking of, it's not that difficult to do)

Now, here would be the awesome part. In FF mode, the camera would take 4-6 fps. In APS-H mode, 6-8 fps and say 12-14 fps in APS-C mode. The larger images would take longer to process and would take up more buffer room. The smaller images would take up less room and could be processed faster, all in RAW format. Also, being a FF sized sensor, the pixel density would not change so the high ISO performance of the sensor would carry through (in theory) to all of the other image sizes. The advantage of such a camera would be unimaginable. All of this could be carried out by the processor to choose whatever pixels it wanted to or not. If current DSLR cpu's are fast enough to process HD video, certainly they are fast enough to make an image size smaller while retaining full image quality. Unlike the D7100 where the viewfinder does not change for the new 1.3 crop factor, this camera would have an electronic viewfinder, not an optical one. It will be able to change with each mode giving you 100% coverage for each shooting mode.

All of this can be controlled as simply as we change "one shot" to "AI servo". On the top LCD just have three "icons" that read "FF", "APS-H" and "APS-C". Done! There would be NO hardware to change or control. The distance from the lens to the sensor is the same in a FF body to a APS-C body. It can all be done with programming, like changing your ISO or "f" number. The shutter as well, can be programmed for preset speeds, kind of like how my 7D can do 8fps or 3fps by a "click of a switch", so to speak.

This idea is already being done by several cameras but not to this extent. The Panasonic Lumix FZ200 is a good example. It is a 12MP camera and in one particular shooting mode it shoots approx. 60 frames / sec @ 2.5MP and another good example is the Nikon D7100 with the 1.3 crop mode. This CAN be done and IS being done. The market is already showing signs that people are ready for these kind of features and are willing to pay for them. 

There are times you need a FF camera for weddings and beautiful landscapes and there are times you want a fast crop sensor body to maximize your lens reach and have the fast fps you need for sports or wildlife photography. The only disadvantage that would be is that EF-s lenses could only be used in the APS-C mode because of the smaller image circle they produce, but NOT because they won't work! Even though currently I own all EF lenses, there are a few EF-s lenses that I have owned in the past that were fantastic, the EF-s 60mm macro is one of them. Say a person who had a rebel and owned a few EF-s lenses... they wouldn't be discouraged from upgrading to this camera because they could still use their lenses on it! 

WILL Canon make such a camera? Don't know, but I sure hope so. But I bet that SOMEONE will and WHEN they do, it might be enough competition to get Canon and/or Nikon to take notice because you better believe that I would buy such a camera if it was reasonably priced. The Sony A7 is a good start and shows what can be done with mirrorless technology. This is one reason why I am excited to see where they they will go with it.

Will mirrorless cameras replace DSLR's? Not sure, DSLR's work pretty good right now the way they are.

Like has been said, maybe they would consider such a camera, maybe they won't. But maybe the MARKET will force the hand. Competition is a wonderful thing!"

Now, all of this being said, are current DSLR's dead? Not at all! I love my 7D and am not going to replace it anytime soon, even if a 7D2 comes out in the next year. I just have a vision that other companies like Sony and Panasonic will create such a competition (because they replace bodies much faster than Canon or Nikon) that Canon and Nikon will have to take notice.

This is all about what the market wants and what people would buy. Canon and Nikon may find themselves not to be on the top for long if these "smaller" (no pun intended) companies make more and more serious cameras and we have not seen the end of bodies like the Sony A7.

Now, I realize that Canon may NEVER put this into production because they may WANT to keep camera bodies separate so that people would HAVE to buy a different body to get a different feature. BUT, the market may be changed in ways we can't predict with the whole mirrorless segment. 

This is just my 2 cents and my opinion, 

D


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 3, 2013)

People who frequent the forums are hyper aware of the camera and everything surrounding it, days seem like weeks and months seem like years. If you read about some cool new technology every week and see that your 7D is coming on five years old, it certainly would seem like a very long time.
It's really no different with computers. Enthusiasts never tire of constantly upgrading anything and everything, where your average office computer is still doing just fine running spreadsheets on Windows XP. When you look at surveys the average piece of hardware is ancient compared to an enthusiast system.

I wouldn't call digital cameras a mature product just yet though, coming from someone who wants a 100MP studio camera it certainly seems like there's a lot of upgrading left to do, and if Canon ever enters the medium format market it's going to start a whole new race.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 3, 2013)

My 2 pennies of blind guesses is that we WILL see FF-mirrorless, 6DII and 5DIV in next ~ 2-3 years (or some of these will be shown on next Photokina) 

If one of the main ideas of Canon camera business is 'upselling' (that is: to sell more expensive bodies and lenses to existing users), then they should have some logical 'upsell path' for compact (and mirrorless) camera users. 

Few years ago they could force people to buy DSLRs, then to leap from one DSLR model to next line that's larger, heavier and more expensive. Now there are a lot of small and light mirrorless cameras from competition.

I think that for those who own some "PowerShot G" (and like its size and weight, but want better IQ) the next camera to buy from Canon is "EOS M". For those who own "EOS M" the next camera to get is ...well.. it should be "EOS M2" (correction: probably not the "EOS M2" that was announced today, but some next model that will be out next year). So, it's in Canon's interests to make sure that users of "EOS M" and "EOS M2" will not 'upgrade' to Sony A7 in search of better IQ but will buy some mirrorless FF camera from Canon.

But, if Canon will release mirrorless FF (small, light, touchscreen, fast live-view AF, msrp ~ $1200), they will have to add similar features to 6DII (otherwise some existing 6D users would decide to upgrade to this "EOS FF M"). And likewise they will have to make new 5DIV, to make sure that 5D users will stay in msrp $2500-3000 range...


----------



## schmidtfilme (Dec 3, 2013)

I use the 5D M3. Besides the size and weight there is really no improvement that I need or want (the 6D is almost the perfect camera for size and weight) for taking pictures. They are just perfect. To me it is together with the 6D the perfect photo camera. 

But I use the camera as well for shooting videos. They really look great but not as good as they could be. What I would like Canon to implement here is
- better video codec like Prores 422 and maybe raw as an option to achieve similar results what we see today with Magic Lantern and their raw hack which improves the quality way beyond what we currently get
- autofocus with dual pixel af like the new 70D or the upgrade for the C100 will offer but keeping the same great moire and aliasing performance
- much faster fps. Preferred 25,50 and 100 p for slow motion of course at full HD

Some other Magic Lantern goodies would be welcome as well like in camera time lapse etc...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 3, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> People need to understand that a photographic camera is not a computer,  although it has a computer in it . The speed of advances in computer technology is much greater than in other areas of electronics, optics, video , etc... The mentality of the user 1Dx is a long-term investor, while the mentality user SX50 is much more immediate, and relates only to short term. Generally, investments in Canon or Nikon DSLR and lenses keeps giving the expected return by the end of expected lifetime. On the other hand, Sony has treated its DSLR users in the same way that users point and shoot, with updates in short periods, and programmed obsolescence. A good example is the Sony flash shoe (reversed) that was recently abandoned, and left old users angry with the prejudice to have Flash incompatible with current cameras. Those people who expect huge advances in DSLR every five years will be disappointed. ??? I still wonder what Nikon planning when replaced D700 (12 megapixel) by D800 (36 megapixel). : This was a risky strategy that displeased many Nikon users. I'm sure Canon will release a camera with more than 30 megapixel, but will continue to offer 20 megapixel options such as 6D.


Well said!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 3, 2013)

My 2 cents --

I know many are hot to trot on mirrorless, but, I think its more of a fad than a lasting viable system. The biggest problem is glass - not enough native M mount glass out there. In my eyes, the logical solution is to figure out a native mount that accepts EF glass (for canon at least, whats the designation for nikon, DX?). And that's where things get tricky for mirrorless - using current EF glass means that many of the advantages (size, weight being the biggest) of mirrorless are lost. So your stuck in the rock in the hard place - buying a mirrorless for size and weight advantage then having to choose between excellent IQ (EF glass, but that kills the size/weight advantage), or subpar IQ (using smaller, lighter M glass, keeps it small and lightweight but at the expense of IQ), or using an adapter to use EF glass, which will hurt IQ even more.

I kind only see mirrorless working as nothing more than a consumer option. What they should to is actually find a way to remove the LCD, and replace it with a dock for a phone (hard to do because ports are not standard on phones, so you'd have to create a camera for each phone mount). Now that would be the way to combine the 2...alas though it will be wifi and wifi only for that. I read thought this though and see all the little things people want, touch screens and the like ----its grasping at straws because in reality you just want your phone to take nicer shots. and I think that will be the final nail in the mirrorless coffin --- the market that mirrorless appeals to is the market that will say, I don't want to carry 2 things when i can carry 1, afterall, can I play candy crush on the camera? Can this camera slip into my pocket? Nope, you'll need a bag for it. Lenses? You'll need a larger bag unless you want a jack of all trades 12mm-300mm f5.6 compact lens (yeah, there isn't one yet, but to be viable, it would have to be tiny and light which means a trade of of size and weight for less IQ).

And as for potential pro use - I look to what nikon and canon are doing with their glass. high end glass is made for DSLR's - and it doesn't look like either company is breaking that trend. Without high end glass this won't be a pro option. I know sony says they have a lens road map for their A series, but, this is sony we're talking about here so they may have all the glass ready by the time the next fad has arrived, and sony likes the fads...

So again, I think mirrorless will be a fad unless they can make native mounts for existing glass systems - and even then it will only take off if there is some kind of very real tangible benefit over a DSLR. I watched that kai video, and it astounded me that for some reason the mirrorless A7 and A7r are louder than my either my 5d3 or my 6d on silent mode ---- WHY???????? why in the world would they do that - for nostalgic purposes? I don't get it at all. why make a loud psuedo shutter clack if the main benefit is that there is no shutter to clack?????? And this gets me to my final point --- take away the weight and size benefit, and what is the real advantage? it's mirrorless so the burst rate should be off the charts --- nope...5 fps on the A7, and 4 on the A7r. No shutter, that should lead to higher x-sync speeds right --- nope, 1/160th and 1/250th. Seems a lot like what we have in a dslr right now. 

How much do many of use here have invested in our current system? Think on that. then consider that there really isn't anything mind blowing about mirrorless (IE, there is to my knowledge absolutely nothing that can be done with a mirrorless body that you can't do with a DSLR), why would we sell of the gear to switch? We may buy one as a novelty, use it for a few months then add it to the shelf of things collecting dust. Again, there is nothing mindblowing because the tech inside camera's has hit an apex for now and we all have to wait for the next round of big advances in other tech areas before we see another round of mind blowing advances - mirrorless is adopting this because there's really not much new stuff they can do. 

the future of DSLR's:

As said in that last statement above, I do foresee a longer shelf life for models. i like the idea of the buyback program, as time goes on that will be a big factor. I'm not sold on the idea of sending your camera in for an upgrade to the existing body --- my guess is it will be a loyalty kind of thing --- a trade in (IE buy the 5d4 new at $4k, or trade in your mk3 for a mk4 for 2K. HAHA, there's that mirror...if your going on 3 years with your mk3 changing out the snesor and processor would be great, but that mirror will need to be replaced too. 

And before I get flamed for all of the above...these are just guesses, and I am probably wrong....lol


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 3, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> take away the weight and size benefit, and what is the real advantage?



In my opinion some 'future mirrorless FF from Canon' you may have at least one benefit over 6D, 5D, etc.: you compose a picture first, then touch the screen anywhere you want it to focus, press shutter button = done.

Current phase-detect AF systems of budget FF DSLRs (6D, D600) are a bit crazy: all AF-points are cluttered in the center (because they have to keep bodies small and light), so you will have to focus-recompose in about 100% of cases. Not the best idea of camera handling (if Canon/Nikon want to push FF into consumer market). 

Not to mentions that to make a mirrorless FF Canon will have to remove mirror, pentaprism, etc. that also will allow to remove few hundreds of USDs from its price...


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 3, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> ...
> 
> As said in that last statement above, I do foresee a longer shelf life for models. i like the idea of the buyback program, as time goes on that will be a big factor. I'm not sold on the idea of sending your camera in for an upgrade to the existing body --- my guess is it will be a loyalty kind of thing --- a trade in (IE buy the 5d4 new at $4k, or trade in your mk3 for a mk4 for 2K. HAHA, there's that mirror...if your going on 3 years with your mk3 changing out the snesor and processor would be great, but that mirror will need to be replaced too.
> 
> And before I get flamed for all of the above...these are just guesses, and I am probably wrong....lol



And that is why I see the golden age of camera development ending. R&D budgets are a fraction of the income that a company generates and if the income stagnates or decreases, then R&D will be cut accordingly. Less R&D funding leads to longer development cycles and less innovative products that minimize risk.


----------



## moreorless (Dec 3, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> People need to understand that a photographic camera is not a computer,  although it has a computer in it . The speed of advances in computer technology is much greater than in other areas of electronics, optics, video , etc... The mentality of the user 1Dx is a long-term investor, while the mentality user SX50 is much more immediate, and relates only to short term. Generally, investments in Canon or Nikon DSLR and lenses keeps giving the expected return by the end of expected lifetime. On the other hand, Sony has treated its DSLR users in the same way that users point and shoot, with updates in short periods, and programmed obsolescence. A good example is the Sony flash shoe (reversed) that was recently abandoned, and left old users angry with the prejudice to have Flash incompatible with current cameras. Those people who expect huge advances in DSLR every five years will be disappointed. ??? I still wonder what Nikon planning when replaced D700 (12 megapixel) by D800 (36 megapixel). : This was a risky strategy that displeased many Nikon users. I'm sure Canon will release a camera with more than 30 megapixel, but will continue to offer 20 megapixel options such as 6D.



I'd tend to agree with this, it looks like the camera business will gradually return to something more like the environment we saw though out the latter part of the 20th century. Less rapid growth, more repeat sales of lenses and other accessories to a loyal existing customer base. As you say this kind of business just isn't part of Sony's corporate DNA, they've always been a company chasing the latest tech trend but the photography business depends on customer loyalty far more than one off purchases like Hifi's, TV's or phones.

We here so much about mirrorless being the future but for me mirrorless as we see it today is mostly companies who lost out on the core DSLR business being forced to go after a much riskier market based on trends that may not be sustainable.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 3, 2013)

Zlyden said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > take away the weight and size benefit, and what is the real advantage?
> ...



Must take issue here --- "In my opinion some 'future mirrorless FF from Canon' you may have at least one benefit over 6D, 5D, etc.: you compose a picture first, then touch the screen anywhere you want it to focus, press shutter button = done." ---- sorry if this is blunt, how is that any different than what we're currently doing???? compose and focus then take the shot, same process. It's easier in good light and harder in low light. Same thing just slightly different process, no real time saved and your still taking that image home to post process. 

Full frame sensors and the consumer market ---looking at the consumer market as it stands there is no reason to push FF sensors on the consumer market -- we are already seeing a drastic shift on the consumer side --- it's all about accessibility, networking, ease of use, creative filters --- facebook and instagram...and of course, all in one device. That i think is one of the biggest reasons mirrorless won't take off ---the consumer group it would target is happy with crappy blurry cell phone shots that can be tagged and facebooked immediately. 

the only real way I see FF sensors being standard in the market are is APS-C sensors are phased out ---which given all the new crop sensor releases, I don't foresee that happening anytime soon.

As another poster said:


moreorless said:


> I'd tend to agree with this, it looks like the camera business will gradually return to something more like the environment we saw though out the latter part of the 20th century. Less rapid growth, more repeat sales of lenses and other accessories to a loyal existing customer base. As you say this kind of business just isn't part of Sony's corporate DNA, they've always been a company chasing the latest tech trend but the photography business depends on customer loyalty far more than one off purchases like Hifi's, TV's or phones.
> 
> We here so much about mirrorless being the future but for me mirrorless as we see it today is mostly companies who lost out on the core DSLR business being forced to go after a much riskier market based on trends that may not be sustainable.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 3, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> My 2 cents --
> 
> I know many are hot to trot on mirrorless, but, I think its more of a fad than a lasting viable system. The biggest problem is glass - not enough native M mount glass out there. In my eyes, the logical solution is to figure out a native mount that accepts EF glass (for canon at least, whats the designation for nikon, DX?). And that's where things get tricky for mirrorless - using current EF glass means that many of the advantages (size, weight being the biggest) of mirrorless are lost.



My guess is that Canon will eventually come out with a full frame mirrorless, about the same size as current FF cameras, and using EOS lenses. None of the M mount lenses would work on FF as the image circle is too small.

For APS-C cameras, the EOS-M mount lenses are much smaller for wide angle, but as we get longer focal lengths the size advantage melts away... I just can't see much for long (or fast) EOS-M lenses....


----------



## BozillaNZ (Dec 3, 2013)

Somewhat happy with what I have and new ones do not motivate me.

Unless the sensor gets a serious update I will firmly stand in current body.

3 layer 25MP sensor? Count me in!

Split light filter instead of bayer? Count me in!

14 stops DR (sorry Canon fans but I have to mention this...) with clean ISO 25600? Count me in!

Same old sh!t sensor? Sorry!


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 4, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Must take issue here --- "In my opinion some 'future mirrorless FF from Canon' you may have at least one benefit over 6D, 5D, etc.: you compose a picture first, then touch the screen anywhere you want it to focus, press shutter button = done." ---- sorry if this is blunt, how is that any different than what we're currently doing???? compose and focus then take the shot, same process.



Users of 'smaller' FF DSLRs have to focus-recompose almost always because focus points cover only small part of the frame. 6D is probably the best example -- I can bet that majority of this camera owners use only center focus point 

But... addition of touchscreen could be a sufficient feature upgrade to make "6D II" (OK, let's leave 5Ds to more professional public who think that they do not need such stuff). 

Otherwise in a year or two Canon will have difficulties upselling current 6D body to those who now own 650D, 700D, 70D, EOS M, etc. These touchscreens are extremely addictive thingies: using a camera with touchscreen, then switching to another one without it -- is a similar experience to using smartphone with touchscreen for few months and then trying to navigate menu system of some older phone without touch interface -- during first few minutes you just instinctively poke your fingers into the screen and wonder 'why nothing happens?' (at least I do  ).


----------



## strangelove (Dec 4, 2013)

One theory that occurs to me that I haven't seen mentioned:

It strikes me that this likely WAS going to be the replacement for the M, but Canon perfected the Dual Pixel tech of the 70D sooner than expected. Between that new tech, and what companies like Sony are doing with the A7, they decided that the EOS M line was a dead end, and to cook something new from scratch.

It really does look to me like they decided to push this out to placate the Asian market, while they develop their response.

I'd not write off Canon just yet in this market segment. In today's consumer tech world, companies like Apple have set the precedent that if you bring a hit to the market, it needs to be a home run. In other words, it's better to have nothing on the market, than something that's perceived as a dog. I think Canon learned this lesson hard with the EOS M, and won't make the same mistake again.

Stay tuned... 8)


----------



## unfocused (Dec 4, 2013)

I do think touchscreens are the future. I'm not much of a live view person, but at a minimum I'd love to be able to operate the menu from a touchscreen. So much easier to just tap where you want to go instead of scrolling. And yes, I can see the advantages of a touchscreen for focusing in live view. It might actually convince me to use it once and awhile.


----------



## Zlyden (Dec 4, 2013)

unfocused said:


> I do think touchscreens are the future. I'm not much of a live view person, but at a minimum I'd love to be able to operate the menu from a touchscreen. So much easier to just tap where you want to go instead of scrolling. And yes, I can see the advantages of a touchscreen for focusing in live view. It might actually convince me to use it once and awhile.



Touchscreen also is very useful to quickly browse through existing images on the card: just sweep, drag, pinch-to-zoom.

One can get used to do same things in 'professional way' with buttons, wheels, joysticks, 4-ways controllers, etc. But why Apple didn't yet release some "iPad Photo Pro" model that has wheels and buttons instead of touchscreen? 

PS: Touchscreens probably are not very compatible with 'weather-seal-water-resist' idea, so maybe there will be no touchscreens on 5Ds...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 4, 2013)

Zlyden said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Must take issue here --- "In my opinion some 'future mirrorless FF from Canon' you may have at least one benefit over 6D, 5D, etc.: you compose a picture first, then touch the screen anywhere you want it to focus, press shutter button = done." ---- sorry if this is blunt, how is that any different than what we're currently doing???? compose and focus then take the shot, same process.
> ...



The thing of it is... live view is a useful tool for many things, but, generally its best for tripod mounted shots, or night shots... you'll never ever ever catch me trying to focus through live view hand held with a 70-200...with a bit, longer lens, holding a camera in live view mode is the least stable way to hold it. I own a touch screen phone, and an ipad...i have never lusted for touch screen on my DSLR. 

6d ---you know what... I own one and I do use the outer points. It's not just a center point only camera. They work pretty darn good in good to alright light. It's when it gets dark that it's center point only. And even then, if you have a speedlight on there and the distances aren't too great, you can still use the outer points. Are they as accurate as the mk3, no, but do they work, yes.

I will agree with unfocused though, for menu scrolling, a touchscreen may be a quicker interface.


----------



## jrista (Dec 5, 2013)

unfocused said:


> ...re-reading some columns by Nikonista Thom Hogan...and seeing that Fuji is announcing another new, free firmware upgrade for the X-Pro-1, got me thinking about the future of DSLR upgrades.
> 
> I recall Canon's commitment when it released the original F1 that they would *not* release a new model for at least a decade. Their purpose was to demonstrate to professional photographers that they were committed to their pro-level SLR and that photographers could purchase the camera knowing it would be fully supported.
> 
> ...



Very interesting thoughts!  

Personally, I'd like to see a slower cycle. Longer period of time (4 years plus) between major body releases. For example, the 1D X is a phenomenal camera, and I don't see it "needing" to be replaced for years to come. Even if Canon put a sensor with more DR into it, that would only affect lower ISO settings, which are so rarely used when photographing action...I really wouldn't see the point.

I do indeed hope to see more firmware updates. So much can be done with firmware, now that we have eminently more capable hardware. I see no reason new features, say focus peaking or even more information displayed in Canon's Transmissive LCD in their OVFs, couldn't be added through firmware. For features that require fairly significant development time, I don't see why us, as customers, shouldn't even pay a small fee for feature-enhancing firmware. I am not saying we should pay thousands of dollars just for a significant firmware update, but a few hundred for a firmware update that moves the 1D X into the future a few years from now, keeping it a competitive camera...I think there could be a business model augmentation to be found in such a paradigm somewhere...

I cannot say whether I'll spend less money on photography in the future. I think I'll spend what I feel I need to spend, which is what I've always done. Sometimes my photography expenditures are high (or even very high...such as this year, over $15,000 spent on photography so far, where as last year, I only spent a few hundred), and sometimes they may even be non-existent. When it comes to camera upgrades, I do need a *compelling* reason to spend my money. 

Both the 1D X and 5D III are quite compelling to me. The 5D III simply because it is very good at everything, and even though it may not have all the best technology everywhere, it is still a superior product overall. I do mostly bird and wildlife photography these days, and landscape/macro photography more seldom. That is in part because I really love birds and wildlife, but also in part because I like to maximize the detail...in highlights, midtones, and shadows...of my landscapes, and simple fact of the matter is, it is probably the most demanding form of photography for dynamic range...and Canon cameras don't measure up. Sure, I can get around the problem of Canon's read noise, and I do...although it DID cost me more money, as I had to buy an expensive set of Lee filters and the Lee filter system in order to balance contrast on-site, and Topaz tools and Nik tools in order to extract the maximum amount of detail from my shadows in post. That was an investment of well over a thousand dollars, above and beyond the money I spent on my camera bodies.

Better technology gives me more control, more capabilities, and less need to spend extra money on the side to extract the kind of detail I really want from my photography. To me, the most compelling camera that I would be most interested in buying next is one with as many megapixels as Canon can reasonably pack into a sensor, and at least 13 stops of dynamic range. I would probably settle for more megapixels, and "the same old DR", if that is all Canon can come up with...but I have to be honest...I'd part with my money with more difficulty than otherwise.  I believe Canon is a highly innovative company...but I do think there needs to be some compelling developments in their future product releases to keep me buying. If they don't innovate compelling new technology, and especially innovate and progress enough to keep up with the competition, it will be ever more difficult for them to get me to spend my money on their products. I probably still will...I have too much invested in Canon glass not to...but it will be late, and lazy, never at release when they are getting the most revenue from their products...instead I'll wait for the best sales time can offer, and snatch up their products at a significant discount, resulting in the minimal amount of revenue for Canon. I'll be late to the game with new gear, possibly by a couple years, but that will be the only way I feel as though I'm getting my moneys worth.

In the most extreme case, I'll break down and buy the most compelling product from a competitor. Sony's A7r is intriguing, because it could make an excellent landscape camera that would work with EF mount lenses. I don't really need AF or other high performance factors for landscape photography, so the reports of the A7r's poor AF performance with adapted EF lenses wouldn't be a huge deal. The remaining problem is...it costs quite a bit, $2700? For "just" a landscape camera, even though the sensor is amazing, eh, I'd still have to wait until a particularly deep sale occurred before I could justify the purchase.

So, to me, compelling innovations included in compelling upgrades. That's the most important thing Canon can do. They don't necessarily have to compete _feature for feature_ with their competitors, but I do think they need to keep abreast of their competitors in terms of the level of their products. 



unfocused said:


> Reading some of the excellent commentary here, especial Jon Rista's take on the amount of headroom that remains in ISO improvements (I don't for a second pretend to understand terms like quantum efficiency, so I have to take his word for it)



You don't necessarily have to take my word for it. Here is a little visual diagram demonstrating Q.E.:







The two diagrams are identical in every way, except the number of electrons stored in each photodiode. The amount of photons raining down on each sensor is identical. The microlenses and color filter array behave identically. The only difference is that the one on the left has 40% Q.E. and the one on the right has 60% Q.E. A photodiode works by converting incoming photons into electrons, an amount of electrical charge, which is stored and can then later be read out via a special process. Photodiodes are not 100% efficient, especially at room temperature, so instead of converting every single photon it detects into an electron, each photon that strikes the photodiode increases the probability of an electron being released.

For photodiodes that have a 40% quantum efficiency, it takes approximately 2.5 photons for that potential to become realized, and release an electron. That means, every two to three photons detected, in a roughly even distribution, one electron is released. For photodiodes that have 60% quantum efficiency, it takes approximately 1.667 photons for that potential to become realized, and release an electron. That means every one to two photons detected, in roughly even distribution, one electron is released.

In other words, it takes less time for a sensor with higher quantum efficiency to achieve the same exposure. In the same amount of time, the exposure for a sensor with higher quantum efficiency will be greater. At high ISO, a sensor with higher Q.E. will have a greater exposure...more electrons, greater charge per pixel, requiring less gain, to achieve the same result. Less gain, less noise. 

It should be relatively self explanatory now to understand that once Q.E. approaches 100%, where you basically get 1 electron for every 1 photon detected, you've literally reached the limits of what physics will allow. There is no Q.E. above 100%...not literally. Someone may come up with a means of improving sensor sensitivity even more...historically, changes to photodiode area is the only thing that affects the maximum number of electrons that a photodiode can hold before leaking charge or increasing in temperature (any additional photon strikes once you reach the photodiodes capacity either result in releasing an electron, which means another electron has to be "lost" somehow (into the neighboring photodiodes, into the wiring current, etc.)...or the photon is converted into heat.) It may be possible to put multiple layers of photodiodes into a pixel...allowing electrons to be collected "three dimensionally"...in area and in depth, which might increase maximum well capacity and the potential of converting a photon, therefor increasing charge, and therefor signal strength, at higher ISO settings. So far, layered photodiodes have only accompanied sensor designs like Foveon...but there is no reason, necessarily, that we would have to employ all three colors at each pixel, we could stick to a bayer design and gain the benefits of gathering photons in area as well as depth. 

Anyway...hope the diagram helps.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 5, 2013)

unfocused said:


> What is your prediction? Will we see fewer upgrades in the future? Will we see more substantial firmware upgrades? Given that Canon and Nikon need to continue to sell products, do you think they will become more aggressive at selling lenses, strobes and other peripherals? Will you spend less money on photography in the future, or will you just spend it differently and how?



I see the future in firmware/software competition, with the advent of mirrorless and evf plus faster processors there is no end of "smart photography" if a company isn't conservative (that means you, Canon). Imagine:


focus peaking in vf - no more shallow dof af problems (unless tracking)
shutter speed prediction based on subject's movement speed and distance
aperture/dof prediction based on subjects you mark or automatic scene evaluation
smart af - "please always keep the subject's eye(s) in focus"
smart tracking - "please track the object with the green feathers, no matter where I point the camera"
mirrorless 100+ fps and automatic sorting depending on image iq (Magic Lantern already does a bit of that, but with limited resolution and only in lv)
configurable mirrorless on-sensor metering - will make zone metering look like stone age

Other than that, I see me taking much better pictures than now in the future  not because of better gear, but because I learn every day and try not to forget too much - the dslr systems have certainly reached a point of "good enough" like with my 60d, so it's good that there is no need to worry too much unless for recreation talk on CR


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 5, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > What is your prediction? Will we see fewer upgrades in the future? Will we see more substantial firmware upgrades? Given that Canon and Nikon need to continue to sell products, do you think they will become more aggressive at selling lenses, strobes and other peripherals? Will you spend less money on photography in the future, or will you just spend it differently and how?
> ...


I love your predictions smart focus come true.
Hopefully Canon hear you.

smart af - "please always keep the subject's eye(s) in focus"
smart tracking - "please track the object with the green feathers, no matter where I point the camera"


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 5, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Full frame sensors and the consumer market ---looking at the consumer market as it stands there is no reason to push FF sensors on the consumer market -- we are already seeing a drastic shift on the consumer side --- it's all about accessibility, networking, ease of use, creative filters --- facebook and instagram...and of course, all in one device. That i think is one of the biggest reasons mirrorless won't take off ---the consumer group it would target is happy with crappy blurry cell phone shots that can be tagged and facebooked immediately.
> 
> the only real way I see FF sensors being standard in the market are is APS-C sensors are phased out ---which given all the new crop sensor releases, I don't foresee that happening anytime soon.




http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0336328811/cp-2013-interview-with-canons-masaya-maeda

Cell phones compete directly with the compact market, not EOS products. Anyone with an inkling of a thought that they want something more than their phone is the primary target for the Rebel line. APS-C isn't going away, rather the opposite, it's the bait on the hook to convince people to use something more than their phone. My bet is that APS-C sensors are going to be moved into the high end compact price bracket, and at the same time full frame will go through the same sort of transition. Sub $1,000 full frame bodies will be coming sooner or later, at which point APS-C becomes increasingly less appealing for the kind of people you see around here. In the long term I think APS-C will be relegated to the same sort of status your average P&S has right now.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 5, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> I see the future in firmware/software competition, with the advent of mirrorless and evf plus faster processors there is no end of "smart photography" if a company isn't conservative (that means you, Canon). ...the dslr systems have certainly reached a point of "good enough" like with my 60d, so it's good that there is no need to worry too much unless for recreation talk on CR



I also like your list. Interesting that it's not about sensor performance. You hit the nail on the head (den Nagel auf den Kopf treffen???) with the comment about recreation talk on CR. 

One thing we also seldom take into consideration here is how advanced post-processing software has become. I'm amazed at how good the programs have become at tasks like upsizing files and noise reduction. I think it's entirely possible that the biggest advances in the future will come not from better sensors, but from software that can extract more and more information from what the sensor captures.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 5, 2013)

9VIII said:


> Sub $1,000 full frame bodies will be coming sooner or later, at which point APS-C becomes increasingly less appealing for the kind of people you see around here. In the long term I think APS-C will be relegated to the same sort of status your average P&S has right now.



Hmm.... I don't really think so. Already the quality difference between APS-C and full frame is pretty marginal. In the vast middle where most pictures are taken and displayed it's impossible to see any difference. The bulk of research and development dollars industry-wide is going into improving smaller sensors for cell phones. Advancements at that level will benefit APS-C more than full frame. 

Even if we see a sub $1,000 full frame in the future, most consumers will view that as too expensive and will opt for the APS-C camera at half the price or less. (The top four selling DSLRs on Amazon right now are all under $500).

But, maybe I'm misunderstanding your post. Perhaps you mean that enthusiasts will convert to full frame. That could be possible, but judging from the sales of the 70D and the pent-up demand for the 7DII, it appears that the market for higher end APS-C cameras will remain strong for the foreseeable future. 

On the other hand, if you are suggesting that the niche that was formerly filled by point and shoot cameras will be filled by small DSLRs, such as the SL1, I'm inclined to agree.


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 5, 2013)

unfocused said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Sub $1,000 full frame bodies will be coming sooner or later, at which point APS-C becomes increasingly less appealing for the kind of people you see around here. In the long term I think APS-C will be relegated to the same sort of status your average P&S has right now.
> ...



That's pretty much it. If Canon can't sell compact cameras because smartphones make them redundant, then they need to upgrade entry level cameras to the point that people start to think it's worth their time and effort to use a separate device again.
I guess part of the reasoning behind saying that sub $1,000 full frame cameras come along with that is that if entry level cameras become that much better, then people have that much less incentive to buy mid-range cameras. It makes sense that the entire product line moves down accordingly (and, as seen with the 7D and 70D, that seems to be the natural order of things anyway). Once it's only a few hundred dollars difference between mid-range APS-C and full frame, I think a lot more people will be jumping on full frame. Hopefully that also means we get medium format on the high end.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 5, 2013)

unfocused said:


> But, maybe I'm misunderstanding your post. Perhaps you mean that enthusiasts will convert to full frame.



Not all enthusiasts have unlimited deep pockets, and I guess ff lenses will keep being more expensive than aps-c, even though an aps-c lens has to be sharper to make use of the dense pixel sensor. So it's not only the cost of the ff sensor itself, but also the difference for example between a good aps-c uwa (~600) and a ff uwa (~1200) and it continues from there...



unfocused said:


> On the other hand, if you are suggesting that the niche that was formerly filled by point and shoot cameras will be filled by small DSLRs, such as the SL1, I'm inclined to agree.



I'd tend to disagree, because p&s covers *exactly* what many people want - point and shoot. And additional complexity or bulk is not wanted, strange as it seems from a dslr enthusiast's perspective. Actually I really wonder about the success perspective of the sl1-type range, it's too dslr-like for p&s customers, but too dumbed down for everyone else and guarantees a cramp in the hand if not used by a child.


----------

