# New Kit Lens Coming With New Rebels [CR3]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 21, 2016)

```
It’s definitely not as exciting as the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-85mm-f1-4l-is-usm-on-the-way-cr3/">upcoming EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM</a>, but Canon will be introducing a new EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM kit lens with the upcoming EOS Rebel cameras. This will be the first lens introduced in 2017.</p>
<p>Beyond this and the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS, we’re hearing that Canon will introduce another “interesting” lens, though we don’t know what that is at the moment.</p>
<p>Exact announcement dates for the above are still unknown, but we hope to find out soon.</p>
<p><em>More to come…</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## mpphoto (Nov 21, 2016)

What changes could Canon possibly make to the 18-55, besides making it even cheaper to produce? Adding the STM motor was a big step over the previous version, so what's left to do? It's the most basic of kit lenses, so I can't imagine Canon adding something like nano USM or doing anything too exotic.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 21, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> It’s definitely not as exciting as the upcoming EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM but Canon will be introducing a new EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM kit lens with the upcoming EOS Rebel cameras. This will be the first lens introduced in 2017.



hmm if I had a guess - I'd say a 18-55 that used the power zoom adapter and possibly the new nano USM.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2016)

It's the little things that count, like when Canon updated the cheap EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM from MkII to MkIII, they stated, "_The front part of the zoom ring now sports a silver ring for a luxury touch._"

Of course, the current 18-55 STM already 'sports a silver ring' so maybe they'll remove it and change the labeling font for a 'clean, modern look and style.'

:


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 21, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's the little things that count, like when Canon updated the cheap EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM from MkII to MkIII, they stated, "_The front part of the zoom ring now sports a silver ring for a luxury touch._"
> 
> Of course, the current 18-55 STM already 'sports a silver ring' so maybe they'll remove it and change the labeling font for a 'clean, modern look and style.'
> 
> :



Platinum Ring this time


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 21, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > It’s definitely not as exciting as the upcoming EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM but Canon will be introducing a new EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM kit lens with the upcoming EOS Rebel cameras. This will be the first lens introduced in 2017.
> ...



actually I'm wondering if it will collapse .. that seems to be the thing, and Nikon now has a collapsible kit zoom.


----------



## Jan (Nov 21, 2016)

New kit lens? Hm... As far as I heard the current kit is already quite decent and also features an STM, doesn't it?

I'd be more interested in some info about the new rebels themselves.


----------



## SkynetTX (Nov 21, 2016)

I hope it will NOT be equipped with NanoUSM. The "focus by wire" technology with Initial focus reset is the worst thing ever can happen to a lens. :'( It's only good for videographers and the ones who use their cameras in full automatic mode only. For still and mainly for macro photographers it's a pain in the ass. :'( If, and ONLY IF, the new version of the lens would be equipped with *RING TYPE USM*  motor that really supports *Full Time Manual* focusing  I would update my old version of the lens with the new one.  And no LCD display, please! I wan't the good old completely mechanical distance window!


----------



## pokerz (Nov 21, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Newer Coatings? Probably.
> All Plastic? Also probable.
> Collapsing? Maybe.


New Colour !


----------



## Etienne (Nov 22, 2016)

... that faint sound in the distance? ... that's a global yawn ... ZZZzzzzz....


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 22, 2016)

Stupid boring canon more plastic crap but still no ef 60mm macro or update to 180mm macro with more than 1x mag ratio.


----------



## Ryananthony (Nov 22, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



I just looked thus up since until now I had never heard of it. Seems pretty silly. It's not like it collapses a whole lot.


----------



## bardamu (Nov 22, 2016)

Etienne said:


> ... that faint sound in the distance? ... that's a global yawn ... ZZZzzzzz....



Spot on.

1) weather-sealed update to the 17-55, going slightly wider (15-45).
2) 24mm equiv prime (EF-S 15mm)
3) 35mm equiv prime (EF-S 22mm)

I object mind Canon continuing to refine the standard budget crop zoom, but when it takes place in the absence of any other activity it just seems ridiculous.


----------



## martinslade (Nov 22, 2016)

interesting - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=836&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=787&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3


----------



## andrei1989 (Nov 22, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> Stupid boring canon more plastic crap but still no ef 60mm macro or update to 180mm macro with more than 1x mag ratio.



you do realise that canon sells maybe 10 180mm macro lenses per year while the 18-55 might be their most sold lens and it produces the biggest margin so it makes much more sense to improve it


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 22, 2016)

Highly innovative Canon will be the first company ever in the entire universe to equip a kit lens with a LD-display. Yay! 

This display will clearly show Canons industry-leading lens design yielding unrivalled depth of field at 18mm and apertures beyond f/5.6. TADAA! 

We also hear from trusted CR 99 sources, that Canon will likely announce an industry-first pulse-belt accessory (USD 199 / € 299 only) for this new lens. Pulse rate and blood pressure of user will be prominently displayed in lens window. Furthermore, loud warning beeps will be emitted to warn bystanders, that photographers may go through the roof any moment, due to excessive focus hunting of dark-zoom kit lens in less-than ideal light. 

TADAA and WOW!!! ;D


----------



## Khufu (Nov 22, 2016)

martinslade said:


> interesting - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=836&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=787&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3



Are you sure?


----------



## martinslade (Nov 22, 2016)

Khufu said:


> martinslade said:
> 
> 
> > interesting - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=836&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=2&LensComp=787&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
> ...


----------



## Josh Denver (Nov 22, 2016)

Canon realizes the most of the sales loss bulk this year was the low-end Rebel models. Their financial report emphasises on that fact. So I believe the rumors of a new T7i and now a new Kit lens are aimed at shaking up the low-end models sales, make users of current post-550D want to upgrade. 

They just really made the t6s and t6i and they wouldn't upgrade them so fast for no reason, so it's consistent with what's happening... 

I am guessing a new rebel with some exciting new features (yet still not embarking on the 80D territory) is coming, along with an exciting kit lens upgrade. Why upgrade the current STM 18-55mm, it's freaking good and new! 

We can suspect:

1- Same Lens with new coatings, slightly refined optical formula, refined look, IS, etc and call it IS STM II 

2- Nano USM motor, same optical formula, PZ compatibility. (My guess) 

3- Collapsible design of the current STM. 

4- No real change. Just a cosmetic refine. 

The camera, I am guessing one model with the upper LCD and front dial (t6s design), 24mp DPAF sensor, 1080p 60p at a lower price than usual. An 800D. This would give it a push over the current offerings and be a hit for new comers and 550D upgrades. 

Of course this news and rumors are not exciting to someone who needs AFMicroAdju, 7-8 fps, Magnesium alloy, big dials, more buttons, larger buffer, dual slots, Fullframe, 4K, etc, but it IS exciting to me to see what Canon makes in their entry level model. 

The T6s is a brilliant camera to hold BTW. Absolutely lovely body in design and ergonomics. Has all the buttons and dials and upper LCD and touch LCD that swivels, rugged, not too big or too small, just really, really refined design. The front dial is a bit small but that's it. It's a brilliant body really. Like it way more than the 80D/7D body. One with the 5D sensor at 1600$ would be so cool wouldn't it?! Plastic, 3fps, 19 AF points, we don't care. And pair it with the 24-105mm STM IS in kits.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2016)

Threads like this really highlight how totally non-representative the CR forum membership is of the Canon ILC market. Even minor improvements to the 18-55mm kit lens will benefit millions of dSLR buyers, and if production costs are lowered that means more profit that Canon can potentially put into R&D for other, higher-end products. 

But here, we have people suggesting that Canon should make the niche lens they want instead, or that updating the kit lens is ridiculous.


----------



## mrzero (Nov 22, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Even minor improvements to the 18-55mm kit lens will benefit millions of dSLR buyers, and if production costs are lowered that means more profit that Canon can potentially put into R&D for other, higher-end products.



Agreed. Anything that broadens the market for Canon DSLR buyers or benefits the user base is good for all of us.


----------



## Sharlin (Nov 22, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> They just really made the t6s and t6i and they wouldn't upgrade them so fast for no reason, so it's consistent with what's happening...



Those are already almost two years old, though. If anything, that's a reasonably long cycle when it comes to the "hundred-dee" series - starting from the 450D and up until the 700D Canon released a new Rebel every year!


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 22, 2016)

mrzero said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Even minor improvements to the 18-55mm kit lens will benefit millions of dSLR buyers, and if production costs are lowered that means more profit that Canon can potentially put into R&D for other, higher-end products.
> ...



Agreed. They sell thousands of Rebels for every 1 series camera sold.... This is the product that keeps the lights on at the factory floor....


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 22, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> Canon realizes the most of the sales loss bulk this year was the low-end Rebel models. Their financial report emphasises on that fact.



canon didn't lose any unit sales. not sure what you're smoking.

as a matter of fact:

_Canon, through the launch of new products, has been working to stimulate latent demand for interchangeable-lens cameras. For the new DSLRs that were launched in the first half of this year, like the EOS 80D, which offers improved capacity to track fast-moving subjects, and the EOS Kiss X80 (EOS Rebel T6 in the Americas, EOS 1300D in Europe) with its enhanced ability to connect to networks, have been enjoying strong sales. In addition, the EOS 5D Mark IV, the core model incorporating a full-size sensor that was launched in September has been contributing to sales since its launch thanks to the well-balanced basic performance it offers in terms of still and video shooting
_

Nope not seeing it there either.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 22, 2016)

Sharlin said:


> Josh Denver said:
> 
> 
> > They just really made the t6s and t6i and they wouldn't upgrade them so fast for no reason, so it's consistent with what's happening...
> ...



Indeed. it was a bizarre statement when the rebels were always on a fast "new model" refresh before.

You'd think some people would fact check a little more.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 22, 2016)

Ryananthony said:


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



no but if you are comparing kit cameras in a store, every little bit helps the perception that is it smaller.


----------



## TeT (Nov 24, 2016)

Slap that smaller lens on a SL1 and it is significant


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 24, 2016)

hoping for a very compact, collapsible design EF-S *16*-55/3.5-5.6 STM IS zoom.


----------



## mitchel2002 (Nov 24, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> hoping for a very compact, collapsible design EF-S *16*-55/3.5-5.6 STM IS zoom.


highly unlikely that it will be 16mm at the wide end


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 28, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > It’s definitely not as exciting as the upcoming EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM but Canon will be introducing a new EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM kit lens with the upcoming EOS Rebel cameras. This will be the first lens introduced in 2017.
> ...



+1 on both points, but that's a 'premium kit' offering if I ever saw one. Such a lens might be a better kit call for an 80D or 7D2 than a Rebel.

I'd also throw in better IS. It's always improving generation over generation and every little bit helps for parents taking stills at a kid's piano recital, recording video, etc.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 28, 2016)

SkynetTX said:


> I hope it will NOT be equipped with NanoUSM. The "focus by wire" technology with Initial focus reset is the worst thing ever can happen to a lens. :'( It's only good for videographers and the ones who use their cameras in full automatic mode only. For still and mainly for macro photographers it's a pain in the ass. :'( If, and ONLY IF, the new version of the lens would be equipped with *RING TYPE USM*  motor that really supports *Full Time Manual* focusing  I would update my old version of the lens with the new one.  And no LCD display, please! I wan't the good old completely mechanical distance window!



I hear you. I understand. 

But a FTM ring-USM lens for _a Rebel kit zoom_ has zero chance of happening, IMHO. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 28, 2016)

Just riffing on all the possible 'upgrades' they could float to a new kit Rebel lens...


Nano USM and Power Zoom compatibility
Make it nontrivially smaller, collapsible possibly
Digital display on lens like the new 70-300 non-L
Better IS
Giving it a true 24mm FF equivalent wide end by switching to a *15*-55mm design
Abandon the filter threads and develop a _fast as hell _integral magnetic mount for CPL attachment
Somehow fight in a solid macro functionality like the 24-70 f/4L IS ('solid' being defined as large max mag, not necessarily 'solid for serious macro work')

...and I only see the Nano USM and better IS being reasonable to happen given this class of lens. The rest seem like dreamland for such an inexpensive / mass produced product.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Just riffing on all the possible 'upgrades' they could float to a new kit Rebel lens...
> 
> 
> Nano USM and Power Zoom compatibility
> ...



Maybe they'll upgrade it to a 50mm prime with IS.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 28, 2016)

How about an EF-S 15-45mm?

Small like the EF-M... 8)


----------



## AJ (Nov 28, 2016)

I was hoping for an update to the old EF-S 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS USM


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 28, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> How about an EF-S 15-45mm?
> 
> Small like the EF-M... 8)



small and shitty. The only EF-M lens so far that is a disgrace in terms of IQ.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 30, 2016)

esp. when Nikon can built the *hotshoe* about 10% smaller than Canon - at least in this comparison.
(width 4.3 vs. 4.6 cm, length 3.4 vs. 3.7 cm on my screen, when I zoom in)

PS.: but the Nikon kit lens still stays smaller. That's right.



rrcphoto said:


> ...
> no but if you are comparing kit cameras in a store, every little bit helps the perception that is it smaller.


----------



## Josh Denver (Dec 2, 2016)

Really having used them all of these cameras are the same size for all purposes. = need a small bag. A 350D, 550D, D5100, 5500, SL1, all with their kit lenses make up pretty much the same overall size and physical feel, a smallish camera. Smaller than big cameras (7D5D) and bigger than P&Shoots and mirrorless. No idea what the quest for shaving millimeters here or there. We want a better camera not an imperciptiably smaller camera... So focus on that. 

PS: instead of trying to achieve a smaller kit lens, keep the size and upgrade even one optical quality or IS.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 3, 2016)

Josh Denver said:


> Really having used them all of these cameras are the same size for all purposes. = need a small bag. A 350D, 550D, D5100, 5500, SL1, all with their kit lenses make up pretty much the same overall size and physical feel, a smallish camera. Smaller than big cameras (7D5D) and bigger than P&Shoots and mirrorless. No idea what the quest for shaving millimeters here or there. We want a better camera not an imperciptiably smaller camera... So focus on that.
> 
> PS: instead of trying to achieve a smaller kit lens, keep the size and upgrade even one optical quality or IS.



fully agree! a new, wider, constant aperture EF-S 16-50/4.0 STM IS kit zoom with decent IQ would be nice!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Josh Denver said:
> 
> 
> > PS: instead of trying to achieve a smaller kit lens, *keep the size* and upgrade even one optical quality or IS.
> ...



You 'fully agree' with keeping it the same size by suggesting an entry-level kit lens that would be larger and heavier...and more expensive. It's sad what passes for logic and business acumen in the AvTvM Universe.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 3, 2016)

a 16-50/4.0 could easily be done in the same overall size as the 18-55. It might be 100g heavier because of slightly larger front lens. Where's the problem? Price, yes, it might be 10 bucks more direct cost per piece. So what?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> a 16-50/4.0 could easily be done in the same overall size as the 18-55. It might be 100g heavier because of slightly larger front lens. Where's the problem? Price, yes, it might be 10 bucks more direct cost per piece. So what?



So in addition to a business degree, you have a Ph.D. in optical physics and years of experience designing lenses? 

Oh, and as for '10 bucks, so what?'...what are the differences between the EF-S 18-55 and 55-250 MkI vs. the MkII updates (the two versions that preceded the STM versions)? Cosmetics, for the telezoom a new panning algorithm...and reduced production costs, likely far less than $10 per unit savings. Why would Canon design an updated lens for just a minor savings in production cost? Because a minor per unit savings x millions of units = meaningful increase in profit. Your '10 bucks' may just be the entire margin on that lens sold in a kit. That's what. 

But I forgot...Canon is stupid and you know better. I'm just amazed Canon isn't paying you oodles of money as a consultant, you know their markets better than they do, and you know how to design lenses better, too!


----------



## Josh Denver (Dec 3, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Josh Denver said:
> ...



I was clearly suggesting keeping the size to the CURRENT 18-55mm STM IS not ''keeping the size out of mind''.

Yes a 16-55mm would be larger and heavier and more expensive unless they drop IQ A LOT (like the Sony one), so not a viable ''replacement'' to the kit lens. An F/4 constant iris would make it even bigger, a 55mm f4 at the long end has quite a big front diameter. 

All these lenses are good optical suggestions but as new lenses aside from the kit lens, or a second option kit for those wanting a higher quality optic. 

The 18-55mm STM IS is incredible optically. Very sharp, MFD is crazy, IS is IBIS territory, GREAT cine-like focus ring (altgough fly by wire but it is that good somehow, it's also linear so FF marking are repeatable, unlike the horrible sony FBW rings that predict speed). It's hard to imagine how they'd improve upon it since it's the best in DSLR kit lens class, so I expect a cosmetic change like a new finish, or an IS tweak, coating, PZ port, just to come with the 800D kit.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 3, 2016)

Well Neuro, you and the other Canon Defense League buddies here sure worry an awful lot about Canon's profits. 

Want to know, what I care for? Bang for *MY* buck and great imaging gear for *MY* needs and wants. interestingly, I find *MY* needs usually are pretty much in sync with millions of other people's needs and wants. 

So if Canon manages to deliver on both counts - good products, reasonable prices - you and them don't need to worry about Canon sales and profits. 

---------
A bit some more background info [sorry, somewhat OT relative to thread title] 

Canon did not do well on both counts [product, price] in the last few years. No decent EOS M body (until finally M5 in late 2016). No great FF mirrorless system on par with or better than Sony A7 II lineup. Therefore, Canon did not manage to sell me anything in all of 2016. Has never happened before in any of the 10 years since I got my first Rebel XT / 350D (2006), my first ever Canon mirrorslapper. At the time it was a very good product and it was sold at a reasonable price. See, how simple it is to convince me and *millions* of other potential customers? 

My last Canon camera [5D3] and lens purchases [24-70 II, 50/1.8 STM] were in 2015. If I am honest, 5D3 and L lens were a mistake. Should not have bought. Very good products, BUT they get too little use, because too big & klugdy. That nice little 50/1.8 STM lens works very well on my EOS M and therefore goes along whenever I need selective DOF and/or low light capability. 

In 2017 I may buy an M5 from Canon. I like what I see so far, except size - bigger than I would like, especially that bulky hump on top. Would have preferred Sony A6500 form factor. shape. I may also buy EF-M 18-150 if it gets good reviews. Ah yes, AND IF prices are *reasonable*, meaning M5 body clearly less than comparable DLSR (80D). 

Again: Canon can do what they want. And I do what I want. Buying or not buying. And telling them, when they do stupid things. 

As far as kit zooms go: Don't see any need for yet another EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 ... current version is good enough. But I would be interested in an EF-M 85/2.4 STM IS and I would certainly consider an EF-M 16-50/4.0 if sold in kit with M5 or separately at say € 199,-

Whether Canon *can do* and/or *wants to do* is up to them. I just state what *I* will do or not do.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Well Neuro, you and the other Canon Defense League buddies here sure worry an awful lot about Canon's profits.



I think you're like people who live near airports – so used to the whooshing sound you don't really even hear it anymore, except in your case the woosh is the point flying over your head. It doesn't matter whether or not anyone here cares about Canon's profits, the point is that *Canon* cares about Canon's profits, and that's what drives their decisions. But it doesn't surprise me that _you_ don't care about what drives Canon's decisions, you live in some fantasy land where the nonexistent amount you've spent on ILC market research yields better data than the substantial amount Canon has and continues to spend figuring out what the market wants.




AvTvM said:


> Want to know, what I care for? Bang for *MY* buck and great imaging gear for *MY* needs and wants. interestingly, I find *MY* needs usually are pretty much in sync with millions of other people's needs and wants.



Fantasy land, again. If millions of other people wanted a high-end FF MILC setup on par with the Sony a7 II system, Sony's a7 II system would be vastly outselling Canon's dSLR lineup. News flash for the ill-informed: it's not.




AvTvM said:


> Again: Canon can do what they want. And I do what I want. Buying or not buying. And telling them, when they do stupid things.



Canon doesn't care whether you buy or don't buy. And yes, you can continue to appear deluded and foolish...no one at all cares about that.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 3, 2016)

You know that there is more than one kit lens package with most releases?

Just get the one that appeals to you.... or get the bare body.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 3, 2016)

oho, Neuro fully defensive ... in Canon Profits Defense mode ;D 

Let Canon worry about their profits. I am sure, they do little else all day long anyways ... 

As sensible customers we should be pursuing *OUR INTERESTS* and push our suppliers to cater to us: 
* the right gear 
e.g. FF mirrorless system, not only mirrorslappers 
* good gear 
e.g. a sensor that clearly beats those from Sony 
* reasonable prices 
e.g. refrain from ho-hum iterations of old lenses at 2x the price like 24-105 L II


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 3, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> oho, Neuro fully defensive ... in Canon Profits Defense mode ;D
> 
> Let Canon worry about their profits. I am sure, they do little else all day long anyways ...
> 
> ...



First, you should prove that complaining here will push Canon to do anything.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 3, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> First, you should prove that complaining here will push Canon to do anything.



Exactly!

In another thread going on here, the 1DX2 has a 148 page AF manual. The Neuros of the world will memorize the manual, the average Canon customer would not touch the camera because not only is it huge, it has no automatic mode! We do not represent the typical customer and we are not representative of the bulk of sales.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 3, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> First, you should prove that complaining here will push Canon to do anything.



No, that is not the point.

The point is, that WHENEVER somebody here wishes for some BETTER PRODUCT from Canon or points out some DEFICIENCIES in existing Canon products or points out HIGH PRICES by Canon ... or whatever it may be .. anything even slightly critical of Canon or questioning some of their business (mal-) practices ... from a CUSTOMERS point of view ... 

THEN immediately the usual Canon Defense League guys jump up and defend Canon and worry about Canon's profits or dismiss any criticism with ever the same variations of demagogic responses ... "Canon knows better, Canon knows best, Canon sells lots of S___, Canon is a big company ... who are you to dare and question them?

This is a forum of photographers and buyers of photo gear. But more often than not it sure reads as if it was a forum of people on Canon's payroll. 

PS: I cannot and dont want to prove it, but I am convinced, that this forum is under very close scrutiny by Canon. If enough of us want, wish and demand in forums like these, rather than all the time EXCULPATING Canon and trying to SHUT down any criticism ... then we will get, what we want. Sooner or later. Even with Canon.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 3, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> We do not represent the typical customer and we are not representative of the bulk of sales.



says who?? The typical 1DX-2 user? Of course we are representative of the few people left on earth who buy fat and expensive imaging gear rather than just using our smartphones. It is *PEOPLE LIKE US* that f*cking Canon wants to sell their f*cking sh*t to. 


PS: any camera should be operable by any photographer [=people who know which technical parameters they need to set for a proper capture] without having to read a 148 page manual first. If a construction guy buys the most expensive and largest power drill available at bricks-r-us he can go ahead and drill a hole in a wall without reading a manual first. Anybody strong enough to lift and hold that damn machine can. 

Any photographer strong enough to hold a big fat mirrorslapper and lens to their eye, should be able to capture a photo with it. 

We need those manuals only, because the camera user interface is not intuitive and good enough or because things do NOT work they way they should ... ERROR 99 ... what is it? Well, read the f*cking manual!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > First, you should prove that complaining here will push Canon to do anything.
> ...



*WOOOOOSHHHH*

You continue to totally miss the point. You can wish for anything you want. Wish for a Canon FF MILC. Wish for an EF-M 85mm f/2.4 IS. Wish for Canon to sell them for €99 each. Wish to be a multi-billionaire. Wish for world peace. That's all fine. Where you sound like a blathering idiot is when you claim Canon is stupid for not doing what you personally want, just because you want it. 

You are 'convinced' of so many things – 'millions of buyers for a Canon FF MILC', 'millions of buyers for an EF-M 85/2.4 IS' (even though it may not even work on a Canon FF MILC), 'Canon closely scrutinizes these forums', but you don't have a shred of evidence to back up any of your convictions. 




AvTvM said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > We do not represent the typical customer and we are not representative of the bulk of sales.
> ...



Seems you not only sound like a blathering idiot, but apparently you can't even comprehend what you read. Or maybe you miss dilbert so much you've decided to imitate him. Or maybe you honestly believe that the typical customer and the bulk of Canon's sales are their high end bodies and L lenses, rather than the Rebel/xxxD bodies and kit lenses. In that case, you don't merely _sound_ like a blathering idiot, you are one. 

Props for the ranting, though...at least you're good at something.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 3, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > We do not represent the typical customer and we are not representative of the bulk of sales.
> ...


First point: The vast bulk of sales are rebels and kit lenses. As most of us (at least the ones doing the posting) on this forum are using higher end cameras than the rebels, we are not the typical canon user.

Second point: The AF system on a 1DX is a lot more complicated than a "bricks-r-us" power drill, but keep in mind that those are the rebels of power drills. I can head to the tool crib and pick out a 12" core drill that uses cooling fluid, cutting fluids, hydraulic feed, and programmable rpm and feed rate. It comes with a manual that contains tables for cutting speeds and fluids for various diameters and materials...... Compare apples to apples, not apples to peas. 

Third point: criticism. Saying that something is a piece of S___ or ranting causes your criticism to be ignored. If you really want someone to pay attention to your criticism, try offering constructive criticism. For example, a comment such as "have you considered adding a help function to the camera menu to help with selecting AF modes" will be better received than profanities"


----------



## hbr (Dec 3, 2016)

> First point: The vast bulk of sales are rebels and kit lenses.
> 
> As most of us (at least the ones doing the posting) on this forum are using higher end cameras than the rebels, we are not the typical canon user.



+1

I haven't bought a kit lens or a Rebel series in about 6 years, so I really don't care what they come out with.

P.S. The only reason I am following this thread is that I am bored and I am enjoying the flame war. Burn Baby, Burn!


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 3, 2016)

Canon Defense League, all the way. 

I experience myself as pretty representative for "regular, non-Pro photo enthusiast" and also for *the bulk of forum users* here. CDL members and fanboys not counted. Time and again I have noticed, that the gear I buy and the gear I would like to buy in addition or in the future is also purchased or desired by many other people. 

CDL can claim all day long "it is only you, stupid". Does not make the statement true. It is *me and many, many others*. 

But, have fun and enjoy Canon launching yet another iteration of the Canon EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 STM IS instead of a 16-50/4. This time maybe with a silver and a gold ring around the barrel? Way to go, Canon! So innovative! Multi-million dollar market research and special CDL focus group both clearly indicate massive demand for an EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM Mk. II ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 4, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> I experience myself as pretty representative for "regular, non-Pro photo enthusiast" and also for *the bulk of forum users* here. CDL members and fanboys not counted. Time and again I have noticed, that the gear I buy and the gear I would like to buy in addition or in the future is also purchased or desired by many other people.
> 
> CDL can claim all day long "it is only you, stupid". Does not make the statement true. It is *me and many, many others*.



I'd agree that you are fairly representative of the many of the forum members here...at least in terms of gear purchases (although not in terms of grasp on reality or desires for future gear). If you liberally count members with >10 posts as active forum participants – people who've self-selected to join and contribute to (or troll in) a forum dedicated to speculating about forthcoming camera gear – that constitutes about 3,000 people. Canon will sell *>4,500,000* ILC cameras this year alone. 

If you believe that <0.07% of _self-selected_ gearheads are representative of millions of 'typical Canon buyers', you make even dilbert's tenuous grasp on reality seem fairly solid by comparison. 

No one is defending Canon here, just explaining reality...which is likely an exercise in futility in your case. 




AvTvM said:


> But, have fun and enjoy Canon launching yet another iteration of the Canon EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 STM IS instead of a 16-50/4. This time maybe with a silver and a gold ring around the barrel? Way to go, Canon! So innovative! Multi-million dollar market research and special CDL focus group both clearly indicate massive demand for an EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM Mk. II ...



If Canon does make an EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 STM IS II, I guarantee they will sell *millions* of them (not by customers' declarative choice, but merely by virtue of it being in entry level kits). That's actual millions of real people, not the mythical 'millions of buyers' for niche lenses in your fantasyland mind. Very few active CR forum participants will buy one, because most are beyond entry level. Most here don't care about 18-55mm kit lenses. The thread on the 85mm f/1.4L IS has triple the posts of this one, and most of the posts are about the lens itself (vs. this thread where a good portion are your asinine, profanity-laced drivel).


----------



## crashpc (Dec 4, 2016)

Neuro at his full power. hhhh. Chairman of the Canon league.

Well, who do you Think Neuro, prepares all the features and working parts (on the usability and software scale) to get authorized by marketing and sales department?
Actual photographers, technicians and gearheads. That´s why they let preproduction samples go into hands of "explorers of light" and unfortunately other Canon league members. 
It might be exactly this percentage of people. 
As you might know, Kodak or Nokia knew better what to do. Look how these ended up.

I myself found it takes even more crippling from Canon to go away. Their offers are right on the edge where I consider Canon systems as best (not by far tho). That doesn´t mean they cannot do better and smight all competition. Instead, they´re $hitting their pants by the wall, instead of going "into the crowd" Sony like, even for a moment.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 4, 2016)

crashpc said:


> Neuro at his full power. hhhh. Chairman of the Canon league.
> 
> Well, who do you Think Neuro, prepares all the features and working parts (on the usability and software scale) to get authorized by marketing and sales department?
> Actual photographers, technicians and gearheads. That´s why they let preproduction samples go into hands of "explorers of light" and unfortunately other Canon league members.
> ...



Ahhh, now we've heard from another card-carrying member of CHWAC (Canon Haters Without A Clue). So it's your opinion that these 'actual photographers, technicians and gearheads' are the ones making the choices that are 'crippling' Canon's new releases? 

"Kodak...Nokia," the rallying cry of CHWACers. Digital imaging was a paradigm shift. Smartphones were a paradigm shift. What currently ongoing paradigm shift, with which Canon is failing to keep up, is spelling out Canon's doom?

I'm amused by your suggestion that Canon is 'defecating by the wall' instead of copying Sony's efforts, which are working out so well for them. And what is it with you CHWACers and your profanity-laced posts? Can't make your points articulately, so you have to fall back on vulgarity? Your attempt was pretty weak, though...I guess that's why AvTvM is your fearless (and clueless) leader. You'll need to use a few more epithets if you want to make him proud.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 4, 2016)

When I got my first DSLR, it was a very old and battered 300D with the original 18-55 kit lens. And I was stunned by the image quality. Compared to my (original!) iPhone, and point-and-shoot cameras I'd used previously, it was amazing - the crispness, colours, and the shallow depth of field (in combination with the huge APS-C sensor!).

I wouldn't touch that lens with a barge pole now, but it introduced me in a very positive way to the possibilities of digital photography for creativity, not just as a means of recording things. Any new model will do the same for thousands of photographers of the future.


----------



## crashpc (Dec 5, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ahhh, now we've heard from another card-carrying member of CHWAC (Canon Haters Without A Clue). So it's your opinion that these 'actual photographers, technicians and gearheads' are the ones making the choices that are 'crippling' Canon's new releases?
> 
> "Kodak...Nokia," the rallying cry of CHWACers. Digital imaging was a paradigm shift. Smartphones were a paradigm shift. What currently ongoing paradigm shift, with which Canon is failing to keep up, is spelling out Canon's doom?
> 
> I'm amused by your suggestion that Canon is 'defecating by the wall' instead of copying Sony's efforts, which are working out so well for them. And what is it with you CHWACers and your profanity-laced posts? Can't make your points articulately, so you have to fall back on vulgarity? Your attempt was pretty weak, though...I guess that's why AvTvM is your fearless (and clueless) leader. You'll need to use a few more epithets if you want to make him proud.



How can that be without a clue, when I´m Canon user, and I´ve been there on the dark side and came back? Wonder who doesn´t have a clue.

There is no paradigm shift in a single feature. Canon gets huge part of the cake eaten just because it lacks some standard or doable/awesome features, or even core specs.
Be it 4K,IS,pixel shift, quiet shutter, pure sensor performance, burst rate and buffer dept of (up to now pathetic) mirrorless Canon, connectivity and ease of use, true support of lower end and affordable mid range, firmware updates actually solving things and adding features. I just pulled few out of my butt. I could think of more. On each feature, there are people leaving or not buying some Canon stuff. 

It doesn´t take a rocket science to see, and these are for fact. Sometimes spiced(not backed, as you suggest) with a vulgar word, which is not a problem compared to trolling and putting down other people you made guilty of having their own opinions. Wow, what a bravery and useful discussion from ya. I have yet to see that straightening of things and bringing facts you didn´t bring with your strong words.

Whoow, that was a drag (rather for making this post with my first grade english). But at least I enjoyed supporting some other guys opinion on the internet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2016)

crashpc said:


> How can that be without a clue, when I´m Canon user, and I´ve been there on the dark side and came back? Wonder who doesn´t have a clue.
> 
> There is no paradigm shift in a single feature. Canon gets huge part of the cake eaten just because it lacks some standard or doable/awesome features, or even core specs.
> Be it 4K,IS,pixel shift, quiet shutter, pure sensor performance, burst rate and buffer dept of (up to now pathetic) mirrorless Canon, connectivity and ease of use, true support of lower end and affordable mid range, firmware updates actually solving things and adding features. I just pulled few out of my butt. I could think of more. *On each feature, there are people leaving or not buying some Canon stuff. *
> ...



Canon is *gaining market share*, that is the fact. Canon is not having their cake eaten, quite the opposite. It's not rocket science, just basic reading ability and first grade math skills. Of course, seeing facts doesn't mean you can understand them. 

All those reasons you're pulling from your butt should have been left inside there in the stinky darkness where they belong. Sure, some people aren't buying Canon ILC products for those reasons, but the reality is more people are choosing Canon than other brands, and that fraction has grown further in 2016. In other words, all of those reasons you list and all the other ones you can think of in your head (or your butt, as the case may be) are irrelevant compared to the cold, hard reality of actual sales data. 

It's quite clear who doesn't have a clue. Glad that you enjoy supporting the incorrect opinion of other guys on the Internet, but aside from the fun you're having, your support makes neither you nor them any less clueless.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 5, 2016)

isnt it great to have a slightly larger piece of a significantly smaller pie! ;D


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> isnt it great to have a slightly larger piece of a significantly smaller pie! ;D


If the cake tastes better (more profit), sure it is. 
But that'll be difficult in a shrinking market, where everybody is trying to gain share.

But a FF MILC neither won't bake you a totally new cake. 
Otherwise Sony would have surpassed Canon already. 
Did they? Nope.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> isnt it great to have a slightly larger piece of a significantly smaller pie! ;D



Great? No. But better than it could be. No individual ILC manufacturer has strong influence over global demand for ILCs – that's mainly affected by global economies and other relevant product classes (smartphones, forthcoming Google Glasses, etc.). What the individual ILC makers do have strong and direct influence on is how competitive their own products are _relative to their overall market_. The fact that Canon is gaining market share means they're doing better than their competitors at designing and selling ILC systems that best meet the market's needs/wants. 

If you'd pull your head out of the AvTvM Universe for a minute and try to grasp reality, you might realize that having an increasing share of the pie is Smart, Canon. Probably too much to expect of you, though.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 5, 2016)

they have FULL command over ILC market. All they need to do is launch *COMPELLING* APS-C and FF mirrrorless systems. And i immediatly start to buy. And millions of others too. So simple.


----------



## hbr (Dec 6, 2016)

All this discussion has peaked my curiosity as to why Canon would replace the EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 STM IS when this is a fairly new lens and apparently a pretty good one at that. The only thing I can figure is that they will be adding it to the line of nano USM lenses for video purposes, (right now there are only two lenses with nano USM: the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM Lens and the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens. I'm not sure this makes any sense, but I can't think of any other reason.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> they have FULL command over ILC market. All they need to do is launch *COMPELLING* APS-C and FF mirrrorless systems. And i immediatly start to buy. And millions of others too. So simple.



Maybe I shouldn't interact with you, but I will ask one question...

Do you think that the lack of a "compelling" APS-C and full frame mirrorless system is what is making the overall camera market shrink? Because that's what you're implying.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 6, 2016)

hbr said:


> All this discussion has peaked my curiosity as to why Canon would replace the EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6 STM IS when this is a fairly new lens and apparently a pretty good one at that. The only thing I can figure is that they will be adding it to the line of nano USM lenses for video purposes, (right now there are only two lenses with nano USM: the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM Lens and the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens. I'm not sure this makes any sense, but I can't think of any other reason.


One of the things you have to keep in mind is the sheer volume of sales of this lens. Canon will make more copies of this lens in a year than the total of all the L lenses made in the same time..... That makes the update cycle able to be very fast.....


----------



## crashpc (Dec 6, 2016)

Well neuro, market shrinks for some reasons. Many of these are caused by camera manufacturers themselves, failing to make tempting products for mass market.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 6, 2016)

scyrene said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > they have FULL command over ILC market. All they need to do is launch *COMPELLING* APS-C and FF mirrrorless systems. And i immediatly start to buy. And millions of others too. So simple.
> ...



yes. to some extent. 

nothing could have saved dwarf-sensored P&S. but had attractive mirrorless APS-C and FF camera systems been introduced not only by Sony and Fuji, but also by market share heavyweights Canon and Nikon they would be selling more cameras and way more lenses (new, native short flange distance mounts) than they are today. it might still be less than in the 2006-2013 heyday, but more than today.

instead Nikon introduced the stupid daarf-sensored fail from the start Nikon 1 system and Canon introduced the crippled to death EOS M and partially failed with it. imagine, if canon had launched an M5 already back in 2012. 

non-communicating cameras - not even simple WIFI in the biggest and most expensive mirrorslappers until 2015 - and poor implementation even in late 2016 comes on top of it. 

ever the same mirrorslappers - 19/20th century tech, big, clugdy, not sell-connected - are dinosuras on their way to extinction. Canon - and even more so Nikon - are "dinosaur farmers". every single mirrorless camera sold by sony and fuji (and to sone extent also mFT) could easily have been a Canon (or Nikon).

but no! "we are innovative mirrorslappers. that is all the world ever needs. take it or leave it." me and millions of other customers gave bern leaving it. thats what you see in those CIPA stats. i have not bought a single piece of imaging hardware - camera ir lens - from Canon in 2016. first year ever since i bought my first canon mirrorslapper back in 2006. i am not delusional. i am fairly typical for millions of former mirrorslapper buyers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2016)

crashpc said:


> Well neuro, market shrinks for some reasons. Many of these are caused by camera manufacturers themselves, failing to make tempting products for mass market.



But how can that possibly be happening? After all, you just listed a bunch of "awesome features" of current cameras (well, not most Canon cameras, of course):



crashpc said:


> Canon gets huge part of the cake eaten just because it lacks some standard or doable/awesome features, or even core specs. Be it 4K,IS,pixel shift, quiet shutter, pure sensor performance, burst rate and buffer dept of (up to now pathetic) mirrorless Canon, connectivity and ease of use, true support of lower end and affordable mid range, firmware updates actually solving things and adding features. I just pulled few out of my butt. I could think of more. On each feature, there are people leaving or not buying some Canon stuff.



You even claim to have even more "awesome features" in your butt. All that temptation, and still the market shrinks. How? *HOW??*

Smartphone sales in the US are flattening, whereas smartphone sales in India are increasing at double-digit rates. Are the Samsung and Apple models being sold in India more "tempting products for mass market" than the Samsung and Apple models being sold in the US? (Hint: they're the same models.) Or could it be things like saturation in mature markets? (Hint: the ILC market is mature in most major economies.) As I already mentioned, global economies and competing product classes also play major roles. 

Or maybe, just maybe, people aren't all that tempted by what's coming out of your butt. 

Carry on, CHWAC...that second 'C' just keeps getting more applicable.


----------



## crashpc (Dec 6, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> You even claim to have even more "awesome features" in your butt. All that temptation, and still the market shrinks. How? *HOW??*



Because it takes more than just the feature on the paper. It must work well, and it must work on a system, which is compatible, user friendly, and also iterative. Not like Samsung, who does awesome camera and then sends all users to hell without a blink. I know Sony does that too. 
These who want to buy into awesome camera systems don´t want to buy a piece of a gear, and find tomorrow, that it is a dead end.

Every single manufacturer has some MAJOR flaw. Not a single one can do relatively simple things complete and working. Why, oh why....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2016)

crashpc said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > You even claim to have even more "awesome features" in your butt. All that temptation, and still the market shrinks. How? *HOW??*
> ...



Oh, ok. So _if_ Sony had better lenses, or Samsung kept making ILCs, or if Canon had pixel shift and 'pure sensor performance' (whatever the heck that is), or if Nikon had a really good MILC offering..._then_ dSLR sales would not have declined over the past four years. Yeah, that makes sense. 







Here's a dollar, go buy a clue (but maybe you don't want to do that, becuase it might mean giving up your coveted membership in CHWAC!). :


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 6, 2016)

DSLR sales would have declined more, had there been an worthwhile offering of APS-C and FF MILC systems from Canon and Nikon in the last 3 years. But overall sales would have been considerably higher than what they are today, especially for new native glass.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> But overall sales would have been considerably higher than what they are today, especially for new native glass.



Only if you were the CEO of Canon, Nikon, and Sony. :


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> But overall sales would have been considerably higher than what they are today, especially for new native glass.



That's delusional, even for you, AvTvM.

The dedicated camera market is contracting due to cell phones. No new camera product or system of any sort will change that unless it's smaller/cheaper than a cell phone or the world gets madly hooked on a viral form of photography that cell phones are terrible at. As much as "Pupiling" (ultra-high res BiF eyeball photography), "Darknessing" (shooting pitch black caves) or "Superzooming in on Sweet Butts" (self-explanatory) could conceivably take off someday and resurrect the dedicated camera industry, _I am not holding my breath.
_
You are simply fighting the arc of history here. 

- A


----------



## crashpc (Dec 6, 2016)

As I wrote neuro, it doesn´t take only single feature to change things.
Taking into absurd extent, we could go the other way, with smaller sensors, poorer performance, plasticky body, and absolutely poor UI, and look how camera sales DO NOT decline even more. 
What a nonsense.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Dec 6, 2016)

Maybe 10 years ago, development was so fast, that replacing a camera after 2 years was a reasonable decission. What happened to the replaced cameras? they were probable sold to people with less budget.

so maybe cameras are living 10 years until they are no longer usable, so if xxx million people want one, xxx/10 cameras can be sold per year.

the more camera performance is convergating, the longer they are usable and the less can be sold. In fact, i would not throw away a no longer loved 5dii or 50d, i would sell them or give them sombody who would like them, because one i liked this piece of equipment, it was expensive so i will care it stays running, even if i could afford a better one.

maybe this is why market is shrinking. smartphones come on top of t.

there is one more problem. 5 years ago, it was thought that expensive lenses would be a good "investment". i bought a 10-22 for 1000$ 6 years ago, sold it for 600 3 years ago and now they are traded for 200$ maybe. if the marked continues to shrink, 10 years old lenses will be as forthful as 10 years old smartphones. If the new 70-300 Non-L will be great optically, it will kill the investment in a 70-200 f4 (IS). This makes me more cautious buying expensive lenses, as consumable toys they are just too expensive. loosing 80% value in a lens sverely disturbs happyness with this nice hobby. 

this would mean, mentally write of what i own now, and continue use it, but never again buy something new....


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 6, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > But overall sales would have been considerably higher than what they are today, especially for new native glass.
> ...




sorry, I was not clear enough. P&S was and is *******, of course. What I meant was "units of of *ILC cameras* and lenses sold". I had assumed it would be clear in the context.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


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



You were perfectly clear, actually. You implied that a sexy enough ILC setup (SLR or mirrorless) would reverse the world's disdain for dedicated cameras. Again: that's delusional.

Two things bring about a major comeback to cameras. A global boom in the world economy where folks are vacationing much more often in more far-off places, or... I actually can't think of a second reason.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2016)

crashpc said:


> What a nonsense.



Thanks for summarizing your previous statements in this thread!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Two things bring about a major comeback to cameras. A global boom in the world economy where folks are vacationing much more often in more far-off places, or... I actually can't think of a second reason.



The second reason is that because AvTvM wants them, Canon will release a compact, affordable, full-featured FF MILC and an EF-M 85mm f/2.4 IS (that won't work on the aforementioned FF MILC), and millions of people will buy them both, and the ILC industry will be saved!


----------



## crashpc (Dec 6, 2016)

We have been fed with that nonsense before:
No, you don't need on-chip ADC, no you don't need a viewfinder, no you don't need usable burst rate and buffer depth, and so on(on the M). From our complaining, it took Canon just one iteration to solve. Not some "eventual stuff", or "Canon knows better". It was just one step lagging and late.
I'll remind you again neuro, with next Canon camera iteration solving other things, how stoopid wish of us was it, to want some feature or functionality, which Canon will bring to us, just one iteration late....


----------



## scyrene (Dec 7, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



I have to disagree with all of this, but most of all the bit I've highlighted in bold.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 7, 2016)

Spock said:


> It should be more than obvious that the reason for the declining popularity of the P/S camera is that they do not have full frame sensors.
> 
> The solution is simple, put FF sensors into P/S cameras.
> 
> ...


At last! A logical assessment of the situation! I shall have to get busy sewing oversize pockets on my shirts for this revolutionary P/S camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Spock said:
> 
> 
> > It should be more than obvious that the reason for the declining popularity of the P/S camera is that they do not have full frame sensors.
> ...



Don't be ridiculous. Shirt designers should have anticipated this paradigm shift. I predict a dramatic downturn in shirt sales in the coming years, unless they rapidly adapt to this shift in the market.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Spock said:
> ...



Sorry Neuro, but you are wrong on this one.... Up here in Canada, we have anticipated this for decades and even have pant pockets that fit such a revolutionary P/S camera


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2016)

I didn't realize our neighbors to the north were so progressive!


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I didn't realize our neighbors to the north were so progressive!



The dude who runs the place _hugs pandas_, Neuro. 

And they invented comedy, Rush _and poutine_. Progressive indeed.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 7, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't realize our neighbors to the north were so progressive!
> ...


The land which invented boiled tree sap on pancakes, where the national animal is the beaver....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sekLEG8xsOs


----------



## hbr (Dec 7, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Spock said:
> 
> 
> > It should be more than obvious that the reason for the declining popularity of the P/S camera is that they do not have full frame sensors.
> ...



But it would have to have 4k video for the same price or else Canon would be *******!


----------

