# Does Canon really deserve this?



## sanj (Nov 22, 2014)

I browse this website quite often since 2012. I have never seen so many negative comments about Canon these days in comparison with before. 
Does Canon really not satisfying its customers lately or is it that there are new members in the forum who like to put down Canon in comparison with other companies?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2014)

DRones.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 22, 2014)

sanj said:


> I browse this website quite often since 2012. I have never seen so many negative comments about Canon these days in comparison with before.
> Has Canon really not satisfying its customers lately or is it that there are new members in the forum who like to put down Canon in comparison with other companies?



The answer is probably yes. ;D

One should NEVER consider posts on an Internets Tubes forum to be representative of a population. Now if each person were allowed one and only one post, that would be different. But on these types of forums the same groups of people can, and do, make a multitude of posts pushing their opinion. 

You can't blame them. That is the whole purpose of these types of forums -- people to share their opinions. 

But CR is pretty bad about that. If you compare CR with say Nikon Rumors, which I also haunt, you will see a world of difference between the types of posts. That is one of the reasons I like to hang out here. Not only do I still shoot Canon but the entertainment value of CR far surpasses the other camera forums. 

But that is just the nature of the people here. But people posting opinions on a forum should not influence someone's opinion of the cameras they use. 

Bottom line, it really does not matter what other people think of Canon, if you like Canon. 

I am sure there are people here who would like this forum to be restricted to only posts favourable to Canon. I prefer a more balanced approach... it is more entertaining that way. ;D


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 22, 2014)

I think Canon has been quite conservative lately and the criticism is not entirely of base. The dynamic range conversation is stupid, but I acknowledge Canon lags behind in that department.

I'm a little annoyed at the number of bodies they put the 18mp sensor in, t2i, t3i, t4i, t5i, t5, sl1, 60d, 7d, and the mirror less... seriously... if you do portrait or landscape, there hasn't been a rebel worth upgrading to because it is all the same camera... unless you rely on auto focus. 

Other than a few video/live view break through, it is hard to say they are revolutionizing the industry... also, after today I will have 4k video in my phone, but not in my $3000 slr. I don't want Canon handicapping gear because it will eat into the sales of other high end gear.

Having said all that, I'm more than happy with my 5d mkiii. I love the 600ex rt system, and their lenses are a work of art... so I'm happy... though I understand why others might not be.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Nov 22, 2014)

The 18MP in very much cameras- that was a real PITA.
Halfhearted mirrorless, lost the top position they had with the 5dmk2.

On the plzs side: excellent new lenses
And the radiocontrolled flashes.

Sometimes I think of Canon consisting of two different philosophies...


----------



## pdirestajr (Nov 22, 2014)

I think Canon satisfies photographers. I think the majority of complaints come from consumers that are way more interested in the latest and greatest gear and technology, and like the science of the technology that goes into making cameras and lenses.

But go over to Nikon Rumors and you will see endless complaints about Nikon not listening to their forum experts and how all every Nikon shooter ever wanted was a "true" D700 replacement and a D300 replacement... Basically people will just complain over what they dont have.


----------



## Cosmicbug (Nov 22, 2014)

I love my Canon system.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 22, 2014)

i love my 5Dmk3
i love my eos-m and 11-22
and i'm especially loving my lifepixel converted eos -m these days


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 22, 2014)

Another very satisfied Canon customer here (SLR systems, P&S cameras, scanners, printers), as well as a volunteer evangelist of their products to others in my "community." If I have a question, I'll post it here. If I have a complaint, I'll send it to Canon.

I sometimes wonder about the emotional age of some of the ranters. Also, how much free time they must have on their hands. No company can be all things to all people. Just because Canon doesn't develop their product line precisely to your personal liking is no reason to throw a tantrum over it.

My only complaint is that my gear wants exceed my gear needs by a significant margin. I try really hard to restrict myself to only the gear I need and will use (particularly lenses). I occasionally give in to temptation, and then end up eventually selling a lens that just sits and collects dust.


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 22, 2014)

sanj said:


> I browse this website quite often since 2012. I have never seen so many negative comments about Canon these days in comparison with before.
> Has Canon really not satisfying its customers lately or is it that there are new members in the forum who like to put down Canon in comparison with other companies?



I think Canon is still very conservative - but that's not bad at all: It means too that Canon is "stable". A 20sth. year old EF 2.8/24 (non-USM, non-IS) works well on a EOS-M which is a bit younger.
Cameras like 20D or 40D are REAL TOOLS with good hardware control layout, nearly flawless ergonomics.

The 7D mark ii is just a minor upgrade in many terms for a 5 year old camera but ... what I see from reviews and samples it has a very advanced AF system and at least the noise _characteristics _ of the sensor is much improved. And changing from 40D to 7D mk ii might be as easy to change from eating tofu with chopsticks to eating chicken with chopsticks.

I am shure Canon will surprise us in the next months with a high megapixel FF body. The sensor tech of the 7D mk ii on a FF chip will give a 50 MPix camera for good to medium light conditions. Postprocessing will allow to get 10 or 20 MPix files with good high ISO results.

One observation - which is NOT representative - besides criticism on canonrumors: A lot of shops in my home town (a smaller town in germany) exhibit only Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic cameras. Some nikon stuff but Canon stuff only in homeopathic doses. The 7d mk ii istn't available at big electronic markets nor amazon germany.

Best - Michael


----------



## 2n10 (Nov 22, 2014)

You have technophiles who want to keep up with the Joneses. They may or may not be users or simply trolls. 

Then there are those who believe that the world revolves around them, whether they will admit it or not, and expect to see equipment that they want. If it is not produced they whine, snivel and bitch to the max. 

The world in general has become so accustomed to convenience that most do not wish to spend the time to produce art. They want it produced for them and then put their name on it.

You must remember that those who are willing to complain far out number those who will complement.

So, having made my rant/shared my thoughts I am quite happy with Canon and will learn to use my equipment to the best of my and its ability for whatever application I wish to attempt.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 22, 2014)

I'm at the point where the 5D3 is doing everything I need it to do and getting what I want from it with minimal hassle. The 600rts, the superb lineup of lenses and AF is what keeps me here. If another company did a better system than canon, I'd be there already.


----------



## TeT (Nov 22, 2014)

The criticism is valid & not a problem. They are lagging behind whether through inaction orr technological deficiencies. What I disliked was the series of high jacked posts mostly in sept & october...

Other than that its a fun (ridiculously so at times) & informative forum.

John


----------



## distant.star (Nov 22, 2014)

.
Brings to mind a scene in the movie, "Unforgiven." Will Munny (Clint Eastwood) is about to kill Little Bill Daggett (Gene Hackman).

Little Bill: I don't deserve to die like this. I was building a house.
Will Munny: Deserve's got nothin' to do with it.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 22, 2014)

I believe Canon provide the best over all system. The main reason for saying that is the width of available lenses. A number of lenses are only available in Canon mount and all the interesting third party lenses are also available. But it is also true that you have to spend rather large sums of money to get access to these lenses. The price introduction points for the new 16-35 and the 100-400 was a pleasant surprise though and makes me more optimistic for the future.

But the criticism they get for their sensors is in my opinion well deserved. But there is no question that some posters on CR are totally out of line. But I find them on both sides of the fence. It is ridiculous to state that a Canon camera is useless and it is also ridiculous to state that Canon sensors (provided the photographer is sufficiently qualified) equal the current state of the art. DRones and Canonites throwing rocks at each other in never ending and quite unintelligent arguments, leaves both groups in rather unflattering light. The Canonites are just as guilty as the DRones to keep these silly threads going.

I love my 1DX and there is no better alternative anywhere else at the moment. But if a new body with a sensor with equal DR and resolution as the 810 sensor came along, I would get it in a heart beat, not to replace my 1DX, but to augment it. I think such a body is long over due and I think we on this forum should make sure Canon understand that we are quite impatient.


----------



## dak723 (Nov 22, 2014)

Satisfied Canon user here. My take is that there are far too many folks on the forum who think technology makes the photo. They are more concerned with test results, sensor comparisons and all the technical information that is on the web. Test results show that other sensors are better, therefore Canon sucks - is the basic thought process. They are obsessed with noise and DR. Many of us who spent many years with film admittedly don't get it. Photos can be grainy - and quite frankly - often look better grainy than having the plastic-smooth overly processed look. More DR means less contrast - yet contrast could be considered more important in the eyes of many. Folks want more MP, and yet on at least a few websites, reviewers note that without a tripod, there is no difference between 24 MP and 36 MP. And, yet, people want even more MPs! Unless you print larger than 8" x 10" there is virtually no difference between photos taken with an SL1 with kit lens and a 6D with "L" lens, but people want to believe that they need the best cameras and the best lenses. (In fact, at 8' x 10" printed size, there is no discernible difference between pics taken with my old Canon 300D and my new 6D). So if a Sony sensor tests as being 10% better than the Canon sensor, then obviously the Sony pics will be so much better...although you probably won't be able to tell the difference purely by eye!

A good photo is the result of subject matter, composition, atmosphere, contrast, color. And yet, it seems like those topics aren't even considered by many. For them a good photo is judged by the amount of noise and the Dynamic Range. 

All that being said, there are some folks you take pics in extreme conditions - very low light, astrophotography, etc. For them, the difference is meaningful and I can understand their frustration. If Canon doesn't meet their needs they should switch. There is no reason to think that Canon has the knowledge (or the ability to come up with new patents that don't infringe on Sony's patents) to substantially improve their sensors in the near future. But if all you need is a solid, dependable camera that will last you 5 to 10 years and take great pictures, then there is no reason to be disappointed. If you want the latest and greatest and want to upgrade every two years, then by all means, switch.


----------



## Perio (Nov 22, 2014)

I like my Canon, and I showed my loyalty to Canon by buying 100L macro, 85 1.2ii, macro ring flash and 70d just during the past few months. I feel just Sony became much more competitive, and many people now see Sony, and not Nikon, as a major Canon's rival.


----------



## monkey44 (Nov 22, 2014)

dak723: I agree with you -- too much tech talk, not enough art talk.

Some see the forest, some see a tree -- and enjoy it. Then, some worry that a camera/lens/PC combination can't bring out every leaf wrinkle, without realizing some of those leaves are dead, but add beauty and completeness to that image regardless.

I happen to like my Canon gear - have used Canon all my professional life. When it stops giving me what I need to succeed, I'll switch, until then, Canon stays in my bag and on my tripod.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 22, 2014)

I stayed with Canon even though they screwed me over royally with the 1d3, and it paid off, the mk4 was a superb improvement, but I wanted something REALLY awesome, and along came the 1dx which I think is the greatest camera ever to be released (because it does everything great). I can't really see myself needing or even wanting anything more. They learned from their mistake and went all in with the 1dx and it shows. Same with every new lens, they are beyond fantastic, and the the new radio flashes which also were fantastic. People need to step back and see how much cool stuff Canon has made for us....


----------



## sanj (Nov 22, 2014)

Thank you for your insights.


----------



## LovePhotography (Nov 22, 2014)

I've been a shutterbug since the early 1980s, but took a break in the late 1990s when my kids were born, then got back into it around 2001 when the D60 first came out, and progressed to the 40D. but, then took a break when I left it out in the rain about six years ago and just used point and shoot. This year I bought a 6D and I'm so impressed with the improvement over the 40D, and the new lenses are just crazy good. I've been going crazy buying lenses. Somebody stop me! 8-15, Sigma 50 Art (today), Sigma 24-105 Art, EF 70-200 2.8 ii, 300mm 2.8 IS II, TC 1.4 iii and TC 2.0 iii, and I'll probably find an excuse to buy the new 100-400mm, and the new 16-35 f/4. I've never owned Nikon, Sony, or the others. But even if Canon is lagging behind some of the others in some aspects, primarily sensor megapixels and frames per second, things have improved so much in the last six years it's freaking unbelievable. I really wish they would come out with a new 1Dx, and then I think I would be done with it. I wish I had time to go out and use them more. Tired of shooting close-ups of the refrigerator magnets from the other side of the kitchen.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Nov 22, 2014)

Yes, and no! Large industry leading companies never move fast enough for the early adopters regardless of the industry involved, but large industry leading companies are large industry leading companies because the product offerings are solid, reliable and quality products. So, what you see is what you get and you get it on the company's timetable. Your options are the same - be patient or change vendors - or re-examine your desires with a reality check. Most of us would like a high megapixel, low light marvel, fast outofocusing whiz bang camera at 
a "rebel" price, but reality says it ain't gonna happen - yet.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 22, 2014)

I have a little different viewpoint.

Many website and forums (such as this one) came about during the first decade of the 2000s, when digital cameras were an emerging technology and the pace of change was very rapid. Companies were releasing new products that tended to leapfrog one another and there was a lot to write and talk about.

As with any technology, digital cameras have matured and the pace of change has slowed. The truth is: 99% of digital cameras made today are perfectly fine for 99% of the photographs being taken of 99% of the subjects under 99% of conditions.

That leaves only those 1% issues to deal with. No company can afford to go after 100% of the customer base. It's just too expensive and offers too little return. 

But, with less to talk about on forums, people fixate on tiny differences that are irrelevant to the majority of users. As with any topic, the more obscure it becomes the more intense the feelings are and we see more than our share of that.


----------



## tonyespofoto (Nov 22, 2014)

I think it was Abraham Lincoln who said, "You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time" If it wasn't Lincoln, it should have been. In any case, should Canon tomorrow release the greatest camera ever, there will be some who complain that it is too expensive or not expensive enough. There will be pixel peepers who claim it underperforms at High ISO or Low ISO or that there are not enough pixels or that there are too many pixels or whatever!! When there are picture flaws, generally, it is the fault of the image maker. So my suggestion is to use the products as well as you can and try to learn from your mistakes. Each of my Canon cameras has been incrementally or even monumentally better than its predecessor. My 1DS MkIII has capabilities that far exceed my photographic talents. Back in '07, when I bought it, it instantaneously made me a better photographer and it has been doing that ever since. I'm as anxious as the next guy for (in my case) more pixels, but that's not holding me back from making the best images I can RIGHT NOW with the pixels I have now. I try to be thankful for the fantastic technology that has been put in our hands. I easily remember, for instance, photographing night football, follow focusing manually simultaneously changing f-stops and accepting golf ball sized grain for my efforts. At the time, it was state-of-the-art.


----------



## rcarca (Nov 22, 2014)

The chances of any one manufacturer always being in front is slim. When I started back in photography after a rather long interlude, for better or worse I concluded that Canon had their nose ahead at that time, and I just plain liked their kit. I might or might not have been correct, but that was my judgement call. And now my kit works for me, and on the whole I feel my photography is still improving. Sure I can suffer as badly as the next person from GAS, but I do tend to restrict it to Canon GAS. I come to CanonRumors for a frequent fix to (a) know what is going on from Canon, for which thanks for the official postings, and (b) because a lot of the posts make me laugh given their utter and complete narcissism. I don't often bother posting pictures because there are quite a few unwarranted negative comments on pictures - for that I post on more supportive forums that help you develop as a photographer.

Anyway, the bottom line is that I have no intention of moving on from Canon unless something cataclysmic happens...


----------



## Eldar (Nov 22, 2014)

I think we all agree that this is a technology forum. We add some images here and there, to show what the technology can do, but it is still a technology forum. As such, it would be a rather pointless and boring site, if we all cheered for the status quo, instead of discussing how our common technology provider could/should push the technology envelope.


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 22, 2014)

unfocused said:


> I have a little different viewpoint.
> 
> Many website and forums (such as this one) came about during the first decade of the 2000s, when digital cameras were an emerging technology and the pace of change was very rapid. Companies were releasing new products that tended to leapfrog one another and there was a lot to write and talk about.
> 
> ...



+1,000 ... Nailed it!


----------



## tcmatthews (Nov 22, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> I think Canon satisfies photographers. I think the majority of complaints come from consumers that are way more interested in the latest and greatest gear and technology, and like the science of the technology that goes into making cameras and lenses.
> 
> But go over to Nikon Rumors and you will see endless complaints about Nikon not listening to their forum experts and how all every Nikon shooter ever wanted was a "true" D700 replacement and a D300 replacement... Basically people will just complain over what they dont have.



While very true my main concern is that the market for people who are not photographers (normal camera consumers) was very large. These are the people who generally bought P&S and rebels. Many are moving to Smart phones others are moving to mirror-less. If Canon losses completely to others in the mirror-less market or becomes a joke in the eyes of consumers. We all lose.

If Canon sells fewer low end cameras the cost or R&D will have to be spread over fewer cameras. That means the cost of all Canon the gear we care about goes up.

I am currently very satisfied with my 6D. I was satisfied with my 60D when I bought it. I was seriously pissed off when they released the EOS M instead of a 70D. My 60D was trashed a month before. The 6D was two expensive at launch so I had to buy a second 60D. I was on the market for a mirror-less camera so I pre-ordered a Nex-6. It could have been a mirror-less Canon to tie me over until the 70D. Over the next year I used my Nex-6 80% of the time the 60D 20% and if it was not for ML it would have been 10% or less.

I plan on using Canon cameras for my wildlife photography and the 6D in low light. But I also plan on buying a few Sony FE lens for my eventual purchase of a full frame Sony mirror-less camera for everything else. Unless things change. I am intentionally moving slowly hoping Canon will do something. But all I see is others releasing innovative products. 

For me Does Canon really deserve it? Yes some of it. The 7D was 2-3 years late. The 70D was a year late. The EOS M really should have had a EVF as a option. The 6D is on paper boring even if the image quality if fantastic. Released after the Nikon D600 it just looked plain bad. At the time nobody knew the Nikon was critically flawed oil slinger. Canons WiFi app to remote control is so bad I often think of hacking my own. I thought the Sony WiFi App was bad little did I know Canons was laughably worst. The EOS M is a glorified P&S. I could go on but the complaints about the EOS M have been made elsewhere and do not see the point. 

Who knew a company who used to be known as a market leader in innovation could become so conservative. For full frame photographers Canon make excellent gear. Nikon is really only competition at that level. I would chose Canon every time over Nikon. But in the lower end enthusiast cameras everyone is out innovating Canon/Nikon.


----------



## Marauder (Nov 22, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I have a little different viewpoint.
> ...



Nailed it indeed!

And regarding Canon's overuse of the 18MP crop sensor in many models, just look at the number of Nikon's using the same Sony 24mp sensor over the last TWO years (3200, 3300, 5200, 5300), compared to the five years the 7D through T5 encompasses--and that's not even including the various other cameras from other mfr's using the same sensor. Bottom line--companies try to get as much life out of a sensor as they can to maximise profitability. 

As to the resolution and DR advantages of the Sony sensors--well, when the 18MP sensor was introduced in the 7D, Nikon was using a 10 MP sensor (D3000) and they only went to a 14.2MP sensor for the D3100. At that time, Nikon advocates were very vocal that megapixels weren't important and that Nikon was above playing the "megapixel war." My how times have changed!!!! 

As for the DR _issue_, every single example illustrating this advantage has been so extreme that both final images were simply repulsive. When the caveat "sure they both look terrible--but the Canon one is worse!" is the disclaimer for a test well---you lost me at "they both look terrible." I think the difference is there, but it's not nearly so significant as too many would have you believe. DXO Mark and it's followers have way too much clout with forum posters and some reviewers as well. It's like some sort of Holy Grail. There are other very important areas and Canon leads in things like AF accuracy and buffer sizes, at least for moving subjects (at least for now!). 

I certainly don't blame Nikon and Sony (and Fuji, Olympus and now Samsung) users for loving their products. Truth be told, we are lucky to have so many high quality choices as photographers. The notion of trashing one team to extoll the another, like it's a sports team seems tedious and silly to me. I'm happy I'm a Canon shooter and I think the 7D Mark II shows that Canon is making products that I want. 

Certainly, if another company is making something you want more, then you should just go out and reward that other company for giving you what you desire. For myself--I'm saving my beans for a 7D Mark II some time in the Spring! (Do they even take beans at Henry's???)


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Nov 22, 2014)

I've been a photographer for many decades and Canon has been a great company to deal with.

I'm also abundantly aware of how image making is changing very very rapidly. Cell-phones, mirrorless, in-camera image-processing, and social media have changed photography from showing us the world to sharing experiences.

It's in this area that I think Canon is struggling to come to grips with. They have a long legacy and deep tradition that keeps them on the product development path they're currently on.

When you watch companies that have nothing to loose and something to win invest strongly in tech integration it's hard not to wonder what Canon's thinking is. Do they want to play in the expanded rapidly changing image-making space? Or will they remain devoted to traditional image creation and a shrinking market?

If traditional gear providers go belly-up, their equipment will remain great tools for making photographs. I used to deploy Korona, Deardorff, Kodak, and Folmer and Schwing cameras and lenses. Where are these companies today? They failed to keep up with changing market conditions. However, the fact they no longer exist does nothing to invalidate the art they still enable, even today.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 22, 2014)

I don't know if anyone else received a request to participate in a Canon customer survey (probably about 2 months ago.) Anyway given the opportunity to provide honest and thoughtful feedback was quite eye opening. 

Going through those survey questions really got me thinking about what is really important for me. And by the end, when asked what I felt was the one thing Canon should do to add real value to my business, I can guarantee you that it was not for them to make a sensor with more dynamic range at ISO 100. There were at three things more important than that. They asked for 1 thing but I gave them 3, none of which was a higher DR sensor.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 22, 2014)

Canon now has a few chinks in their armour vs. totally dominating the industry. If you're used to having the best of everything all the time then that's a big change.

I just want some higher resolution bodies.


----------



## lescrane (Nov 22, 2014)

I still have 2 Canon SLRS and a couple Canon lenses. Why? I came over from Canon film cameras by default *and* I always found Canon's controls more user friendly than Nikons.(maybe because it's what I know)

That being said I find that canon has been complacent over the past 5 years. They have not done much truly innovative in overall design and usability. Remember, Canon was the first with today's concept of IS lenses(I dont mean "dual pixel focusing" which is just a background technology.). Sony has killed Canon in the mirrorless, with the EOS M virtually unsaleable until they cut the price in half. Canon seems to try to get away with providing the least in terms of incremental changes with new models.

Canon has charged a huge premium for its lenses when they could. Amazing how folks here were jumping for joy when the 100-400 IS L II was announced at "only" $2200.00, $500 or $600 more than version I. I used to buy almost all Canon lenses. My last 3 lenses were Sigma and Tamron. The quality gap bet. Canon and many independents is less than the price gap. 

I don't "hate" or "love" Canon. In fact I just bought a Pixma Pro printer after years of working with Epsons. I love it. However, I think they have squandered their position with "loyal" customers by falling behind in innovation and value.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 22, 2014)

In general, people with a grievance will make more fuss than those who are satisfied - in all areas of life.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 22, 2014)

dickgrafixstop said:


> Yes, and no! *Large industry leading companies never move fast enough for the early adopters regardless of the industry involved, but large industry leading companies are large industry leading companies because the product offerings are solid, reliable and quality products. *So, what you see is what you get and you get it on the company's timetable. Your options are the same - be patient or change vendors - or re-examine your desires with a reality check. Most of us would like a high megapixel, low light marvel, fast outofocusing whiz bang camera at
> a "rebel" price, but reality says it ain't gonna happen - yet.



(My bold) This is worth remembering. It's easier for small businesses to be quirky, or take risks. Sony isn't a small company, but their camera division by all accounts makes a loss, and they fire out products hoping to gain customers by supporting it from other profitable areas. They clearly make good products (the sensor in the 645Z has me salivating), but they don't have a position to defend in this field yet.



unfocused said:


> I have a little different viewpoint.
> 
> Many website and forums (such as this one) came about during the first decade of the 2000s, when digital cameras were an emerging technology and the pace of change was very rapid. Companies were releasing new products that tended to leapfrog one another and there was a lot to write and talk about.
> 
> ...



Again, yes. As many have said (yet some refuse to believe), any modern camera *can* take good photographs. People argue about minutiae - which is good, but should obscure the amazing advances made already.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 22, 2014)

sanj said:


> Does Canon really deserve this?


Short answer: 
NO!
Little bit longer one: 
No, but they should keep up with their developments.

Best answer:


unfocused said:


> I have a little different viewpoint.
> 
> Many website and forums (such as this one) came about during the first decade of the 2000s, when digital cameras were an emerging technology and the pace of change was very rapid. Companies were releasing new products that tended to leapfrog one another and there was a lot to write and talk about.
> 
> ...


Thank you, unfocused, to get it 100% on spot.

Nothing more to say.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 22, 2014)

dak723 said:


> Satisfied Canon user here. My take is that there are far too many folks on the forum who think technology makes the photo. They are more concerned with test results, sensor comparisons and all the technical information that is on the web. Test results show that other sensors are better, therefore Canon sucks - is the basic thought process. They are obsessed with noise and DR. Many of us who spent many years with film admittedly don't get it. Photos can be grainy - and quite frankly - often look better grainy than having the plastic-smooth overly processed look. More DR means less contrast - yet contrast could be considered more important in the eyes of many. Folks want more MP, and yet on at least a few websites, reviewers note that without a tripod, there is no difference between 24 MP and 36 MP. And, yet, people want even more MPs! Unless you print larger than 8" x 10" there is virtually no difference between photos taken with an SL1 with kit lens and a 6D with "L" lens, but people want to believe that they need the best cameras and the best lenses. (In fact, at 8' x 10" printed size, there is no discernible difference between pics taken with my old Canon 300D and my new 6D). So if a Sony sensor tests as being 10% better than the Canon sensor, then obviously the Sony pics will be so much better...although you probably won't be able to tell the difference purely by eye!
> 
> A good photo is the result of subject matter, composition, atmosphere, contrast, color. And yet, it seems like those topics aren't even considered by many. For them a good photo is judged by the amount of noise and the Dynamic Range.
> 
> All that being said, there are some folks you take pics in extreme conditions - very low light, astrophotography, etc. For them, the difference is meaningful and I can understand their frustration. If Canon doesn't meet their needs they should switch. There is no reason to think that Canon has the knowledge (or the ability to come up with new patents that don't infringe on Sony's patents) to substantially improve their sensors in the near future. But if all you need is a solid, dependable camera that will last you 5 to 10 years and take great pictures, then there is no reason to be disappointed. If you want the latest and greatest and want to upgrade every two years, then by all means, switch.



I think technology is relevant to what shots you can take - in some areas at least. There's a rough hierarchy, so landscapes and street work require less specialist equipment than wildlife, sports, or macro photography, for instance. Shaving a kilo of a super telephoto lens, or adding IS, for instance, can allow new work to be made. But I also agree that some people fixate on the device, and don't seem to have much understanding of the creative possibilities already available, which is a shame for them.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 22, 2014)

Klaus_Kleber said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I browse this website quite often since 2012. I have never seen so many negative comments about Canon these days in comparison with before.
> ...



I think the internet chatter has become more negative. But reviews are still solid in most areas. Dpreview rightly point out that DR at low ISO isn't as good in Canon cameras as Sony sensor ones, for instance, but they still rate Canon *cameras* (and lenses, etc) as good - which they are, overall. Canon is *good*, overall. Not perfect. Nobody thinks they are, nobody is.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 22, 2014)

*Re: Does Canon really deserve this? YES. they plain suck. *

Yes, Canon deserves it 100%. 
For boring me with their tiny iterations of ever so boring, fat tired old mirrorslappers. 
Ever so tiny iterations on their sensors, having long lost the lead they had a few years ago and constantly falling further back against competition. 
Refusal to include Wifi, GPS and RT radio flash commanders even in pro-grade cameras (5D III), even in 2014 (7D II).
Crippling cameras in hardware and even in firmware, wherever possible. 
While constantly driving up prices. 5D3 500 Euro more than Nikon D800 ... just ridiculous! 

Sold almost all of my Canon gear by now, only holding on to the EOS-M and a few lenses to tide me over until a hopefully absolutely amazing, (semi-)pro Sony A9 mirrorless cam arrives. Hoping for February. If the 3 remaining A7R weaknesses are fixed - shutter, AF tracking capability, battery charge ... then my 15 years of digital Canon camera ownership will end. Looking forward to it. 

Canon and their geriatric ward management simply does not deserve my business any longer. They are not trying hard enough. They are not trying at all. So I'll leave 'em in the dust. 8)

Sayonara Mr. Maeda & assorted Canon mirrorslappass!


----------



## PhotoCat (Nov 22, 2014)

*Re: Does Canon really deserve this? YES. they plain suck. *



AvTvM said:


> Refusal to include Wifi, GPS and RT radio flash commanders even in pro-grade cameras (5D III), even in 2014 (7D II).
> Crippling cameras in hardware and even in firmware, wherever possible.
> While constantly driving up prices. 5D3 500 Euro more than Nikon D800 ... just ridiculous!



I would agree on these points. 

At the same time Nikon & Sony are bending over backwards to give their customers the
best technology they have. e.g. High DR sensor technology and in-camera stabilization,
while keeping the price reasonable.

On the plus side, I hv to admit Canon still has a clear lead in in-camera jpg rendering for portraits/skin tone.
Nikon & Sony don't even come close. Magic Lantern Support is another super plus! 
I can live with a lower DR sensor & use expensive IS lenses but I can't go without the amazing jpg skin tone
rendering & ML advanced metering control! Therefore I am sticking with Canon!


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 22, 2014)

*Re: Does Canon really deserve this? YES. they plain suck. *



AvTvM said:


> Yes, Canon deserves it 100%.
> For boring me with their tiny iterations of ever so boring, fat tired old mirrorslappers.
> Ever so tiny iterations on their sensors, having long lost the lead they had a few years ago and constantly falling further back against competition.
> Refusal to include Wifi, GPS and RT radio flash commanders even in pro-grade cameras (5D III), even in 2014 (7D II).
> ...


Good luck with your new venture. Did you take a hit financially or did you come out relatively even?


----------



## Northbird (Nov 22, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Klaus_Kleber said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



+1

Well said, not perfect but Canon meets the needs of many demanding amateurs and pros alike. No regrets in choosing Canon for my photography requirements.


----------



## Maui5150 (Nov 22, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> But now, with mirrorless arriving and sony having more resources (and probably patents) for sensor research, I feel uneasiness grows if you've bet on the right horse. Canon might very well pull a rabbit out of the hat and surprise us all, but flat out denial that further sensor enhancement (dr or resolution) can be can be beneficial to some is counterproductive: No smoke without fire. Calling people names doesn't help either.



Sony having more resources? 

How long has Canon been in the photography business? How long has Sony?

I don't think I have seen Canon post a loss in recent years. Sony just will post over $2B loss for the year.

VCRS
TVS
PCS

These were all businesses in which Sony was not only aggressive, but considered the leader.

Where is Betamax these days?
VAIO?
XBR TVs?

Also note. The original projected loss was $466 Million, so they really hit the s&^&*(tter on that one. They are doing o.k. with their imaging, but as far as I can see the big chunk of that is the sale of their sensors to other manufacturers

One of Sony's bright spots is their Devices division, which basically is semiconductors and other parts to other manufacturers.

Major layoffs and can see Sony out of the phone business in the next year if not two years and I am predicting the Camera lines will be the next to go. I can see Sony remaining in the Sensors

There will always be niche adopters, but can Sony sell enough bodies and lenses year over year to justify R&D costs when they are posting increasing losses.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 22, 2014)

I see this inferiority complex, as a side effect of excessive reading camera tests. ??? More specifically DXO Mark. :

It reminds me of some men who watch porn movies, and are feeling inferior, because the actors have "tools" greater than theirs. :-\

In my opinion, if DXO Mark invent a test to measure the performance of the male member, Nikon users will have a higher score.  ;D But what use is such score in the real world? 8)


----------



## slclick (Nov 22, 2014)

Let's see Canon's financials compared to it's competitors.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 22, 2014)

slclick said:


> Let's see Canon's financials compared to it's competitors.



Not in the least interested. Don't own canon stocks.
Only interested in products and solutions that make it as easy as possible to get the images i want. Or to get them at all. That's all that matters to me. Unfortunately canon no longer offers the best solutions to me. Things were quite different 2004-2007, when canon ruled the digital stills imaging world.


----------



## slclick (Nov 22, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see Canon's financials compared to it's competitors.
> ...



Your response was a bit to literal for my semi-rhetorical post. But I can see how some wouldn't get the gist.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 22, 2014)

*In regard to mirrorless? Yes. *
Canon deserves flak. The M had potential but Canon blew the launch and then failed to follow up. Sickening considering how good and economical their initial lenses were, and how good the M actually was once the AF was fixed.

*In regard to sensors? No. *
Fantasy: Canon stands still while Sony delivers us wonderful, ever increasing DR, resolution, and high ISO. Now Canon is best used for Facebook.

Reality: Sony had the jump on base ISO DR when they moved ADCs on chip. That difference hasn't changed, if anything it has shrunk as Canon has gotten banding under control. But this is the one respect in which Canon is truly, actually behind.

Canon *has* improved high ISO over time...even in the 18 MP line...and the 7D2 is the best crop right now at high ISO. Despite its age the 5D3 holds its own against the A7/A7R and D750/D810 at high ISO.

You will never see differences in print between 18 vs 20 vs 22 vs 24 MP, and to see the differences 22 vs. 36 MP your technique better be perfect and your prints 36" or larger. All of the sensors over the past few years have had nearly identical output, but if you bump the MP count the average consumer thinks "shiny new sensor" and "ohhh...if i get this camera my pictures will have 24 MP and that has to be better then 20 MP because 24 > 20, right?" :

*In regard to lenses? No, except maybe on price.*
This is where Canon innovates and really delivers, more then anyone else. Heck, there's probably an even split between people who buy an A7 to use Leica glass and people who buy an A7 to use Canon glass! The only complaint is the price on new L glass. Remember when Canon beat Nikon on price to? 

*In regard to service/support? No, they are arguably the best out there.*

*In regard to video? Mixed.*

DPAF is actually fairly innovative and a joy to use with a touch screen. But they are clearly protecting their cinema line by holding off on 4k introduction in consumer DSLRs. 

And whatever is happening in their firmware people are complaining that their 1080p output is not as sharp as that from other cameras. (And this is a firmware issue because with 18-22 MP to work from there should be no issue producing sharp 1080p. I'll note their JPEG engine might be great in terms of color, but similarly sucks in terms of sharpness/fine detail vs. their RAWs in ACR.)

*In regard to "wow this is NEW" factor? Yes.*

Even though the buying public still runs to DSLRs, those who talk about cameras are enamored with mirrorless. The MILC companies are thrashing around introducing new bodies, configurations, and features hoping to boost sales. Those who talk about cameras see this as "innovation." Sometimes it is, but the reality is that they are struggling with underlying problems that hamper consumer and professional adoption.

Example: The NX1 is "exciting" because Samsung never had anything like this before, and because they have pushed paper specs. The 7D2 is "boring" because the 7D before it was so good to begin with there's not a lot to improve. But which camera actually serves the needs of the sports/wildlife market? The 7D2 because the NX1 doesn't have any lenses, initial reports are that AF still struggles in situations where you would expect mirrorless to struggle, and few action photographers want to deal with an EVF. You can't overcome that with "exciting."


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 22, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> *In regard to mirrorless? Yes. *
> Canon deserves flak. The M had potential but Canon blew the launch and then failed to follow up. Sickening considering how good and economical their initial lenses were, and how good the M actually was once the AF was fixed.
> 
> *In regard to sensors? No. *
> ...



Speak for yourself. I don't care a whit about mirrorless and yet the ways they are behind in sensors does matter to me. And 36MP vs 22MP difference can be seen in prints and even much more when shooting wildlife and you are distance limited (7D vs 5D3 the difference is clear for wildlife).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 22, 2014)

dtaylor said:


> And whatever is happening in their firmware people are complaining that their 1080p output is not as sharp as that from other cameras. (And this is a firmware issue because with 18-22 MP to work from there should be no issue producing sharp 1080p. I'll note their JPEG engine might be great in terms of color, but similarly sucks in terms of sharpness/fine detail vs. their RAWs in ACR.)



Yeah I wonder what is going on. Is it using really bad parameters and something that could be a firmware fix or does the DIGIC chip just utterly stink at de-Bayer and image processing in general (I do note the Cxx line didn't use the latest DSLR DIGIC chips but they stuck some much older Canon DV chips inside instead....)? Or is marketing literally having them apply a Gaussian blur or something right before sending to the compression codec?

They also refuse to put even the most basic video usability aids like zebra, focus peaking, zoomed focusing boxes and insist those are 'extremely high-end features' :. And even on a wildlife cam like the 7D2 they fail to put in a zoomed video mode :.

Magic Lantern fixes all of that (although the IQ only when shooting RAW video which avoids both most of what DIGIC does and whatever most of the firmware settings apply to the RAW video output). But Canon simply refuses. Reminds of the way they took more than a decade to finally dribble out fully functional AutoISO, such a minor 10 cent feature, and yet they treated it like their precious, such an utterly silly marketing game that probably didn't make more than 10 people total over the last decade upgrade to something higher-end and yet probably left a bad impression in thousands and tens of thousands of customers and all those dinky little moves maybe look good in the short run, but in the long run they make the userbase become less and less loyal and quicker to get get upset and go nuts over every little thing. Seems like a foolish way to do business, but I guess that is just me. I mean just look at how nuts people went over the silly minor impossible ad campaign in the USA. Half a decade ago it might have gone down fine or at least neutral, now people went nuts in anger. I said years ago Canon was heading this way, nobody believed me, but you could see the writing on the wall as to their userbase eventually becoming jumpy and easily agitated.


----------



## rfdesigner (Nov 22, 2014)

Comparing sony to canon.. sony did Trinitron, they really know about displays and image quality.. An ex sony guy I worked with told me about the time they stopped a multi-million pound production line because they found one corner pixel in one screen wasn't being driven right. I also do astronomy, sony sensors there are leading the field, their dark noise is so phenominal many are no longer using dark frames (although their pixel sizes are too small for me, so I have a mono Kodak sensor in my astro cam).

I also have a Sony viao laptop, a sony TV and blueray player.. whilst the hardware is fantastic, the software and user interface is lousy lousy lousy.. any more Sony gear will get a thorough software test before acceptance, I'm seriously put off Sony cameras.

Canon win when it comes to the user interface, they lose on the DR of their sensors, but for most people, most of the time that really doesn't matter. Until the 1Dx, 5DIII and 7DII autofocus was poor, but that's filtering through now, there's the DR "issue".. which for tthe vast majority of people is a non-issue.

Nikon also did an utter no-no in the early days which means I'll never trust them. They provided a "helpful" hot pixel removal algorithum that was applied to RAW frames (yes.. Nikon RAW wasn't raw, they lied), for astro shots this was crucial as we average away noise and take hot pixel maps and dark frames to "fix" sensors.. the Nikon "fix" deleated stars and even when you turned it off in the menus it didn't actually turn it off fully. Sorry Nikon, RAW is supposed to be RAW, you might not do that now, but you've shown that you are prepared to fettle with RAW frames and still pretend they're RAW, for me that's a permanent deal breaker.

I only have a 30D and a couple of lenses although more bits are planned, but it's a million miles better than my old film praktica kit that I upgraded from, the user interface is gorgeous, not so much the menus, more the way I can configure the camera the way I want, then turn it to the green box mode and hand it to someone else and they can still get a shot.. In a sense I'm still living in 2006 so I'm less effected. I'd never go to a "compact" camera of any sort, not because small isn't handy, but because pocket cameras always have some level of auto-stuff-the-shot-unclever-software in the way.

DSLRs give you control and speed and a choice of fast wide aperture lenses... couple that to RAW frames that really are RAW, canon support for the astro community and great user interfaces and I'm here to stay.

Just do me one favor please Canon.

Bring out a foveon like 5DIV with a million ISO (with pixel binning for sub-zero-light).. so that the 5DIII prices on the second hand market half and I can pick one up without breaking the bank!


----------



## Marauder (Nov 22, 2014)

*Re: Does Canon really deserve this? YES. they plain suck. *



AvTvM said:


> Yes, Canon deserves it 100%.
> For boring me with their tiny iterations of ever so boring, fat tired old mirrorslappers.
> Ever so tiny iterations on their sensors, having long lost the lead they had a few years ago and constantly falling further back against competition.
> Refusal to include Wifi, GPS and RT radio flash commanders even in pro-grade cameras (5D III), even in 2014 (7D II).
> ...



When I roll my eyes at the fanatical absurdity of the mirrorless crowd, this is exactly the sort of post to which I'm referring!


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 22, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Speak for yourself. I don't care a whit about mirrorless and yet the ways they are behind in sensors does matter to me.



"Ways"...they are behind in base ISO DR.



> And 36MP vs 22MP difference can be seen in prints



I've performed blind and even double blind tests and neither I nor my colleagues could sort the prints. Forgive me if I don't take your word on this one.

You start to see small differences at 30/36". And I would emphasize "start" and "small."


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 22, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> They also refuse to put even the most basic video usability aids like zebra, focus peaking, zoomed focusing boxes and insist those are 'extremely high-end features' :. And even on a wildlife cam like the 7D2 they fail to put in a zoomed video mode :.



Fair points when it comes to video...maybe enough that "mixed" should be "yes."


----------



## DominoDude (Nov 23, 2014)

My take on Canons position today, is that I think it's influenced by damages during the 2011 tsunami (http://www.canon.com/news/2011/mar13e.html). Even if such reports are toned down publicly, I would imagine that it shifts focus and has forced them to alter the plans and how to handle future events of similar kind. Any disaster of that magnitude should raise a few flags at the top management levels, and if they plan to be around for a long time as a company it has to be addressed.

I refuse to believe that they are ignorant of what the competition has been up to and how that has altered the playing field. I can't say that I have a firm insight of how they think at Canon, but I, still, believe in their strategies.

They might have taken one on the chin, but 七転び八起き - Nana korobi ya oki...


----------



## Marauder (Nov 23, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> My take on Canons position today, is that I think it's influenced by damages during the 2011 tsunami (http://www.canon.com/news/2011/mar13e.html). Even if such reports are toned down publicly, I would imagine that it shifts focus and has forced them to alter the plans and how to handle future events of similar kind. Any disaster of that magnitude should raise a few flags at the top management levels, and if they plan to be around for a long time as a company it has to be addressed.
> 
> I refuse to believe that they are ignorant of what the competition has been up to and how that has altered the playing field. I can't say that I have a firm insight of how they think at Canon, but I, still, believe in their strategies.
> 
> They might have taken one on the chin, but 七転び八起き - Nana korobi ya oki...



I think you are correct. I've long thought that the long delay for the 200-400 with 1.4 extender was due to the tsunami, and it probably impacted the release date of the 7D2 as well. I suspect it was a far more serious event for them than most realize. They may have lost key personnel, not to mention employees who went through trauma of losing loved ones--all this in addition to damage to Canon facilities. I think the tsunami probably set them back a few years at least--maybe even several years for some developments.


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 23, 2014)

Marauder said:


> DominoDude said:
> 
> 
> > My take on Canons position today, is that I think it's influenced by damages during the 2011 tsunami (http://www.canon.com/news/2011/mar13e.html). Even if such reports are toned down publicly, I would imagine that it shifts focus and has forced them to alter the plans and how to handle future events of similar kind. Any disaster of that magnitude should raise a few flags at the top management levels, and if they plan to be around for a long time as a company it has to be addressed.
> ...



Canon Utsunomiya was hit by significant quake damage and also radiation - which holds canon optical R&D and some of it's lens production facilities. Also canon Optron which is in Yuki had damage to it's facilities and it's the one that grows the fluorite crystals for canon lenses and ALSO .. Canon Fukushima was the hardest hit area from both radiation and quake damage (as far as canon plants) and they create canon DLSR's.

it's really hard to say how much that tossed off canon.

there's a reason they decided to come out with the 7D version 2.0 instead of releasing a new camera more or less on schedule.


----------



## jrista (Nov 23, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I browse this website quite often since 2012. I have never seen so many negative comments about Canon these days in comparison with before.
> ...




+1 Very well put!


For me, I like Canon, I think they are one of the best brands available and in most respects they have the best offerings. I do feel they are lagging behind...have been lagging behind, technologically, for some time now. As someone very heavily invested in Canon (to the tune of over $20,000, with a significant chunk of that in one single lens), and who does care about being able to use the best technology available with my very expensive lenses (for a variety of reasons I won't go into), it is frustrating to see Canon innovate in the photography segment as minimally as possible while their competitors innovate up a storm.


I think Canon does deserve _some _of the criticism they get. That said, overall, I think they are a great company, they make great products, and overall I'm quite satisfied with my Canon equipment. I'm also happy to buy into other systems...I think an A7 series camera will find its way into my kit at some point in the not too distant future. I think the Samsung NX1 could very well find it's way into my kit as well. So long as I can get good lenses for these cameras, or adapt my Canon lenses, I no longer see any real reason to be a single-brand loyalist. There are AWESOME products out there, some highly innovative and very cutting edge...might as well take advantage of them.


----------



## Sportsgal501 (Nov 23, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I'm a little annoyed at the number of bodies they put the 18mp sensor in, t2i, t3i, t4i, t5i, t5, sl1, 60d, 7d, and the mirror less... seriously... if you do portrait or landscape, there hasn't been a rebel worth upgrading to because it is all the same camera... unless you rely on auto focus.



I didn't realize they had so many with the 18mp sensor....


----------



## zlatko (Nov 23, 2014)

unfocused said:


> But, with less to talk about on forums, people fixate on tiny differences that are irrelevant to the majority of users. As with any topic, the more obscure it becomes the more intense the feelings are and we see more than our share of that.



Time after time, my Canon gear delivers the photos I want. Brilliantly. There is always room for improvement, but in truth I have very little to complain about. I've tried a number of different brands, and each has its faults. 



RLPhoto said:


> I'm at the point where the 5D3 is doing everything I need it to do and getting what I want from it with minimal hassle. The 600rts, the superb lineup of lenses and AF is what keeps me here. If another company did a better system than canon, I'd be there already.



Yep, that sums it up for me too.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Nov 23, 2014)

flaming post removed by moderator


----------



## monkey44 (Nov 23, 2014)

Sometimes, we get lost in evaluating the products of a company, and forget about influences that affect how it can operate. As several people have mentioned, the storms etc - affecting its ability to R&D and build product. But, even with that tragedy, Canon has managed to produce a new 7D Mk2, a new 100-400 Mk2 among other lenses and gear. 

I, for one at least, believe the complete package matters, and not one part (think sensor debate here) Canon has been doing the job well for me over twenty years - and if/when it fails, I'll change and shed no tears. I've still got and use often a 100-400 bought in 1999 ... and still debate upgrading to the Mk II - will wait and see it first. Shot for years with a 30D and then a 7D until just recently .... upgrading to the 5DM3 and now the 7D2 as a very effective pair. 

I read a lot of problems with the 7D2, and it 'scares' me into testing and testing, and shooting it more and more, trying to find something wrong with it before the return period expires (Nov 30th) -- and every time I go out, I come back with a whole lot of sharp detailed color balanced images ... So, it confirms my personal belief that Canon builds very good equipment. But so does Nikon and Sony, and others -- no debate there.

I'm certain some of the guys on here have truly had problems with the 7D2, and a new product (no matter who builds it) will have some 'bad ones' .. which we hear more about than the good ones. But I also believe some need to learn the camera itself too, and figure out what causes the issues. AF system, hmmm, a dang nice one, but different, so it takes time to figure out exactly what it does best, and how - AND, equally, how the AF set up interacts with other auto-features. It takes time ... and I had a tough time with its AF at first, and still am confused at times, and look at a shot and say "Hmmm, what happened here?." 

It's a great camera - it is what it is tho', and has its limits just like any other camera / lens technology. In fact, it performs better than I anticipated - which makes me happy. Maybe I'm just one of he lucky ones, that got a good copy - no issues. At first, shot a lot of deletes (and worried), now get a lot of keepers. It's just that curve happens with all new equipment.

I read a lot of real detailed 'Canon nit-picking' on here, and tech debate that ends up evaluating extremely minor differences or discrepancies. Most of which don't matter much in the real world of photography, but gives folks something to complain about - or often expresses extensive tech knowledge most folks don't have, need or care about in the workflow. The image and print speaks for itself - and finding a null detail at the micron level ?? Well, it irrelevant usually. 

Canon does what Canon does - whether we like it or not - and if some other company suits the need better, go buy it, instead of complaining about Canon - mainly, because it does no good and wastes time. 

So, does Canon really deserve this? [The complaints?] No, I think not ... not really.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Nov 23, 2014)

flaming post removed by moderator


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 23, 2014)

To me it doesn't really matter that others are innovating faster than Canon in some areas. So far I have been largely disappointed with Nikon and Sony as a system. The envelope is pushed so far that their equipment is not very reliable and certainly not very durable.

The reason I chose Canon was I needed a system that would stand up to challenges, including environmental, and work when I needed it to. Both Nikon and Sony have fallen short on that with me. Regardless of Canon's "lack of innovation" in some areas...and I say some areas because there are plenty of areas for which they are ahead in innovation, AF technology being one of them...Canon has continued to delivery exceptional quality for what I need it for.

At this point and anywhere in the foreseeable future, I do not see myself switching systems even if I had the $$$ to just start over.


----------



## Freddie (Nov 23, 2014)

*Basically, all I want from a camera...*

is to make up for ALL my weaknesses, build on all my meager strengths, and stroke my shrunken ego into a shrine of unending splendor.
Now, why can't they make a camera like that?


----------



## Marauder (Nov 23, 2014)

monkey44 said:


> Sometimes, we get lost in evaluating the products of a company, and forget about influences that affect how it can operate. As several people have mentioned, the storms etc - affecting its ability to R&D and build product. But, even with that tragedy, Canon has managed to produce a new 7D Mk2, a new 100-400 Mk2 among other lenses and gear.
> 
> I, for one at least, believe the complete package matters, and not one part (think sensor debate here) Canon has been doing the job well for me over twenty years - and if/when it fails, I'll change and shed no tears. I've still got and use often a 100-400 bought in 1999 ... and still debate upgrading to the Mk II - will wait and see it first. Shot for years with a 30D and then a 7D until just recently .... upgrading to the 5DM3 and now the 7D2 as a very effective pair.
> 
> ...



+1! There seems to be a lot of gravitating to one negative point--ad infinitum. 
Glad you're loving your 7D Mark II! Still saving for mine.


----------



## skitron (Nov 23, 2014)

My guess is that Canon has probably been dragging their feet on announcing higher pixel count bodies until they got a number of lens updates done. Doesn't make much sense to put out a hirez body only to offer older lenses that mask any benefits. Of course DR is another story, but for me, I rarely shoot at base ISO anyway.


----------



## sanj (Nov 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> DRones.



hahahaha.
But Neuro currently is much more than DR. Mirror less, MP, 7d2 sensor improvement and such are in the scanner.


----------



## LovePhotography (Nov 23, 2014)

http://www.cameraegg.org/rumors-5d-mark-iv-price-for-3799-to-be-announced-on-march-17th-2015/


----------



## Skulker (Nov 23, 2014)

sanj said:


> I browse this website quite often since 2012. I have never seen so many negative comments about Canon these days in comparison with before.
> Does Canon really not satisfying its customers lately or is it that there are new members in the forum who like to put down Canon in comparison with other companies?




There definitely seem to be a few posters who for some reason concentrate on denigrating Canon. Generally they seem to post long justification for their opinion. Anyone who reads what they write would be given the impression that Canon camera can't take a decent image. And everyone with the slightest judgement can see that simply isn't the case.


I don't know if they really believe the stuff they post, or if they are just trolls.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 23, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> http://www.cameraegg.org/rumors-5d-mark-iv-price-for-3799-to-be-announced-on-march-17th-2015/



Thanks for posting, but totally incredible as far as specs go. No 5D iii successor will ever only have 98% viewfinder coverage. And first the "rumor" says 2x CF slot, while a little further down the page it says "weight with SD card". Mentioning a specific price point so long in advance immediately and utterly invalidates any rumor, as far as i an concerned.

That said, i do believe canon has to come up with a 5d iv mirrorslapper some time soon and it better has a spanking new higher res sensor ... Otherwise they dont have to bother at all. I also expect it to not have 4k video. At least not internally, because canon will cripple away that feature to "protect" 1d c and c500 etc. I could well imagine that canon jacks up launch price to 3799 ... And get bitten by that decision. It would basically price the camera totally out of the enthusiast/semi-pro sphere .. Which accounts for probably 80% of potential sales of such a mirrorslapper. Well, we will see. 

Me ... Not really interested any longer, if sony a9 is a killer.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 23, 2014)

There's a psychological process behind this which should be acknowledged.

A. People tend to complain a lot more than they tend to compliment. In the case of sensors, people feel it's acceptable to say "Canon should improve their sensors! [a year's wait] Canon should still improve their sensors! [repeat till rapture]", e.g. as a kind of constructive criticism, than say "Canon sensors are great! [a year's wait] Canon sensors are great! [repeat till rapture]".

B. People are willing to accept a lot more criticism than compliments. X consecutive complimenting posts are more likely to make people think the poster receives some benefits from Canon, than X consecutive complaints are to lead people to suspect one is receiving benefits from competitors / bitches for bitching's sake / whatever.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 23, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> LovePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.cameraegg.org/rumors-5d-mark-iv-price-for-3799-to-be-announced-on-march-17th-2015/
> ...



I don't think the 5DIV will be a 'mirror slapper', or at least not if you don't want it to be. 

With this talk of a 'modular' dslr going round I think the next 5D could have an interchangeable viewfinder, that is an optical pentaprism one for those that want to shoot stills with a high quality OVF, and an electronic EVF for those that want to lock the mirror up and use it for either stills or primarily video.

This way you get the best of both worlds.


----------



## tayassu (Nov 23, 2014)

Seriously, anyone who can afford a DSLR is most likely to live in a certain comfort and fortune. And when you have no big problems like how to get money for food or water, you need something to let off steam; and that is why people are stomping on Canon all the time.

I am happy with what my gear delivers, because when I bought it back in 2011/12, it was the perfect choice for me and I have not enough money to switch systems. Once you bought into a certain brand to a considerably high degree, probably sticking to it for at least 10 years, you want the flaws to be better. 
I have a 7D, one of most love-or-hate-ish bodies Canon made in the nearer past. It shows all the signs because of which its haters hated it: it is noisy at high ISO, there are some AF inconsistencies and the DR is not top of the line. But it delivers. If you know your gear, its strengths and weaknesses, you can produce some stunning images! 

The main reasons why Canon is critizised are conservativeness, IQ and no innovation in the CSC segment.
They are to blame that they did not evolve the M system in the past, let's see what comes. Fuji, Sony and Samsung did come up with great products here.
When people talk about how bad Canon IQ is, they always refer to DR. I never heard anyone complaining about noise in recent bodies, Canon is top here. Sony has some great DR, but if you apply NR to a degree so that the image is less noisy than the Canon one and sharpen it, there are artefacts at ISO 1600 that destroy your image.
As for conservativeness, they are lacking a high MP body, that is right, there is certainly a demand for that and their lenses cry for it. But anything else: the 7DII is a conservative body, no question. But is it bad? It is, by general agreement, one of the best APS-C cameras on the market and the best for sports and wildlife. And what was it targeted for again? Sports and wildlife? Looks like they developed the right body here... If they had made it mirrorless, the AF wouldn't have been half as good and everyone would have said: "Look at Canon, trying to keep up with the other manufacturers..." The 5DIII is also a conservative body. When the D750 (which is basically a 5DIII for a little less money) came out, everyone was shouting: "This is a perfect camera, this is what we've been waiting for!!!" I still think the 5DIII is one of the best bodies on the planet, alongside with the 1DX, the D4s and the D810.

People buy Canon because of their lenses, their AF (which is the best you can get) and their reliability.

And I'd like to see all those critics buying other brands... As if Canon was the only brand with flaws!
Nikon - the handling is a joke, you need two hands to set ISO!! The AF and lens selection are behind Canon.
Pentax - not a good lens selection, AF is a joke.
Samsung - lacking mid-range lenses, but these guys are really coming up
Fuji - still no RAW at ISO 100 and > 6400... What is that? Also, AF is not that great...
Sony - great sensors, but no fast zoom lenses, I don't like the handling, AF with the FF bodies is not that good.

All in all, when I think about it, there are no-go's with some brands and some decisive factors with the others; I would still buy Canon.


----------



## fragilesi (Nov 23, 2014)

No, they absolutely and definitely do not deserve anything like the level of criticism they get on here. And I don't for one minute believe that it reflects the Canon user base as a whole either.

Canon have produced DSLR *systems* that are reliable, have excellent features and handling and frankly a class leading set of lenses in terms of price / performance.

Some people have rightly pointed out that compared to the competition they are lagging and things like low ISO DR might get mentioned occasionally . . . This is fair enough and if that's important to you then of course you will consider other systems.

However, what amazes me is when people review cameras like the 70D and 7DII and say something like "Well the DR has only improved by 1 stop (or whatever), this proves Canon isn't innovating / doesn't care about their customers".

Stop it already!

if you come to that conclusion from analysing one factor of one subsystem's performance then it really suggests you haven't thought it through. It's okay, no in fact. it's right and proper that people raise criticism but the way that it gets blown out of all proportion into some kind of conclusion that Canon produces a poor ecosystem for us to work within simply lacks credibility.

I feel confident Canon will up their game on the sensor front, in fact they have been and there will be more to come. But there is only so much R&D to go round and Canon is limited like any other company in any other field. I'd rather they innovated incrementally than producing here today gone tomorrow products like Sony. I want something I can rely on, that I can get to know and grow with as a photographer without having to re-invest in lenses etc every few years. THAT is a much harder challenge than just bumping up sensor performance, throwing it in a camera and getting it out there. Anyone who has worked in IT and technology (and probably other professions) for a period of time comes to learn that. 

Carry on Canon, please keep doing what you're doing. Don't start doing what people mistake for "innovation" when it is really more like "experimentation".


----------



## docsmith (Nov 23, 2014)

sanj said:


> I browse this website quite often since 2012. I have never seen so many negative comments about Canon these days in comparison with before.
> Does Canon really not satisfying its customers lately or is it that there are new members in the forum who like to put down Canon in comparison with other companies?



I am a very satisfied customer. I also think canon has set he pace and innovated in other ways besides the sensor. I do hope to see sensor improvements in the next xD body, especially in low ISO read noise. But, that said, my 5DIII is so amazingly good. It is a better camera than I am a photographer. Sure 3rd party lenses are getting better, but Canon is releasing some interesting lenses and I am happy to have competition. But this year alone Canon has released 3 lenses I am considering adding.

I've been around CR since 2010. I actually don't see the switch in the negativity you mention. This site has always had a very healthy dose of criticism and negativity. There have been a few more conflicts over the negativity as I believe certain people are getting fed up with it. Before, it was often unopposed. And perhaps the negativity has manifested itself more specifically on the sensors (mostly) and mirrorless (lesser). But the most positive response I can think of to a Canon dSLR from this site was the 7DII. The 6D was absolutely shredded here. Delays in the 1DX, Big White lenses, etc too. The 5DIII, a complete disappointment and minor upgrade at best over the 5DII which would result in waves of defections to Nikon and the D800 if you were to read the original threads on CR. 

There is some very interesting content on this site. But I guess I disagree with your premise. To me, the interesting content is actually growing more frequent.


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 23, 2014)

As a Canon user since the mid-1980's, I have a strong attachment to the brand. Before jumping across to Fuji, I gave Canon a chance and waited for their mirrorless option. But it just wasn't what I wanted and sadly had to go elsewhere.

I still use Canon DSLRs for some things, but my kit hasn't changed in ages - Canon just haven't made anything that has excited me in a long time. I think the 40/2.8 is the only Canon lens I've purchased in the last three years, and the new 100-400 is the first serious lens in a long time that I'm likely to buy. But the only reason I'd consider buying a new body is if a camera breaks and I need to replace it. Even though my cameras are several years old, for what I shoot, I don't think a new camera would be of any significant improvement.

Apart from some topics I haven't noticed an upsurge in negative comments. This is still a very friendly, helpful forum. But I can understand why those with particular interest, needs and desires might be disappointed with Canon's lack of development in some areas.


----------



## Zv (Nov 23, 2014)

I'm more than happy with my Canon gear and think the recent negativity is largely undeserved. They make fine equipment that works as expected without fail. Seriously, the stuff is rock solid reliable. OK, so the eyecup cover of my used and abused t2i viewfinder came off (shocker) so it's not all roses! 

Sony sensors - yeah, they're all right I guess. Am I jealous? Not really. I'd rather have Canon ergonomics and I've been shooting RAW from day one and can squeeze a lot of detail out of a single exposure now. No issues at all. The 6D files are really nice to work with!

As a tech geek I would love to see some cool new gadgets but then again I have no need for them as the gear I have gets the job done. After that it's pure lust! 

Sometimes reading CR forums you might think Canon is some kind of old has been grandpa of a company but like someone mentioned before look at all the cool stuff they gave us recently -

7D Mk II - how many of us had given up hope? It's real and it's badass! 

100-400 II - did someone say unicorn? 

16-35 f/4L IS - oh, hello wide angle lens that is super awesome! (Who doesn't want one of these?)

10-18 IS STM - people complained about good cheap lenses. Well? 

EF-S 24mm f/2.8 - pancake in crop flavor. Who doesn't like pancakes?

But hold on wait a minute none of that matters guys, you know why? Because DXO who like to pull numbers out of their rear aperture said that the DR is poor at ISO 100, so forget it. Throw it all away. Nothing to see here.


----------



## Tugela (Nov 23, 2014)

Most of the critical comments directed against Canon revolve around:
a) Dynamic range
b) Pixel count
c) Video capabilities
d) In camera tools

Regarding (a), that is minor for most users, both with stills and video. Some people doing specialist work might have an issue, but it does not affect most.

I don't see what the big deal is about pixel count. Unless you are producing a huge image in a lossless format, the current resolutions are more than adequate. 

Video capabilities are a valid criticism. The video capabilities in pretty much all consumer cameras lag far behind the competition.

In camera tools (lack thereof, or poor implementation) are a valid criticism. Having an extensive tool set and wide control of shooting parameters is something that a modern camera should have. Programmable and flexible tools such as peaking and exposure indicators are a must have feature in any modern camera. 

The fact that some people don't have a problem does not mean that other people's issues have no merit. They are customers as well.

One should also not forget that the vast majority of purchasers buy the badge on the front of the camera, so suggesting that because a particular manufacturer sells a lot of product implies that the product has exceptional quality is a load of rubbish. The quality of a product is determined by it's capabilities alone, not how well it sells.


----------



## Sunnystate (Nov 23, 2014)

WOW!
Please stop awarding Canon with human like attributes, Its A Corporation! Canon have no feelings, can not be sad, has no shame or any other feelings, unlike the small mom and pap corner stores killed by Walmart or thousand small farmers before that etc. Where were you than? What kind of culture is this that very intelligent adult humans spent time and resources to conduct crusades to glorify a brand name? Please go take some pictures with a CAMERA no matter what the logo and do something good for other human beings in the season of Thanksgiving instead.
Thank you and bless you all.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 23, 2014)

Sunnystate said:


> WOW!
> Please stop awarding Canon with human like attributes, Its A Corporation! Canon have no feelings, can not be sad, has no shame or any other feelings, unlike the small mom and pap corner stores killed by Walmart or thousand small farmers before that etc. Where were you than? What kind of culture is this that very intelligent adult humans spent time and resources to conduct crusades to glorify a brand name? Please go take some pictures with a CAMERA no matter what the logo and do something good for other human beings in the season of Thanksgiving instead.
> Thank you and bless you all.



Well... per Citizens United...


----------



## fragilesi (Nov 23, 2014)

Sunnystate said:


> WOW!
> Please stop awarding Canon with human like attributes, Its A Corporation! Canon have no feelings, can not be sad, has no shame or any other feelings, unlike the small mom and pap corner stores killed by Walmart or thousand small farmers before that etc. Where were you than? What kind of culture is this that very intelligent adult humans spent time and resources to conduct crusades to glorify a brand name? Please go take some pictures with a CAMERA no matter what the logo and do something good for other human beings in the season of Thanksgiving instead.
> Thank you and bless you all.



Crusades? Glorify? Blimey where did I miss all that?

I'm sat at work in the UK, the day outside is fairly vile, dark, raining and in most ways utterly miserable for standing out on Hayling Island's Oyster Beds my preferred haunt for my preferred BIF photography. So, no, I think I'll pass and spend a little spare time discussing cameras .

All that said I think you and I probably would have a lot to agree about when it comes to large corporations.


----------



## fragilesi (Nov 23, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> It's interesting to watch people whine over what they can't buy. It's almost as if they don't feel they're getting the attention they deserve. We've become such fine, obedient consumers, haven't we?
> 
> If all this really matters to a person, vote with your money, fer-kripes-sake.
> 
> ...



What exactly is it you think I can't buy in this rather curious response to what I posted?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2014)

sanj said:


> But Neuro currently is much more than DR. Mirror less, MP, 7d2 sensor improvement and such are in the scanner.



What about lenses? Yesterday I went on a 5 mile hike with my 840mm f/5.6 combo (600/4 II + 1.4xIII), shooting flying raptors entirely handheld. After lunch, I shot a lighthouse, and on the narrow spit of land, only an ultrawide lens with shift could capture the full height with correct verticals, so I used my new TS-E 17/4. How's the competition doing on meeting those needs? Should I go to forums dedicated to other brands and complain about their lack of innovation in areas which matter to me?

I get that people want it all (and usually for free). But no single manufacturer offers it all. So, you have to make a choice... 


Keep wishing for one system to offer everything.
Complain incessantly on the Internet.
Pick the system that best meets their needs.

Regarding the first, my dad used to say wish in one hand and...well, you get the idea (or Google will fill in the rest). Regarding the second, that's certainly your prerogative, but hopefully you understand that doing so here is worse than useless. That leaves the third option as the most logical one, by far. Kind of sad that people are so illogical...


----------



## zlatko (Nov 23, 2014)

Tugela said:


> Most of the critical comments directed against Canon revolve around:
> a) Dynamic range
> b) Pixel count
> c) Video capabilities
> d) In camera tools



Canon meets or exceeds my needs for all of those specific areas. I realize that some people do need improvements in those areas. But I frankly don't understand why they buy Canon in the first place, knowing *fully* that it doesn't meet their needs, and then complain about it? Did Canon promise them some specific future product? No, they didn't. It's like someone buying a manual focus lens and then complaining that it doesn't have autofocus.


----------



## Marauder (Nov 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > But Neuro currently is much more than DR. Mirror less, MP, 7d2 sensor improvement and such are in the scanner.
> ...


+1!


----------



## MichaelHodges (Nov 23, 2014)

I think the reaction is quite balanced and realistic. You see almost nothing but praise and excitement in Canon lens threads (their strength) and yeah, a good bit of criticism in the camera threads. This only reflects Canon's current position behind their competition in sensor IQ, and their position as the lens selection/value leader.


----------



## Maui5150 (Nov 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > But Neuro currently is much more than DR. Mirror less, MP, 7d2 sensor improvement and such are in the scanner.
> ...



Wait? You mean Sony does not have a decent combo that will produce 800MM+ at f/5.6

Who would ever need such a thing? 

I think Sony has some nice products that fit a limited range and in some areas may even have a temporary advantage. 

Things change over time.

Ask any one who invested in a Betamax library how that worked out for them. 

Sony has a history of innovating, then cutting the cord and the big questions I would ask:

1) Is there a large enough market for people who will switch to support their DSLR bodies AND lenses for continued development

2) How well do products hold their price and is their a market - Lets face it a lot of photogs are gear hounds and the fact that I can sell off bodies and lenses at a fair exchange is a plus for those in the Canon / Nikon camps, because of demand a new users coming in. I still see decent prices on even the 70-200 F/4 or F/2.8 MK I 

3) If Sony is out of the DSLR market in 5 years, what happens to all of your gear and will you then be jumping ship back to Nikon or Canon. 

I think Sony is doing a nice job, but don't think there are enough people entering or switching camps to support their business, especially was the P&S market is getting pummeled. I do think Canon has to respond and step up to the plate, so will be an interesting few years


----------



## Rick (Nov 23, 2014)

sanj said:


> I browse this website quite often since 2012. I have never seen so many negative comments about Canon these days in comparison with before.
> Does Canon really not satisfying its customers lately or is it that there are new members in the forum who like to put down Canon in comparison with other companies?



Yes, yes and don't forget trolls who do not even own Canon equipment.

I may be the only guy posting here under his real name, but for all I know, this could be two dudes in their underwear and their 55 sock puppets each deployed to do battle against each other and one of them started the war with this post.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 23, 2014)

Rick said:


> Yes, yes and don't forget trolls who do not even own Canon equipment.
> 
> I may be the only guy posting here under his real name, but for all I know, this could be two dudes in their underwear and their 55 sock puppets each deployed to do battle against each other and one of them started the war with this post.



My fake name I give at bars is Evan Sosa... though poor Evan has had very little fun lately.


----------



## jrista (Nov 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > But Neuro currently is much more than DR. Mirror less, MP, 7d2 sensor improvement and such are in the scanner.
> ...




I don't know if it is simply ignorance here, or whether it is just conveniently forgetting, but the whole TS-E 17/4 or 840/5.6 argument is largely moot with mirrorless options these days. Why?


ADAPTERS!!


The TS-E lenses are manual lenses anyway. You lose absolutely NOTHING by adapting a TS-E to any mirrorless option out there. The argument that such a lens is "Canon Only" is, therefor, no longer valid. 


I totally agree, Canon lenses are phenomenal. Which is why I consider the adaptability of any other system as paramount to it's success, in general but specifically for me. The Metabones adapters for the A7 series are good, but still a little lacking. They got better with the 4th incarnation, I've used the 3rd incarnation and there are some issues. Perhaps a 5th incarnation will solve the remaining few problems (primarily AF related...which means the ability to adapt the TS-E lenses is complete and fully compatible with an A7 camera). The adapter quality for the Samsung NX1 will also be a key selling point for me...if it lets me AF with good AF performance using my big lenses, HELL YEAH! Sign me up! 


Canon's problems do not lie in their lens lineup. Actually, their lens lineup is probably one of their key strengths in a world where people are increasingly adding third party cameras to their kits. Canon's problems like in their electronics technology, primarily their sensors...and in a lack of certain features that people have been asking for for years, even decades (Auto ISO, anyone? ) Everyone who cares knows that. So bringing up unique lenses that can easily be adapted to other systems as a primary reason why Canon is better is entirely missing the point.


----------



## slclick (Nov 23, 2014)

My conclusion for most of the Canon gripes i.e. DR, MP, focus peaking etc is that these are on paper issues. We all know many or a great deal of photographers, most who print typical sizes i.e. 8 x 10, 11 x 14, 16 x 20. But really now, how many are printing on large format printers larger than 13 x 19? And how many of those are represented in the group of complainers? 

I think Canon suits the needs of 99% of shooters, pro and hobbyists but complaining is just part of human nature. 

It's like restaurant reviews. If you have a good experience somewhere you tell a few people but if you have a horrible meal somewhere you tell 10x more.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 23, 2014)

Their flash system is without doubt the most capable and feature rich flash system of any camera manufacturer.

Also the ergonomics, though always a personal thing, are mentioned time and time again as a Canon strong point.

And lets not forget service, Canon are the only camera manufacturers to offer a service like CPS, Nikon's version is a comparative joke and Sony believe customer service is 'give them one of the new ones' but it doesn't work with any of the old stuff.

This is sounding more and more like a Monty Python sketch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE

So apart from the best lenses, flash system, ergonomics, service, reliability, etc, "What have Canon ever done for us?"


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 23, 2014)

Wait? You mean Sony does not have a decent combo that will produce 800MM+ at f/5.6

Who would ever need such a thing? 
[/quote]

Me!
My Canon 800 F5.6 L IS is what I use for 80-90% of my photography and it cost me less than a Sony 500mm!


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> This is sounding more and more like a Monty Python sketch.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE
> 
> So apart from the best lenses, flash system, ergonomics, service, reliability, etc, "What have Canon ever done for us?"



Brought us the tiniest dslr ever ? ;D

Monty Python's Life of Brian has to be one of the funniest films ever made. I never get tired of watching it !


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 23, 2014)

Actually the great Canon RT radio wireless flash system is another example for Canon acting plain stupid. 

Potentiallly one of Canon's strongest USPs, but their head honchos are NOT leveraging it ... out of pure greed. Still only selling the big fat expensive master-blaster 600EX-RT. And the ST-E3-RT cobntroller without AF-assist. Waiting until Yongnuo, Shanny, Phottix and all those other Chinese copycats are bringing copied versions at half price. Instead of building wireless RT Commanders into all of their new DSLRs ... should definitely have been in the 7D II.

Same story with the other potentially huge USP of Canon .. eye control focus (ECF) - the most intuitive way there is to select the desired AF-field. Simply abandoned instead of coming up with an improved version v.2.0. Canon asleep at the wheel ... until Sony will take up that feature and add it sometime soon to their cameras. 

Ergonomics ... yes. BUT, why not use the excellent touch screen on the 7D II [and higher up cameras], why no fully articulated display? [for all of you "makes it weaker, it will break"-guys: you can turn that display around, flat against back of camera. There is NO better protection for the LCD than that. You don't have to fold it out, if you are afraid to). 

Service ... well, maybe in the US and Asia. In Europe, at least in smaller countries, CPS is a laughable joke. ANd if you're not eligible for CPS, service is AS BAD as it is for Nikon, Sony and all the others. Not a bit better.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 23, 2014)

Various responses to multiple posts:



dak723 said:


> More DR means less contrast - yet contrast could be considered more important in the eyes of many.



More dynamic range means more contrast, not less. It means that the photo can represent a wider range of brightness values. Yes, if you then deliberately squash the entire dynamic range of the camera into an sRGB image, you'll have less perceived contrast on the things that matter, but why would you do that? In a more realistic post-processing workflow, you'll end up with the same amount of contrast, just with bigger safety margins for correcting overexposed or underexposed images (which you can throw away disproportionately to make the picture brighter or darker) without blown out whites or blacks.

99.9% of the time, that doesn't matter. But when that .1% happens to burn you on a photo that you care about, the two-stop difference between a 6D and a crop body makes a world of difference, and an extra stop or two on top of that would be most welcome, even if it is mainly a "just in case" feature.




dak723 said:


> Folks want more MP, and yet on at least a few websites, reviewers note that without a tripod, there is no difference between 24 MP and 36 MP. And, yet, people want even more MPs!



There's no reason that this should be true in principle, so if that's what folks are seeing in practice, it probably indicates that the IS systems are simply not precise enough.




dak723 said:


> Unless you print larger than 8" x 10" there is virtually no difference between photos taken with an SL1 with kit lens and a 6D with "L" lens, but people want to believe that they need the best cameras and the best lenses.



Under optimal conditions, there's little difference between my 6D and my iPhone 5. Of course, real-world shooting isn't always optimal, and poor lighting, long distances from the subject, etc. can make those minor differences turn into huge differences.

The big reason folks want more megapixels, in my experience, is the ability to crop more in post processing. If a camera's resolution is good enough, you can shoot wider, resulting in fewer misses, confident that you can crop it in post and get a reasonable image.

This particularly comes into play when shooting wildlife and sports, because of the distances and the sometimes erratic subject motion characteristic to both. For both situations, a full-frame camera with the pixel density of a crop body would be a serious win. Unfortunately, Canon chooses to keep full-frame pixel density relatively low, presumably because they've been unable to scale the high-density sensors up to larger sizes while maintaining an acceptable reject rate. That's pretty annoying. Lots of us would really like the reach of a crop body, but without the crop.





PhotoCat said:


> On the plus side, I hv to admit Canon still has a clear lead in in-camera jpg rendering for portraits/skin tone.



With flash prices as cheap as they are, I stopped shooting anything but RAW several years back. From what I can tell, outside of a few specific markets (e.g. news gathering), that seems to mostly be a consumer feature. Unfortunately, consumers are buying fewer and fewer dedicated cameras these days, so I doubt that Canon's lead in in-camera JPEG rendering is very meaningful in the grand scheme of things.




Sporgon said:


> I don't think the 5DIV will be a 'mirror slapper', or at least not if you don't want it to be.
> 
> With this talk of a 'modular' dslr going round I think the next 5D could have an interchangeable viewfinder, that is an optical pentaprism one for those that want to shoot stills with a high quality OVF, and an electronic EVF for those that want to lock the mirror up and use it for either stills or primarily video.
> 
> This way you get the best of both worlds.



Although that could certainly be done, it would make a lot more sense to just use a hybrid viewfinder that can be an EVF or an OVF on demand. And a properly done hybrid design could also allow for all sorts of overlays even in OVF mode (e.g. zebra stripes on overexposed areas, focus peaking, etc.)


----------



## ereka (Nov 23, 2014)

sanj said:


> I browse this website quite often since 2012. I have never seen so many negative comments about Canon these days in comparison with before.
> Does Canon really not satisfying its customers lately or is it that there are new members in the forum who like to put down Canon in comparison with other companies?



Perhaps if we all made more effort to learn how to get the best out of the equipment we have rather than griping about theoretical technical specifications and the grass always being greener in the next field, we'd all be happier bunnies and actually achieve more in the real world?


----------



## fragilesi (Nov 23, 2014)

jrista said:


> I don't know if it is simply ignorance here, or whether it is just conveniently forgetting, but the whole TS-E 17/4 or 840/5.6 argument is largely moot with mirrorless options these days. Why?
> 
> 
> ADAPTERS!!



I do think this time it's you that might be just missing a point. It's not moot at all. Canon have an R&D spend and if they had piled lots more of their money into say sensors (above the progress being made in things like DPAF and AF etc) then some of these lenses would possibly not have seen the light of day. Even a corporation the size of Canon has its limits and it would be very risky to attempt being the best at every aspect.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 23, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > So apart from the best lenses, flash system, ergonomics, service, reliability, etc, "What have Canon ever done for us?"
> ...



Not at all, some of the comments ridiculing some of the decisions by Canon are very well made, particularly on the software side where the holding back of basic 'features' is laughable. But Canon are not the only camera company that play that frustrating game of never quite seeming to get it completely right in one go, they all do it.

But much of the core criticism is just as laughable. For instance I don't buy into the 'crippling the RT system' meme, I think having just the 600 and the ST-E3-RT is fine, if I want AF assist I'll have a 600 on camera anyway, after all it is very rare that most people are in a dynamic flash situation and couldn't use any on camera light, even if they are bouncing it, and at $455 a lot of the time it is still way cheaper than the Nikon SB910 that doesn't even have radio functionality, plus if you want to mess up a perfectly good RT system buying crappy Chinese 'clones' to work with it then go for it. OR, point me to another camera manufacturer that makes their own radio controlled flash system, oh, you can't.......

Besides, if Canon don't make what you want then go buy it elsewhere, nobody ever forced anybody to buy or keep Canon gear and it holds its value very well so moving systems isn't that expensive even if you have been tied into it for years or have a big investment in it.

I just sold a ten year old lens for $900, I bought it new for $1,250, that is a $35 a year rental cost! Even the 1D I just sold at a depreciated $6,000 and very low shutter count cost me less than 30c an image, around a 1/3 the price of the film per image it replaced.

Despite peoples opinions I am not a Canon apologist, I'd like to think I am more of a realist, Canon can offer us what they do now because of what they have done in the past, and as a career decision to use Canon way back in the '70's before I knew what I was doing and again in the early 2000's when I moved to AF, I am generally happy with what they have offered me, though I do have some frustration about the lack of a 1Ds MkIII replacement. I have no doubt that if I had chosen Nikon on either or both of those occasions I'd be just as happy. 

Canon make very good cameras that fit in with an even better system, if that isn't for you then buy a different brand, nobody cares, but if you can't create the images you want with the gear currently offered then don't look for the lack of this or that feature as the excuse, the reason for your failure is six inches behind the viewfinder.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2014)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > What about lenses?
> ...



My point, in keeping with the context of this thread, was that there are areas of the spectrum of photography equipment where Canon lags behind other manufacturers, and areas in which they are ahead. One area in which they are generally superior is lenses (RT flashes is another). Some people – including some who apparently don't even own Canon gear – seem quite willing to bash Canon's sensors, but give no credit in areas where they are the innovative leader. 

BTW, have you spent some time shooting handheld with your 600/4 and an adapter-mounted MILC? I have, and it's an ergonomic nightmare. If you find it comfortable, great. If you haven't tried it, you should do so before suggesting adapters and MILC's render unique lenses moot (not to mention AF issues, because you went on to do just that, and 'hope that maybe the 5th incarnation will solve the problems', which the first four apparently failed to do).





jrista said:


> Do you enjoy emberrasing and belittling and degrading people? Honestly, dude.





jrista said:


> This place would be FAR more peaceful if you would just leave people alone. Regardless of how wrong they may be.





jrista said:


> And I think we all need to back the hell off of people, and stop antagonism.





jrista said:


> I don't know if it is simply *ignorance* here, or whether it is just *conveniently forgetting*,




You go right on making the forum a more peaceful place and stopping the antagonism. Calling me ignorant or deceitful is a great effort toward those laudable ends. Honestly, dude.


----------



## sanj (Nov 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > But Neuro currently is much more than DR. Mirror less, MP, 7d2 sensor improvement and such are in the scanner.
> ...



Don't get me wrong. I am in the Canon camp. Just have a Fuji XE2 for family/light travel as Canon does not offer something similar.


----------



## slclick (Nov 24, 2014)

"But Neuro currently is much more than DR. Mirror less, MP, 7d2 sensor improvement and such are in the scanner."
WTF is this? It's like Nigerian phishing email syntax.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 24, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


I can't knock the RT system. It's unbelievably good that Nikon flash is pretty ugly to me now. And if I need those extra features, the YN transmitter has been very reliable for me, which I have to say I didn't expect. 

AvTvM is just reaching on his criticism of canon flash. It's the best system hands down on the market.


----------



## sanj (Nov 24, 2014)

slclick said:


> "But Neuro currently is much more than DR. Mirror less, MP, 7d2 sensor improvement and such are in the scanner."
> WTF is this? It's like Nigerian phishing email syntax.



Sorry no idea what that means.


----------



## Woody (Nov 24, 2014)

I think there are 2 serious issues plaquing the Canon system:

a) sensor performance at low ISO

b) slow / inaccurate contrast based AF in their compact cameras e.g., G7X, EOS-M etc

Hopefully Canon can address these 2 problems.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 24, 2014)

Woody said:


> I think there are 2 serious issues plaquing the Canon system:
> a) sensor performance at low ISO
> b) slow / inaccurate contrast based AF in their compact cameras e.g., G7X, EOS-M etc
> Hopefully Canon can address these 2 problems.



These are just some of the symptoms. The underlying problem is, that Canon has not been willing to drive innovation full speed and/or has not been able to do so. They have switched to iterative small, purely marketing-driven steps. This has resulted in losing their towering technological dominance in digital cameras they had until about 2006, when many pros, semi-pros and enthusiasts bought their initial sets of canon digital slrs plus lenses plus flash. Today canon is an "ok" supplier and they still sell the most dslrs and they may be market leaders, but they are no longer the clear industry leader when it comes to digital imaging per se. 

Canon is still an 800 pound gorilla, but it has gotten old, fat, tired, and complacent, unwilling to learn new tricks or to take any risks. They are now the supplier of choice to a) inexperienced brand believers shopping for a rebel plus kit lens (provided they still want to lug around any dslr) and b) professionals/semi pros with a large investment in the system who believe they need or really need cps service. But canon is loosing the most important segment fast: photo enthusiasts with some money to spend. They want the best cameras. Lenses and systems, they can afford. And they are doing their homework and know what those systems are. Unless one is bird/wildlife/outdoor sports oriented and into long tele lenses, it ai t canon these days. And it aint small iterations of clunky mirrorslappers.


----------



## Synkka (Nov 24, 2014)

I think all companies should be subject to objective critiscm and Canon is no exception. I am with Canon as I feel they are the leader in lenses, AF, ergonomics. I feel that perhaps they are not the best at low ISO but aren't terrible by any means, but I predominately shoot at high ISO and I am extremely happy with that performance, and low ISO performs more than meets my needs.

I don't understand two major things about the current critiscm of Canon. Why sensor scores are being used as the only factor judging a camera system and secondly why this point of view seems to infiltrate every thread on the forum.

Critiscm is extremely useful if it's constructive, most of what I see on the forum these days is just complaints.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

I am of the opinion that the following post sums up the situation:



tcmatthews said:


> [..] my main concern is that the market for people who are not photographers (normal camera consumers) was very large. These are the people who generally bought P&S and rebels. Many are moving to Smart phones others are moving to mirror-less. If Canon losses completely to others in the mirror-less market or becomes a joke in the eyes of consumers. We all lose.
> 
> [..]
> 
> But in the lower end enthusiast cameras everyone is out innovating Canon/Nikon.



Canon is the top-dog in the "professional-class" arena - in terms of cameras, lenses and service. However, for us folks who are either mere enthusiasts or non-professional photographers (meaning photography forms part of our job, but is not primary) the current offerings from Canon are pretty poor when compared to FUJIFILM, Sony, Panasonic and Olympus (also possibly Pentax, maybe). For example, Canon doesn't support the EF-S system with real decent lenses; same reason why the EOS-M failed and will continue to fail. Canon's whole philosophy is based around their "professional" system, with everything else being incidental. This may have been a sound business approach in ca.2007, but not today.

*Face it, Canon, the "Rebel" line is dead, so bury it ... along with the 70D and the (still-born) 7DII.* As for the latter (the 7dII), it is a weather-sealed camera, but has no decent weather-sealed companion lens!? And why bring out the EF-S 24mm more than a year after the 100D, when it should have been an optional kit lens right from the start!?

We complain, we shout, we troll - but does Canon listen? Nope.

But as quoted above, without us average lot (and the soccer-moms) buying low- and mid-end Canon gear, who's gonna finance the top-end "pro" gear? (Question: how's the support from the video crowd for DSLR's these days? Was it really such a viable decision on the part of Canon to concentrate on them, instead of stills-only photographers?)

Any company who puts the shareholders above their consumers are ... :-X

*As to the DR thing:* I've always wondered whether people are factoring in the various "cooking" algorithms when making their determination.


----------



## Synkka (Nov 24, 2014)

There certainly are plenty of mirrorless and software comments, and you are correct most threads start out ok and tend to get progressively worst. 
It's hard for me to be objective about software as they mostly involve features I won't use, but I certainly understand why people want to untapped resources that are there. Fuji is very good at upgrading firmware on their cameras , but canon ensured f8 autofocus and that's a feature I wanted.
Now the mirrorless argument for me I don't get at the moment. The major sacrifices are af and ergonomics which are things I don't want to sacrifice. Now mirrorless will be the future but I haven't seen anything that makes me want to swap to a mirrorless as my primary camera. I have a fuji x100s which i like as my portable camera, but I wouldn't take it wildlife watching.
Now regarding criticism of Canon software and the mirrorless options to me they aren't even close to causing me to want to leave Canon, to others perhaps they are. Should those comments unnecessarily dominate many threads? I don't think so, and I find a lot of the out of place. But if they are constructive rather than complaints then good on them.

On the mirrorless option am I the only person who doesn't like smaller cameras in general?


----------



## fragilesi (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> *Face it, Canon, the "Rebel" line is dead, so bury it ... along with the 70D and the (still-born) 7DII.* As for the latter (the 7dII), it is a weather-sealed camera, but has no decent weather-sealed companion lens!?



Odd my 70D is working out just fine and when I wear that out I'll probably go for a 7DII - which seems to be getting a great reception . . . I think it might be you that isn't listening to what Canon's customers are actually saying.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 24, 2014)

Synkka said:


> On the mirrorless option am I the only person who doesn't like smaller cameras in general?



No definitely not. And there is plenty of Canon-DSLR-choice for all those, who like to hold chunky/beefy camera bodies in their large and strong hands. Plus one can add vertical grips to almost any Canon DSLR, making it even beefier and chunkier. 

But ... there is also a good number of people who'd prefer significantly smaller & lighter gear. As their first, second or third camera (system). These people are currently not well served by Canon (and Nikon alike). All they want, is to also get some decent choice from Canon. Including high-performance, fully capable, competent, reliable mirrorless cameras, including some with full-frame sensors inside. Yes, some of those machines are available from other manufacturers. But they don't have Canon user interface on them, which is something most Canon users hold in high esteem ... that's why this group keeps asking for Canon offerings that are ... small, light, and good. 8)


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

Synkka said:


> On the mirrorless option am I the only person who doesn't like smaller cameras in general?



Now we're three.

Personally I think the mirrorless manufacturers made a mistake by equating the system with small size (in their marketing). However, for comparison, the FUJIFILM X-T1 is about the same size as the Asahi PENTAX S1a (of 1960's vintage) ... thus just perfect!


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Nov 24, 2014)

[Note to self: DON'T post anything when the glass of Belgium beer is already half empty. You'll not make sense to anyone, even if it sounds good to yourself. With apologies to everyone I confused in an earlier post]

Canon may not be feeling enough pain to change their line-up or product development. Not yet, at least. They're still selling millions and millions of cameras and lenses a year. So where's the motivation?

Looked at differently, what images can't a photographer make today with existing Canon product offerings? What, specifically, do photographers want Canon to make to help them solve their imaging challenges?

The bottom-end of the market has shifted to mobile/tablet gear.

The top-end of the market is likely overly saturated with a LOT of great pro-grade gear. There was a discussion here on CR about this, if memory serves.

We've all watched as the big agencies that bought the bulk of pro-grade equipment disappear or radically change their imaging approach.

What does that leave? Interested hobbyists? Soccer moms? NASCAR dads? People wanting to make a few photos while on vacation?

Under these conditions it seem inevitable to me that a traditional company with traditional photography "thinking" would struggle.

Does Canon really deserve this? Nothing personal, but... Yes! Canon is in business to make money from products that consumers buy. If Canon can't keep up with the shifting desires of consumers then they run the risk of being a much smaller company than they currently are.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > *Face it, Canon, the "Rebel" line is dead, so bury it ... along with the 70D and the (still-born) 7DII.* As for the latter (the 7dII), it is a weather-sealed camera, but has no decent weather-sealed companion lens!?
> ...



Technology has moved quite a distance since the previous decade and production cost have equally dropped. The question which answers my statement above, is why does Canon persist with a "crop-frame" line-up, especially since all their good lenses are "full-frame" stuff? They should just drop it and concentrate on "full-frame" exclusively: the 6D is a "Rebel", the 5D is the 70D, and the 1D is the equivalent of the new 7D. Only difference is in the size of the sensor and the price that is asked by Canon.

Also, anyone who today (or tomorrow) considers buying a "crop-frame" camera will also look seriously at the mirrorless offerings from other companies. Only in the "full-frame" segment is Canon still tops. So unless you have an investment in "full-frame" Canon lenses, which would make "upgrading" to a "full-frame" camera a financial no-brainer, Canon's "crop-frame" line-up offers very little to the enthusiast ... because if the enthusiast with a Canon "crop-frame" camera wants a decent lens, then a "full-frame" lens must be bought. This is very wasteful for the enthusiast - although great for the shareholders!

(Just to clarify, I am not saying that "crop-frame" is dead, just that Canon's versions thereof are well past their sell-by date.)


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 24, 2014)

Synkka said:


> On the mirrorless option am I the only person who doesn't like smaller cameras in general?



I wonder if the manufacturers of Mirrorless cameras will change their design and introduce false bulkiness to bring the size of their cameras back to what the customer is used to?

When it comes to designing a system that is to be used by humans, making it as small as possible may not always be the right design design. The size of the human hand/fingers has not evolved as fast as the size of electronics.


----------



## sanj (Nov 24, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> [Note to self: DON'T post anything when the glass of Belgium beer is already half empty. You'll not make sense to anyone, even if it sounds good to yourself. With apologies to everyone I confused in an earlier post]
> 
> Canon may not be feeling enough pain to change their line-up or product development. Not yet, at least. They're still selling millions and millions of cameras and lenses a year. So where's the motivation?
> 
> ...



I know!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Face it, Canon, the "Rebel" line is dead, so bury it ... along with the 70D and the (still-born) 7DII. As for the latter (the 7dII), it is a weather-sealed camera, but has no decent weather-sealed companion lens!?
> ...



That's one thing this forum certainly doesn't lack – people in a small minority who mistakenly believe that their opinions and needs represent those of the vast majority. 




AcutancePhotography said:


> The size of the human hand/fingers has not evolved as fast as the size of electronics.



For many years, the trend in the mobile phone/device market was to get smaller and smaller. The current trend is the opposite - iPhone 6 _Plus_, for example.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> As for the latter (the 7dII), it is a weather-sealed camera, but has no decent weather-sealed companion lens!?



I wish someone had told me this before I spent 4 hours on a hike in the rain with a 7D2 and the 100L lens attached...I just assumed that it was weather sealed.... the rubber ring on the lens mount tricked me! (SARCASM TAG) yet somehow it survived......


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



Hey Sella ! I thought you had sold up your Canon gear and moved to Fuji ? A Fujifilm XT-1 if I remember. A really neat little camera that has so much going for it - except it's not a FF 6D, with a crisp OVF.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > As for the latter (the 7dII), it is a weather-sealed camera, but has no decent weather-sealed companion lens!?
> ...



(Ignoring the sarcasm tag for a bit ...) The 100L is a "full-frame" lens, whereas the 7DII is a "crop-frame" camera. Yes, it works ... but so would a 1DX have worked. My point is that it is silly to buy a "crop-frame" camera and then use brilliant "full-frame" lenses on it ... 'cause you're wasting that part of the lens you paid through the nose for: the edges. Bad economy, but the shareholders love it!


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Hey Sella ! I thought you had sold up your Canon gear and moved to Fuji ? A Fujifilm XT-1 if I remember. A really neat little camera that has so much going for it - except it's not a FF 6D, with a crisp OVF.



Nope. If you read through the archives, you'll notice that not only do I still have one 30D and the 70-200mm f/4L, but I even bought a 60mm macro. Granted, the Canon gear isn't used for day-to-day out-in-the-field stuff anymore, but it is used for actual money-making functions, like copying rare books.

However, as others have stated, CR is more about entertainment than actual ... erm ... well ... fact things. And it is nice to see how some of my opponents have started to say what I said and for which I got flamed back then. But that's Scopenhauer for you.



Sporgon said:


> A Fujifilm XT-1 if I remember. A really neat little camera that has so much going for it - *except it's not a FF 6D, with a crisp OVF.*



Do I detect a hint of jealousy there?


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...


but the lens works so well on the 5D2.....

It is a case of the same lens being great on both Crop and FF and not having to buy a separate lens for both. I like how Canon can use FF lenses on it's crop cameras......


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> but the lens works so well on the 5D2.....
> 
> It is a case of the same lens being great on both Crop and FF and not having to buy a separate lens for both. I like how Canon can use FF lenses on it's crop cameras......



It's great if you use both "full-frame" and "crop-frame" cameras. However, for those of us who do not need *GASP* "full-frame", having to purchase "full-frame" lenses for our "crop-frame" cameras 'cause Canon neglected to cater to our needs, is bad economy: we pay for what we cannot even use.


----------



## Marauder (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > but the lens works so well on the 5D2.....
> ...



Waste to use FF lenses on a crop frame Canon camera??? LOL Now I really have heard everything!!! One of he great strengths of the Canon crop-frame line is that it can use the entire family of EF-S and EF lenses! Moreover, issues like corner softness and vignetting either 'go away' or become far less acute. AND my 100-400mm becomes a 160-640mm equivalent! 

Ah, the silly, silly things people complain about!


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 24, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Also due to the pixel densities of current crop cameras, and so the potential for resolution, these cameras need the best glass possible. OK so you lose some of the outer image circle, but as Marauder says, that has its benefits too. Producing lenses of this quality is going to be relatively large and expensive whether they have an aps-c image circle or FF one.


----------



## allanP (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > but the lens works so well on the 5D2.....
> ...



We pay for what we cannot even use?
It's realy not significant EF or EF-S Lens. I don't know any 100mm Macro lens for EF-S only and price of 100mm IS (non L) ist quite the same as EF-S 60. I prefer 100mm over 60mm.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > A Fujifilm XT-1 if I remember. A really neat little camera that has so much going for it - *except it's not a FF 6D, with a crisp OVF.*
> ...



;D No. I have always liked Fuji, right from my days as a teenager using an old Fujica ST701, and I think the XT-1 system is quite appealing. But; I don't feel that the slimmer body is worth trading the OVF for, or losing the full frame. And, as has been pointed out here on CR many times, to achieve the equivalent in lens speed on these crop systems is actually very expensive, more so than FF. Add these factors to the reduced versatility and no, the system isn't for me.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Waste to use FF lenses on a crop frame Canon camera??? LOL Now I really have heard everything!!! One of he great strengths of the Canon crop-frame line is that it can use the entire family of EF-S and EF lenses!



Yes, it is a marketing angle. However, please tell me the point of a small camera like the 100D, when you have to put huge "full-frame" lenses on it to get decent optics, like the 70-200mm lenses or the 400mm lens?



Marauder said:


> Moreover, issues like corner softness and vignetting either 'go away' or become far less acute.



*L*-lenses are not supposed to have these "issues" and that is why they are so expensive. Thus, by using the "full-frame" L-lenses on a "crop-frame" camera, you just paid for something of which you cannot enjoy the benefit. Bad economy ... or simply wasting your money.



Marauder said:


> AND my 100-400mm becomes a 160-640mm equivalent!



No, your 100-400mm lens stays a 100-400mm lens. You just lose the great edge performance you paid for, 'cause of a reduced field of view due to in-camera, "hardware" cropping. (Honestly, do you really still believe that line of marketing hokey about the focal length increase?)



Marauder said:


> Ah, the silly, silly things people complain about!



You got that right, at least.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> ;D No. I have always liked Fuji, right from my days as a teenager using an old Fujica ST701, and I think the XT-1 system is quite appealing. But; I don't feel that the slimmer body is worth trading the OVF for, or losing the full frame. And, as has been pointed out here on CR many times, to achieve the equivalent in lens speed on these crop systems is actually very expensive, more so than FF. Add these factors to the reduced versatility and no, the system isn't for me.



OK, this actually raises one of the issues I have with Canon ... what you term "lens speed on these crop systems". FUJIFILM made the 56mm f/1.2 lens, yet Canon offers nothing similar for their "crop-frame" cameras. It seems that their (Canon) philosophy is that if you want "fast lenses" then you must buy into their "full-frame" products.

Now this being the case, and given the collapse of the consumer market, why does Canon still persist with "crop-frame" cameras. None of their (Canon) current "crop-frame" stuff can compete with FUJIFILM, Panasonic, etc. in terms of "fast" lenses, without resorting to "full-frame" lenses. (And I'll concede that for now none of the current "other" manufacturers' "crop-frame" products can really compete with Canon's "full-frame" gear in terms of "fast" lenses. But we're comparing oranges to oranges and not oranges to apples here.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> However, for those of us who do not need *GASP* "full-frame", having to purchase "full-frame" lenses for our "crop-frame" cameras 'cause Canon neglected to cater to our needs, is bad economy: we pay for what we cannot even use.



Bad economy for _you_, you mean. Canon cares about _their_ economy, but about yours only insofar as you give them your money. 

Consider the reverse...if you as a crop user did buy a FF body, how would you like to have to buy a complete new set of lenses for it? The economy of EF lenses mounting on crop bodies works both ways.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bad economy for _you_, you mean. Canon cares about _their_ economy, but about yours only insofar as you give them your money.



Now THAT is bad business, 'cause what happens when I decide not to give them any more of my money? 

You can argue that the loss of my - singular - business won't put Canon in the poorhouse, but the flipside of that argument is that my - again singular - business probably isn't even a teensy-weensy blip on their revenue graph. However, many I's - singular - makes up crowds, mobs and the masses - plural - which do indeed affect Canon's revenue. Remember the trees in the wood? Same thing.



neuroanatomist said:


> Consider the reverse...if you as a crop user did buy a FF body, how would you like to have to buy a complete new set of lenses for it? The economy of EF lenses mounting on crop bodies works both ways.



If the lenses are there - meaning I don't have to buy "full-frame" lenses, because the equivalent "crop-frame" lens exists - then why should I eventually "upgrade" to "full-frame"? The only reason anyone today actually does buy a Canon "full-frame" camera is because all their (Canon) best lenses are only available in "full-frame" size. Get the idea? (COUNTER-ARGUMENT TRAP: low-light sensors.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Now THAT is bad business, 'cause what happens when I decide not to give them any more of my money?



No, bad business would be to spend money developing and marketing products to meet the needs of every single individual or minuscule minority. You want Canon to 'cater to your needs' and they neither will not need to you. Seems that it's hard for you to deal with those facts, but Canon doesn't care about that either. 





Sella174 said:


> The only reason anyone today actually does buy a Canon "full-frame" camera is because all their (Canon) best lenses are only available in "full-frame" size. Get the idea?



There are far more numerous and better reasons than that. Obviously _you_ don't get the idea. Your inability to comprehend that you and your views are in the minority as far as dSLR gear is concerned is rather sad.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > However, for those of us who do not need *GASP* "full-frame", having to purchase "full-frame" lenses for our "crop-frame" cameras 'cause Canon neglected to cater to our needs, is bad economy: we pay for what we cannot even use.
> ...



So let's look at the 100L....

Suppose Canon also made an APS-C only and a FF only version of the lens.....

The first think that would happen is that sales of the FF version would drop, we would loose economies of scale, and the price would probably go up. 

The APS-C version of the lens would still be the same size and the end element would still be the same size. We could shave a bit off of the internal elements and the resulting lens would be a few percent lighter than the FF version, but once again, we would have lost some of the economies of scale and the resulting lens would cost more.

Realistically, you have to go shorter than 50mm to get any significant size savings on an APS-C lens. There are a few lenses (17-55F2.8 comes to mind) which are "L" quality, but with anything longer, it just isn't worth it.


----------



## fragilesi (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Technology has moved quite a distance since the previous decade and production cost have equally dropped. The question which answers my statement above, is why does Canon persist with a "crop-frame" line-up, especially since all their good lenses are "full-frame" stuff? They should just drop it and concentrate on "full-frame" exclusively: the 6D is a "Rebel", the 5D is the 70D, and the 1D is the equivalent of the new 7D. Only difference is in the size of the sensor and the price that is asked by Canon.
> 
> Also, anyone who today (or tomorrow) considers buying a "crop-frame" camera will also look seriously at the mirrorless offerings from other companies. Only in the "full-frame" segment is Canon still tops. So unless you have an investment in "full-frame" Canon lenses, which would make "upgrading" to a "full-frame" camera a financial no-brainer, Canon's "crop-frame" line-up offers very little to the enthusiast ... because if the enthusiast with a Canon "crop-frame" camera wants a decent lens, then a "full-frame" lens must be bought. This is very wasteful for the enthusiast - although great for the shareholders!
> 
> (Just to clarify, I am not saying that "crop-frame" is dead, just that Canon's versions thereof are well past their sell-by date.)



Really? Honestly? The 7DII is by the accounts I'm reading being very highly rated. Some of the new features in the 70D (eg DPAF) and the 7DII (The optimisation under artificial lights) are being received very, very well - genuine innovation. I can't see any logic in saying that they are "dead" except to you in that they don't meet your needs / wants.

As for the L-series lenses, they do so much more than just cover a full frame. The IS, the AF, weather sealing and so on all add to the value proposition whether you're a crop or full-frame user. And L series lenses do not "eliminate" any of the problems, they just reduce them by a significant amount. 

So, are you really suggesting that Canon should duplicate development efforts and costs just to produce a set of crop L-series equivalent across the range to justify crop cameras? That would add so much to the development, production and inventory costs that they would end up costing much closer to the full-frame variants than you _seem_ to expect. I think Canon have thought this through a bit more.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > ;D No. I have always liked Fuji, right from my days as a teenager using an old Fujica ST701, and I think the XT-1 system is quite appealing. But; I don't feel that the slimmer body is worth trading the OVF for, or losing the full frame. And, as has been pointed out here on CR many times, to achieve the equivalent in lens speed on these crop systems is actually very expensive, more so than FF. Add these factors to the reduced versatility and no, the system isn't for me.
> ...



Fuji offer this lens because they don't have a FF stable. Lets assume you were starting from scratch and want to shoot shallow dof portraits. You have a choice between the XT-1 + 56/1.2 or a 6D + 85/1.8. Both will achieve pretty much the same thing in good light. Using UK prices the cost of the Fuji kit is £1771, the cost of the 6D kit is £1569, so the FF system works out cheaper. If a manufacturer has a number of FF cameras in their line up it is not economical for the customer to pay out for expensive, very fast prime crop sensor lenses.

So Fuji's production of these lenses would suggest they aren't going to bring a FF camera to market any time soon. 

Now Pentax, that's another thing. What most people don't realize is that those APS-c primes that Pentax make - many have a full frame image circle.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> So, are you really suggesting that Canon should duplicate development efforts and costs just to produce a set of crop L-series equivalent across the range to justify crop cameras? That would add so much to the development, production and inventory costs that they would end up costing much closer to the full-frame variants than you _seem_ to expect.



Obviously you cannot read properly, so let me quote myself:



Sella174 said:


> They (meaning Canon) should just drop it (meaning "crop-frame") and concentrate on "full-frame" exclusively.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> No, bad business would be to spend money developing and marketing products to meet the needs of every single individual or minuscule minority. You want Canon to 'cater to your needs' and they neither will not need to you. Seems that it's hard for you to deal with those facts, but Canon doesn't care about that either.



Yes, at a glance Canon's financial health is not dependent on the single individual purchasing heaps of their products. However, it is dependent on hundreds of thousands of individuals purchasing heaps of their products. The common denominator is the individual purchasing their products. Thus, whether or not I (an individual) purchases Canon's products do indeed have an impact on their financial health. Therefore Canon should care.



neuroanatomist said:


> There are far more numerous and better reasons than that. Obviously _you_ don't get the idea. Your inability to comprehend that you and your views are in the minority as far as dSLR gear is concerned is rather sad.



Tell me why would anyone purchase a 6D instead of a 70D?


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> So let's look at the 100L....
> 
> Suppose Canon also made an APS-C only and a FF only version of the lens.....
> 
> ...



All the more reason for Canon to pick a form factor (preferably "full-frame") and do that exclusively.


----------



## Khalai (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Yes, at a glance Canon's financial health is not dependent on the single individual purchasing heaps of their products. However, it is dependent on hundreds of thousands of individuals purchasing heaps of their products. The common denominator is the individual purchasing their products. Thus, whether or not I (an individual) purchases Canon's products do indeed have an impact on their financial health. *Therefore Canon should care.*



Canon cares about majority of the market, you're obviously not in that majority. Bad luck for you I'm afraid, but there is really no win-win scenario, which would cater all needs of all the photographers out there...


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> You have a choice between the XT-1 + 56/1.2 or a *6D* + 85/1.8.



There is absolutely no way you can compare the X-T1 with the 6D. Rather do your comparison using an X-T1 _vs_ 5DIII or an X-M1 _vs_ 6D. Plus a better lens than the ancient EF 85mm f1.8, please. Try not to equal the X-T1 with the 56mm, but to beat it.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

Khalai said:


> Canon cares about majority of the market, you're obviously not in that majority. Bad luck for you I'm afraid, but there is really no win-win scenario, which would cater all needs of all the photographers out there...



flaming post removed by moderator


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> (Ignoring the sarcasm tag for a bit ...) The 100L is a "full-frame" lens, whereas the 7DII is a "crop-frame" camera. Yes, it works ... but so would a 1DX have worked. My point is that it is silly to buy a "crop-frame" camera and then use brilliant "full-frame" lenses on it ... 'cause you're wasting that part of the lens you paid through the nose for: the edges. Bad economy, but the shareholders love it!



How much cheaper do you think that an 'L' version of the 60 macro with IS and weather sealing would be than the 100L?


----------



## Harv (Nov 24, 2014)

Any company that tries to be 'all things' to 'all people' would soon be 'all broke' and 'all gone'.

From my viewpoint with a background in marketing, Canon is undoubtedly far better equipped to research and determine what the market wants than any individual posting on this forum. They have global assets and access to market trends throughout the world. Do any of us? I hardly think so.

In recent years I have purchased Nikon and Fuji, in addition to my Canon gear thinking some of their products might serve me better. I did not find that to be the case. I take approximately 35,000 - 40,000 images per year in some very demanding environments. My Canon gear delivers everything that I need. Are they perfect. Hell no. But then neither am I and neither is anyone else out there. On balance, I find them to be the best for my needs.

I didn't buy into a Canon camera or Canon lens. I bought into the Canon system and the Canon product development philosophy. I'm sure many photographers also bought into the same with Nikon.

All that to say that in my opinion either of those companies can satisfy the needs of 99% of the photographers that walk this earth.

Remember that often times a company that appears to be on the 'leading' edge, is actually on the 'bleeding' edge.

Just one man's opinion. ;D


----------



## Khalai (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Canon cares about majority of the market, you're obviously not in that majority. Bad luck for you I'm afraid, but there is really no win-win scenario, which would cater all needs of all the photographers out there...
> ...



They would go down the drain in no time. Majority of their sales are crop, entry-level cameras, not fullframe bodies. It's just simply too expensive to produce FF sensor...


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> That wouldn't be economic, even if ff sensors would get cheaper because of larger production volume. Unlike a computer cpus, afaik you cannot just software-fix faulty sensors on the silicon wafer, meaning smaller sensors = cheaper. *And that's what you need if you retain any foothold in the high-volume entry-level market.*



Quite true. However, in my opinion the term "entry-level market" no longer applies to the same demographic that it did in the previous decade. Digital photography is no longer the latest gadget - phones with pretty decent built-in cameras saw to that, as well as killing the P&S - and the people who now buy dedicated cameras buy them because it offers more than the imaging capabilities of their latest electronic gadget.

Also, as technology moves forward, consumers expect more capabilities at lower prices from electronic devices. In my opinion the current "Rebel" line just simply doesn't hack it anymore. However, the fact that they do still sell moderately well, just proves that people will buy anything they're sufficiently told to buy and that reality has quite hit them yet.

What I'm saying is that I agree with you regarding the high-volume entry-level market being important. I just kind of disagree on the weight of "high-volume" and what exactly defines the entry-level market. Personally I see the 6D as an entry-level camera now and for the next five years.



Marsu42 said:


> Another aspect with mirrored cameras is the size: Larger sensor = larger camera. What good is ff if you cannot tell the latest aps-c from ff up to iso 400? Last not least, ff is more difficult to handle due to the smaller depth of field. Enthusiasts may rave about creamy bokeh, but lots of people want infinite dof = smaller aperture = diffraction = less iq or at least no advantage to ff.



Yes, everyone wants something else. However, theoretically, if Canon dropped the "crop-frame" system and went with "full-frame" exclusively, then they would be in a better position to cater to more diverse needs.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Tell me why would anyone purchase a 6D instead of a 70D?



I feel like poor Donnie walking into the middle of a conversation.

but. .. it depends on what you shoot. For portraiture or landscape I would take the 6d any day of the year. For concert photography or ballet, etc. 

So what's the beef here?


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

Khalai said:


> It's just simply too expensive to produce FF sensor...



Really? I would have thought that in the ten-twelve years that Canon has been R&D'ing sensors that they would at least have developed a process to reduce the manufacturing cost of same sensors. I mean, the current "full-frame" sensors have the same photo-site density as ca.2006 "crop-frame" sensors, so there must have been some improvements and advances. After all, the validity of Moore's Law rest on this being fact.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > There are far more numerous and better reasons than that. Obviously _you_ don't get the idea. Your inability to comprehend that you and your views are in the minority as far as dSLR gear is concerned is rather sad.
> ...



If you can't figure that out, that's more than sad, it's pathetic.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Wow, talk about a knee-jerking parrot post. I would think that you all would be pretty happy if Canon dropped their "crop-frame" system and concentrated exclusively on "full frame" cameras and lenses, but apparently not. Very interesting.



There are photographers who actually prefer the crop sensor.


----------



## Khalai (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > It's just simply too expensive to produce FF sensor...
> ...



We are talking about pristine perfect silicone wafers here. That does not dispute Moore's law. But to simply produce a very precise product with milions upon milions pixels with all the required circuitry, where not even a single pixel cannot be faulty is expensive. It's the same with lenses - no matter what technological breakthrough you achieve, you still need a micron-level precision in the glass elements - the bigger they are, the more costly is to make them 100% precise.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > What I'm saying is that I agree with you regarding the high-volume entry-level market being important. I just kind of disagree on the weight of "high-volume" and what exactly defines the entry-level market. Personally I see the 6D as an entry-level camera now and for the next five years.
> ...



Just lower the price on the 6D. (IMO it's over-priced anyway.) The big trouble that they (Canon and possibly Nikon) are in for is that the whole camera market has changed ... very rapidly. Just look at how fast decent EVF's have become the norm once the technology reached a viable stage, even though it probably took years and years of research. From history we need only look at the impact that the IBM PC (which was more expensive than a small car) had on the typewriter industry. In many ways price is not an exclusionary factor for mass adoption of new technology.

Canon (and Nikon) needs to consolidate and reinvent their photography business, as in right now.




Marsu42 said:


> I disagree because I doubt there are such a lot of "diverse needs". Actually I agree for once with the expert mainstream in the forum here - *for most stuff, Canon is certainly good enough*. And since they cannot get back behind this, upcoming products including crop will be more than good enough.



Indeed, but for how long. They've already lost the mirrorless market ... almost everyone who wanted mirrorless has switched by now. Who are next? The video crowd, or have they also already gone?




Marsu42 said:


> Last not least, all this is academic - with a company that places as much weight on investment of their customer's investment, *they won't obsolete (how many?) sold ef-s lenses just like that*. True enough, Nikon allows you to use their crop lenses on ff, but imho Canon demonstrated they're not willing to go this way.



The year is 1987. Just three years previously Canon spent gazillions promoting their FD system by being an official sponsor of the Olympics. Now (in 1987) the FD system is dropped and replaced with the incompatible EF system.

They did it before, so they can do it again.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you can't figure that out, that's more than sad, it's pathetic.



Ditto on not being able to explain it to me.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Just lower the price on the 6D. (IMO it's over-priced anyway.)



I'm with you there, but that's purely from a consumer point of view. Canon has to generate their profit from _somewhere_, not just to make their shareholders happy, but to finance upcoming r&d. If they cannot cash in on legacy tech like the 5d2=6d, and the high-end market isn't high volume, what's left?



Sella174 said:


> Canon (and Nikon) needs to consolidate and reinvent their photography business, as in right now.



But who *is* Canon or Nikon? Their workforce? Their devs? Their management? Their shareholders? Any hint of upcoming large investments into r&d would drive their quarterly reports into the ground or generate a mandatory shareholder warning. Any CEO ack'ing such action wouldn't be around for long. Large companies aren't driven into bankruptcy because their people are stupid, but because that's how the stock system works.



Sella174 said:


> The year is 1987. Just three years previously Canon spent gazillions promoting their FD system by being an official sponsor of the Olympics. Now (in 1987) the FD system is dropped and replaced with the incompatible EF system.



True enough - but could they really do it again in this day and age? Any major system change would open up the option to jump ship for a lot of customers who hold on to Canon because of former investments. But now, there are more alternative options around than 30 years before.


----------



## Luds34 (Nov 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Kind of sad that people are so illogical...



Have you done any reading on behavior economics? I find it entertaining."Sad" is such a depressing way to look at, what fundamentally is, human nature. Well we are all wired a little differently, I feel blessed to be a fairly rational, logically individual . However, it's my feeling that the average person though is probably more emotional (vs logical) driven in their decision making. Or maybe my observations have just been disproportionately of those of my wife.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 24, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> There are photographers who actually prefer the crop sensor.



Yes, and I am one of them.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > So let's look at the 100L....
> ...


except that for every FF camera they sell, they sell ten times that with crop cameras... If they picked one FF only, then say goodbye to FF....


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 24, 2014)

Harv said:


> Any company that tries to be 'all things' to 'all people' would soon be 'all broke' and 'all gone'.
> 
> From my viewpoint with a background in marketing, Canon is undoubtedly far better equipped to research and determine what the market wants than any individual posting on this forum. They have global assets and access to market trends throughout the world. Do any of us? I hardly think so.
> 
> ...


Well said!


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 24, 2014)

Harv said:


> From my viewpoint with a background in marketing, Canon is undoubtedly far better equipped to research and determine what the market wants than any individual posting on this forum. They have global assets and access to market trends throughout the world. Do any of us? I hardly think so.



Indeed, that's why I find any claims about what the majority wants around here somewhat lacking.

However, global research *capability* doesn't equal actually following the long-term implications if it has short-term drawbacks. Wasn't Kodak undoubtedly equipped to research and determine what the market wants? Wasn't Nokia? And look what happened to them.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Now (in 1987) the FD system is dropped and replaced with the incompatible EF system.
> 
> They did it before, so they can do it again.



But why did they do it?

EF stands for Electronic Focus. It was designed as a FF mount for FILM cameras that would allow electronic communication between the body and the lenses. They had two ways to go.... they could keep all the smarts in the body and use wires to control the motors and read the switches, or they could put some intelligence in the lens and use data communications to control the lens.

With data communications, they had a more flexible system.... they could add motors and switches and keep the interface the same... in other words, it was future-proofed. 

The future hit. Digital cameras appeared. There were 1.6X crop, 1.3X crop, and FF. They all kept the same lens mount and there were ZERO changes needed to the EF standard. You can take one of those 1987 lenses and plop it onto your brand new 7D2, a 1DX, a c-500, a 1D-C, any rebel, or with an adaptor, onto an EOS-M. That is what happens with good design....

Would they ever change the design? Of course! It has already happened. To get into the low-cost market that represents the vast bulk of their sales, they created the EF-S mount.... electronically IDENTICAL to the EF mount and even using the same image circle so that you could use the existing EF lenses. Then they did the same thing again and created the EOS-M mount.... still electronically identical, but with shorter flange distances and a smaller mount circle so that they could produce tiny lenses for the mirrorless crop market, yet with an adaptor you can still use any of the EF or EF-S lenses on it.

Remember the direction things are moving in... Canon started with an EF lens mount and ONLY FF lenses.... then they added EF-S and smaller crop lenses.... then they added EOS-M and even smaller mirorrless lenses... 

Yes, the pro's use FF, but it is crop that keeps the factory lights on and mirrorless that is the hope for the future. Never forget that we are the minority and in the grand scheme of things it is the low end cameras bought by soccer moms and proud fathers that are what truly matters....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If you can't figure that out, that's more than sad, it's pathetic.
> ...



As I've stated before, you seem to have trouble seeing any viewpoint other than your own. There are nearly as many reasons people would choose the 6D over the 70D as there are people who make that choice. I could produce a list of reasons, but they're not my reasons...

But if you must have a reason, try this for starters...










Sella174 said:


> They've already lost the mirrorless market ... almost everyone who wanted mirrorless has switched by now.



Really? If so, then consider that dSLRs continue to outsell MILCs by a very large margin, and extrapolate from that the implication for the future of MILCs.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree because I doubt there are such a lot of "diverse needs". Actually I agree for once with the expert mainstream in the forum here - *for most stuff, Canon is certainly good enough*. And since they cannot get back behind this, upcoming products including crop will be more than good enough.
> ...



There's no such thing as "losing" the mirrorless market. Every year, people buy new cameras, so there are constant opportunities to sell new cameras. It's not as if the market closes its doors at some point. Canon will have plenty of opportunities to sell mirrorless system cameras if they want to.

As for the video crowd, Canon seems to be doing very well in video. I photograph weddings and at most weddings there are 1 or 2 videographers. Nearly every videographer I've seen in the past 5 years has been a Canon user, usually with several Canon bodies and a bag full of Canon lenses (sometimes some 3rd party lenses too). At some weddings, there are so many Canon DSLRs that it's common for wedding guests to ask the videographers to take still photos of them (not realizing they are shooting video). So, as far as I can see, videographers are heavily into Canon. I have yet to see a wedding videographer using Nikon or Sony.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> As I've stated before, you seem to have trouble seeing any viewpoint other than your own. There are nearly as many reasons people would choose the 6D over the 70D as there are people who make that choice. I could produce a list of reasons, but they're not my reasons...



I can see great reasons to go either way... For cost, you can't beat crop.... for quality you can't beat FF.... For AF or weatherproofing you could go 1DX or 7D2, if it just has to work no matter what and with no surprises, go 1DX, for portability, EOS M..... and to duct-tape it to someone's head and push them out the door of the plane, GoPro.

If we all had the same resources and the same requirements, Canon would make 1 camera.... Nikon would make 1 camera, Sony would make 1 camera, ...... and they would all be similar.

Rather than argue about how relevant our personal preferences are, rejoice in the variety out there to meet everyone's needs as they see fit.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 24, 2014)

zlatko said:


> At some weddings, there are so many Canon DSLRs that it's common for wedding guests to ask the videographers to take still photos of them (not realizing they are shooting video). So, as far as I can see, videographers are heavily into Canon. I have yet to see a wedding videographer using Nikon or Sony.



But how long is the lag is between tech development and pros adapting to changed circumstances?

From what I read on the Magic Lantern forum which used to be a stronghold of the 5d2 video revolution, people are either trying to fix the Canon system below the 1dc with raw video or abandoning the hybrid stills/video system in favor of dedicated video gear. Getting a 5d3 just for video is a lot of €€€.

Question how much impact the 7d2 will have as it's good value and hasn't got the moire issues anymore. But the 7d2 doesn't run ML, and you get get the 4k Panasonic GH4 for less money...


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 24, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> But the 7d2 doesn't run ML, and you get get the 4k Panasonic GH4 for less money...


A w/o ML we're stuck with the reasons that made the raw output hack mandatory in the first place - with a devil in the details difference: back when the 5D2 came out there was not much to compare it against. Today you cut back and forth between footage from different cameras, making such details more apparent.
(Not to think about the additional implications of roll stabilization via sensor vs. post. Now considering a timeframe that encompasses typical write-offs or the last product cycles. )


----------



## scyrene (Nov 24, 2014)

Tugela said:


> Most of the critical comments directed against Canon revolve around:
> a) Dynamic range
> b) Pixel count
> c) Video capabilities
> ...



I certainly don't moan about resolution, but it's worth pointing out that some of us crop a lot, and more resolution would help with that (those pesky birdies are often too far away, even with long lenses).


----------



## scyrene (Nov 24, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > I think there are 2 serious issues plaquing the Canon system:
> ...



Do you get a reward every time you use the word 'mirrorslapper'?


----------



## scyrene (Nov 24, 2014)

Synkka said:


> There certainly are plenty of mirrorless and software comments, and you are correct most threads start out ok and tend to get progressively worst.
> It's hard for me to be objective about software as they mostly involve features I won't use, but I certainly understand why people want to untapped resources that are there. Fuji is very good at upgrading firmware on their cameras , but canon ensured f8 autofocus and that's a feature I wanted.
> Now the mirrorless argument for me I don't get at the moment. The major sacrifices are af and ergonomics which are things I don't want to sacrifice. Now mirrorless will be the future but I haven't seen anything that makes me want to swap to a mirrorless as my primary camera. I have a fuji x100s which i like as my portable camera, but I wouldn't take it wildlife watching.
> Now regarding criticism of Canon software and the mirrorless options to me they aren't even close to causing me to want to leave Canon, to others perhaps they are. Should those comments unnecessarily dominate many threads? I don't think so, and I find a lot of the out of place. But if they are constructive rather than complaints then good on them.
> ...



You're not alone. I simply don't think it's feasible to use larger supertelephoto lenses with tiny bodies effectively - so even if the future is mirrorless, it needs to come in a roughly DSLR-shaped body.


----------



## jrista (Nov 25, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Synkka said:
> 
> 
> > There certainly are plenty of mirrorless and software comments, and you are correct most threads start out ok and tend to get progressively worst.
> ...




It's not the biggest body, for sure...but it is the closest thing to a DSLR-sized and shaped (ergonomically) mirrorless that I've seen thus far. I have to try it out to say for sure, but I would much rather use this with a giant supertelephoto than any other mirrorless. I still think it might be a little cramped...but, so was my Rebel, and I used that with the 100-400 all the time. Samsung is also readying it's own superteles for use with this body, and they seem to be just as large as Canon's.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2014)

scyrene said:


> I simply don't think it's feasible to use larger supertelephoto lenses with tiny bodies effectively...



Earlier in this thread I referred to using a MILC (EOS M, in my case) with a 600/4 as an ergonomic nightmare. I will say that applies to handheld shooting – with the lens mounted on a gimbal head, a tiny body isn't a problem, provided your plate/clamp has enough positioning flexibility to balance properly with a very light body.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 25, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Waste to use FF lenses on a crop frame Canon camera??? LOL Now I really have heard everything!!! One of he great strengths of the Canon crop-frame line is that it can use the entire family of EF-S and EF lenses!
> ...



Um... if you want to shoot wide/standard focal lengths, you can get small lenses. Afaik there's little to no size advantage in making long focal length lenses for EF-S versus EF mount (tech guys, right?). You're looking at it the wrong way round - you could say, how awesome that a tiny camera like the 100D can also be used with the full range of lenses - you lose the size advantage at longer lengths, but you only need the one body to cover all eventualities.



Sella174 said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Moreover, issues like corner softness and vignetting either 'go away' or become far less acute.
> ...



No lens is perfect. L lenses tend to be very good, but nobody claims they are perfect - optical perfection doesn't exist in the real world. Vignetting, especially, is just a fact of life for wider aperture lenses. That's hardly a fault, it's just reality.



Sella174 said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > AND my 100-400mm becomes a 160-640mm equivalent!
> ...



Well, the 7DII has nearly as many pixels as the 5DIII, so you'd be able to resolve more detail on a subject. You can crop the full frame image, but you can't gain any extra resolution that way.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 25, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



Thanks! That was what I had in mind with my previous response. I hadn't read all the way through the thread yet


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 25, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Synkka said:
> 
> 
> > There certainly are plenty of mirrorless and software comments, and you are correct most threads start out ok and tend to get progressively worst.
> ...


+1
By the time the 7D3 comes out, I expect it to be mirrorless and about the same size. You can't go smaller and keep the ergonomics.... not just for the grip, but for the knobs, buttons, and switches too.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 25, 2014)

As far as the claim that Canon has already "lost" in the mirrorless market, I don't think that that is the proper perspective to view it from. 

First, they only half-heartedly entered the market to begin with which wasn't really an attempt at winning any type of battle. Second, they already possess the sensor and other technologies to make a worthwhile mirrorless body e.g. use the existing EOS M with a dual pixel sensor. Third, the ecosystem is the ecosystem. Nothing changes with regard to everything else that Canon has to offer in conjunction with any camera body they release.

Those few things alone would make it much easier for Canon to simply release another M with a few simple upgrades they are already capable of and take a decent chunk of the mirrorless market. This doesn't even really require that they break a sweat. 

Now imagine if they actually threw some additional innovative features into it. Point is, it wouldn't take a whole lot to get back into the battle (assuming they ever lost it).


----------



## scyrene (Nov 25, 2014)

jrista said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Synkka said:
> ...



This is to be welcomed.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > I simply don't think it's feasible to use larger supertelephoto lenses with tiny bodies effectively...
> ...



Oh sure, I've mounted the 500 f/4 on the EOS-M on a tripod, it works fine. I wouldn't want to do it handheld - especially without a viewfinder.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 25, 2014)

scyrene said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



And about 5 minutes of battery before it runs dead and try to focus in bright sunlight. Large format DSLR won't ever be replaced by small format cameras, especially mirror less. Small cameras have their purpose but they are just a tool....and limited at that.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > At some weddings, there are so many Canon DSLRs that it's common for wedding guests to ask the videographers to take still photos of them (not realizing they are shooting video). So, as far as I can see, videographers are heavily into Canon. I have yet to see a wedding videographer using Nikon or Sony.
> ...



I don't know about any lag. When the 5D2 appeared, I started seeing videographers using it at every wedding. More recently, I see them using everything from the Rebel (xxxD series) to the 70D to the 5D3. 

They don't need the 7D2 to run ML *today*. They're already using other Canon bodies, so there's no urgency to add a 7D2. Getting a 5D3 just for video is a lot of money, and yet I see a lot of videographers doing exactly that, usually coupled with other Canon bodies.

Sure you can get a GH4 or something else, but that's not what I see them getting. In recent years, I've seen exactly one videographer shooting with Panasonic gear. All the rest were using Canon. The video crowd that I see is not rushing away from Canon. Instead, they are nearly all using Canon.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> There are nearly as many reasons people would choose the 6D over the 70D as there are people who make that choice. I could produce a list of reasons, but they're not my reasons...
> 
> But if you must have a reason, try this for starters...



Just as I thought: the primary reason for picking the 6D over the 70D is the "full-frame" sensor; and not the better AF, better frame-rate, etc. which the 6D hasn't got. Simply and only the bigger size of the sensor.



neuroanatomist said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > They've already lost the mirrorless market ... almost everyone who wanted mirrorless has switched by now.
> ...



And typewriters outsold computers ... until the mid-1980's.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 25, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Just as I thought: the primary reason for picking the 6D over the 70D is the "full-frame" sensor; and not the better AF, better frame-rate, etc. which the 6D hasn't got. Simply and only the bigger size of the sensor.



Sure, but the image quality of the sensor is kind of important  ... it's not just the lower noise level, but significantly better gradients, colors and tonality, postprocessing leverage, depth of field. Last not least, the same lens has a different bokeh and "look" on full frame. And I'm writing this as a big fan of crop for macro shooting, my snappy 60d is much more fun than the crippled 6d.


----------



## jocau (Nov 25, 2014)

For me Canon does deserve this negativity. I've owned multiple Canon printers in the past and the only 2 digital cameras I've owned so far are from Canon (PowerShot A40 and EOS 550D). So yes, I have a certain emotional bond with the brand Canon.

The problem for me is that I feel that Canon is resting on their laurels (probably because the fact that sales are still going strong). I have a feeling that there's hardly been any progress on the sensor side in 5(!) years or so. And still they think they have the best overall sensor (read it in a recent article on dpreview with one of the 'big guys' of Canon) while in fact they have been trailing behind the competition (Sony EXMOR) for multiple years.

This ignorance and arrogance sometimes drives me insane. My beloved Canon showing the complete wrong attitude. I've always thought that Canon is one of the most capable lens producers, although my number 1 is still Carl Zeiss (thanks to their micro-contrast).

At this point I'm sick of the poor focusing on my 550D and I'm also sick of the shadow banding that appears in the darkest regions of a photo (even when the DR in the scene is pretty limited and when the image is correctly exposed without lifting the shadows in post). I also don't have much faith left in Canon as a photography brand.

That means I'll switch to the Sony A9 next year (or the A7II if the A9 doesn't live up to its hype) and I'll buy the Sony (Zeiss) FE 55mm F/1.8 (which is said to be a mini-Otus). I'll use my lovely EF 70-200mm F/4L IS USM with the Metabones adapter.

*To summarize:* I feel that Canon is being too conservative, resting on their laurels and lagging behind the competition sensor-wise while still maintaining their "we are the best" mentality (probably driven by sales figures). And as much as I love Canon, I can't keep sticking my head in the sand forever...


----------



## weixing (Nov 25, 2014)

scyrene said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...


Hi,
Samsung strength is always their hardware, but their biggest weakness is their software (firmware in this case).

Have a nice day.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 25, 2014)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> Samsung strength is always their hardware, but their biggest weakness is their software (firmware in this case).
> Have a nice day.



could you be a bit more specific please - with regards to firmware-related issues of Samsung NX1?

Canon (and even more so Nikon) certainly got more than their fair share of software/firmware issues. 
Especially Canon's inability and/or unwillingness to unlock and enable fairly basic and simple firmware features on their hardware (Cameras) is notorious. No focus peaking, no zebras, very poor Auto-ISO implementation in most of their DSLRs, no second curtain sync in their wireless ETTL protocol and many other software-/firmware related issues come to my mind. Just look at what Magic Lantern adds to Canon cameras that can be "hacked". 

So before accepting any finger-pointing in the direction of other manufacturers, including Samsung - I'd really like to know very specifically what those issues may be in in what ways they are (even) worse than Canon's.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > There are nearly as many reasons people would choose the 6D over the 70D as there are people who make that choice. I could produce a list of reasons, but they're not my reasons...
> ...



That's one reason, certainly. Perhaps image quality doesn't matter to you. It matters to me, as do better AF, frame rate, etc., which is why I own a 1D X. 




Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



Again, you completely miss my point. You're the one who asserted that almost everyone who wants mirrorless has switched. I didn't say I agreed with that statement, in fact I implied the opposite. I was merely attempting to facilitate your following your assertion to a logical conclusion, but apparently you are unable to do so.


----------



## weixing (Nov 25, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...


Hi,
I'm not saying this camera got software issue... I'm saying that base on using their current and past products, in general, the software (or firmware) is always Samsung weakest side... they had no problem making good hardware, but always mess up on the software side.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Synkka (Nov 25, 2014)

Regarding the nx1 I think it looks amazing and some great technological advances. I think it will sell appallingly bad much like the sigma cameras.
But I see the benefit to the market, you often need companies outside of the major players to be the innovators. 
How canon responds will be interesting but I highly doubt they will stray from their current model as their business is successful and they aren't forced to take risks. But I also don't think they need to take risks they have a broad range of products to suit most people's requirements, yes they don't have a high end mirrorless camera but that is a small fraction of the market currently. I doubt Canon is ignoring it completely but more likely working out when the best point to enter that market will be.


----------



## Maui5150 (Nov 25, 2014)

zlatko said:


> There's no such thing as "losing" the mirrorless market. Every year, people buy new cameras, so there are constant opportunities to sell new cameras. It's not as if the market closes its doors at some point. Canon will have plenty of opportunities to sell mirrorless system cameras if they want to.
> 
> As for the video crowd, Canon seems to be doing very well in video. I photograph weddings and at most weddings there are 1 or 2 videographers. Nearly every videographer I've seen in the past 5 years has been a Canon user, usually with several Canon bodies and a bag full of Canon lenses (sometimes some 3rd party lenses too). At some weddings, there are so many Canon DSLRs that it's common for wedding guests to ask the videographers to take still photos of them (not realizing they are shooting video). So, as far as I can see, videographers are heavily into Canon. I have yet to see a wedding videographer using Nikon or Sony.



I would echo that, as well as go to almost any MAJOR sports even and what do you see... all those white long lenses..

Oh? Those are Sony on Alphas? LOL


----------



## Maui5150 (Nov 25, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I can see great reasons to go either way... For cost, you can't beat crop.... for quality you can't beat FF....



You make it seem like there is no trade off. 

6D vs 7D MK II 

They are basically the same cost. 

Yes you can get cheaper crop cameras, but what is the true cost of a crop? Image noise at high iso? That is a cost isn't... A cost to the IQ

Just playing some semantics with you. 

I think a better way of putting it. Each camera has a defined set of features and suitable applications. Depending on your budget, there are compromises one must make to find the best suitable fit given their willingness to spend or their own internal justification.


----------



## Maui5150 (Nov 25, 2014)

zlatko said:


> I don't know about any lag. When the 5D2 appeared, I started seeing videographers using it at every wedding. More recently, I see them using everything from the Rebel (xxxD series) to the 70D to the 5D3.
> 
> They don't need the 7D2 to run ML *today*. They're already using other Canon bodies, so there's no urgency to add a 7D2. Getting a 5D3 just for video is a lot of money, and yet I see a lot of videographers doing exactly that, usually coupled with other Canon bodies.
> 
> Sure you can get a GH4 or something else, but that's not what I see them getting. In recent years, I've seen exactly one videographer shooting with Panasonic gear. All the rest were using Canon. The video crowd that I see is not rushing away from Canon. Instead, they are nearly all using Canon.



This and then some.

5D MK III does nice video, but I also picked up a T5i specifically as a backup and sometimes a crop sensor, at least to my eyes, plays a little more nicely with movement and shake.

In terms of video. Most video cameras are better than DSLRs in terms or recording video, dealing with stabilization and especially AF... 

BUT...

Most video cameras are limited in GLASS. You have mainly one lens, etc, and the reason so many go to a DSLR over a standalone video is they can use their great glass and get different perspectives from Ultra wide to zoomed in. 

There are always trade offs.

As far as 4K goes, I have still been just shooting in HD and not looking forward to 4K in terms of editing, transitions, processing and burning. Producing an hour plus HD video can be time consuming as it is


----------



## Maui5150 (Nov 25, 2014)

Insulting post removed by moderator


----------



## sanj (Nov 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Dearest friend, have you personally ever tried EVF?


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's one reason, certainly. Perhaps image quality doesn't matter to you. It matters to me, as do better AF, frame rate, etc., which is why I own a 1D X.



We are discussing why anyone would choose the 6D over the 70D, so throwing the best DSLR ever into the mix is out of bounds.



neuroanatomist said:


> I was merely attempting to facilitate your following your assertion to a logical conclusion, but *apparently you are unable to do so*.



But I did.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > That's one reason, certainly. Perhaps image quality doesn't matter to you. It matters to me, as do better AF, frame rate, etc., which is why I own a 1D X.
> ...



The reasons are obvious. I gave one, there are others. 




Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I was merely attempting to facilitate your following your assertion to a logical conclusion, but *apparently you are unable to do so*.
> ...



Sure you did – typewriters were your logical conclusion. :


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 25, 2014)

sanj said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



Yes, of course, the XT-1 which I understand is probably the best out there at the moment. I thought in my previous post I had made it clear that I have considered the Fuji system. 

What can I say ? Call be 'old fashioned' but I like to be able to optically see through the lens in real time, at least on a decent system. I don't think I am alone in this. I can see that EVFs like the one on the Fuji have great appeal to many; indeed most people are going to find it better than a dim, small pentamirror with slow 'kit' lens on a Rebel, but even then people keep buying cheap dslrs, probably because as it is a mature, simple system it is also cheap to produce and buy. 

I perceived a lag, maybe that is just my imagination. The very large size doesn't do it for me, but the ability to reduce the viewfinder size is neat. Then there is the power useage; I want a battery to last as long as possible. In fact I have recently ditched by iphone and got a simple Nokia with a keypad because I am sick of having to charge the iphone every day. Just been to Poland for four days; never had to charge the phone or the camera !

I think we are going to see a FF dslr from Canon which will have interchangeable finders, like in the old days of top end slrs, except now one will be a normal pentaprism, and will be used in the conventional way, and another will be an EVF. You then lock the mirror up and away you go, using the Dual Pixel AF system direct off the sensor for focus. Use it for stills or video, it's up to you. By having the head as a sliding fit from the rear it could incorporate physical plug connections, which would probably needed to do this. 

Then those that say Canon isn't innovative will have to find some other area to whinge about.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Then those that say Canon isn't innovative will have to find some other area to whinge about.



I doubt that will be a problem, those folks can be very innovative themselves when coming up with new ways to bash Canon. :


----------



## RGF (Nov 25, 2014)

sanj said:


> I browse this website quite often since 2012. I have never seen so many negative comments about Canon these days in comparison with before.
> Does Canon really not satisfying its customers lately or is it that there are new members in the forum who like to put down Canon in comparison with other companies?



It is fun to complain - and to do it on line without having look the other person in the eye, is even more fun. I can get nastier than I would in person :

Bottom line - no but human nature is lash out.


----------



## sanj (Nov 25, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Thanks so much for replying. I personally find the advantages of EVF overpowering the disadvantages in such a carry around camera. But want my optical on the 1dx.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



[sarcasm]So the conclusion is that a "full-frame" camera with a mediocre, entry-level AF system trumps a "crop-frame" camera with a terrific, state-of-the-art AF system. Got it.[/sarcasm]



neuroanatomist said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



The moral of the story (regarding typewriters) is that one year you are on top of the world, selling thousands upon thousands of units, and the next year you sell nothing, and the year after that you file for bankruptcy. Good sales today doesn't necessarily mean good sales tomorrow.


----------



## fragilesi (Nov 25, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > So, are you really suggesting that Canon should duplicate development efforts and costs just to produce a set of crop L-series equivalent across the range to justify crop cameras? That would add so much to the development, production and inventory costs that they would end up costing much closer to the full-frame variants than you _seem_ to expect.
> ...



Fair enough, slipped up there.

Like you maybe I didn't think it through 

But you really didn't answer the more serious points that I made.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> But you really didn't answer the more serious points that I made.



Serious points, right. OK, here goes ...

I am not saying that the 70D and the 7DII are bad cameras. I am also not saying that these particular cameras are non-innovative on the whole. What I am saying is that in my opinion, for Canon, the "crop-frame" sensor DSLR is something that no longer has any place in their line-up. The reason for this is that the camera market has shrunk considerable and therefore it will not be possible to continue supporting two form-factors indefinitely. Many on this forum, you included, have pointed out the increase in cost per product should Canon decide to actually support "crop-frame" cameras with more (actual or equivalent) *L*-grade lenses. This is quite true and should be a primary reason for Canon picking a form-factor and dropping the other. The obvious choice would be "full-frame", due to all the best lenses being "full-frame" already.

For the future, once Canon eventually rolls out a "full-frame" camera with an equivalent 20MP "crop-frame" sensor, something like the now rumoured 50MP sensor, then "crop-frame" will be truly dead. Ignoring the cost, ask yourself why would anyone use a 20MP "crop-frame" camera and "full-frame" lenses, when they can rather use a 50MP "full-frame" camera with those same "full-frame" lenses? (Everything else being equal, e.g. AF speed, frame rate, etc., of course.)

As to the cost argument, well ... the really low-end, entry-level market as per ca.2008 has gone over to whatever imaging-enable device is the current fad. This means that the current (ca.2015) entry-level market is from the start a more advanced photographer, basically the mid-level "prosumers" of the previous decade. Yes, cameras will be more expensive for the entry-level models, but the purchasers thereof have for the most part already gone through everything their imaging-enabled phone can deliver and they want more right out of the (camera) box and are/should be willing to pay for it. IMO, for Canon, that is "full-frame" cameras ... with or without mirrors.

Coupled with the above reasoning regarding the cost factor, electronics (should) become cheaper and more capable every year. If not, then whosoever is in charge is definitely doing something wrong. I concede that any particular line of technology always somewhere "hits the wall" and can go no further, but if that happens, then the people in charge should start looking for alternatives or concentrate on something else within the confines of that technology. In the case of Canon and their sensors, for example, if they cannot increase the DR of their current designs, then start figuring out a cheaper manufacturing process (or even an algorithm for fixing dead photo-sites through extrapolation). Anything to keep with the spirit of electronics: more for less. (No, I am not saying I want a 6D for the price of a 700D.)

I think that adequately answers the points you made in your post.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> [sarcasm]So the conclusion is that a "full-frame" camera with a mediocre, entry-level AF system trumps a "crop-frame" camera with a terrific, state-of-the-art AF system. Got it.[/sarcasm]



Trumps? For some that is absolutely true (with no need for sarcasm), for others no. Why would you conclude everyone choosing between the 70D and 6D would choose the latter? Of course, you should keep in mind that the 6D is a modest upgrade to the 5DII, which was an extraordinarily popular camera despite having a glorified version of the AF system from the 20D (which soon made its way to the Rebel/xxxD line).




Sella174 said:


> The moral of the story (regarding typewriters) is that one year you are on top of the world, selling thousands upon thousands of units, and the next year you sell nothing, and the year after that you file for bankruptcy. Good sales today doesn't necessarily mean good sales tomorrow.



That's a nice moral if you want to tell a completely different story from the one with which you started. It is a fact that dSLRs outsell mirrorless by a very large margin. You stated that pretty much everyone who was going to switch to mirrorless has already done so. So unless you'd like to retract that statement, the moral of your original story is that MILCs have a very dismal future.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> That's a nice moral if you want to tell a completely different story from the one with which you started.



What does "mirrorless" have to do with my recommendation that Canon dumps their "crop-frame" system and concentrate exclusively on "full-frame" - mirrored and, if they so desire, mirrorless?



neuroanatomist said:


> It is a fact that dSLRs outsell mirrorless by a very large margin.



So what does that prove? (But also read below.)



neuroanatomist said:


> You stated that pretty much everyone who was going to switch to mirrorless has already done so.



So?



neuroanatomist said:


> So unless you'd like to retract that statement, the moral of your original story is that MILCs have a very dismal future.



I am sorry, but how you came to that conclusion is for me a mystery.

However, if I understand you correctly, based on my typewriter analogy, DLSR's outsell "mirrorless" and thus "mirrorless" is *******.

But if we push this interpretation of yours a tad further, then we see that "crop-frame" DSLR's outsell "full-frame" DSLR's. So does this mean that "full-frame" DSLR's are also *******?


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why would you conclude everyone choosing between the 70D and 6D would choose the latter?



Perhaps because you said so?


----------



## fragilesi (Nov 25, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > But you really didn't answer the more serious points that I made.
> ...



"ignoring the cost" - if only we could! Though it's a valid point about the duplication.

That said I think your rebuttal to the cost point is over-reaching. There will always need to be a range of products on offer, there is no one-size fits all. Many people aren't going to want or need a 50MP anything for some time because they are "just" prosumers and the additional cost of computing in terms of processor power for editing, bigger cards and hard drives etc for storage becomes significant. I regularly shoot 1000 shots in a trip out. That's a hell of a truckload of data as it is. This is just one aspect of it, consider the need for lenses with that kind of resolving power to make it worthwile. Yes storage and PC power affordability will improve but it's still ramping up the costs far beyond the cost of the camera.

The crop form factor is likely to continue to offer a cheaper entry into the market regardless of the relative levels of cost. Do I personally need or want 50MP? Nope, no way no how. Do I highly desire the AF system in the 7dII? You bet your life I do. And I want that at a price I can justify for my next camera body. The crop form factor delivers for me and many, many others. 

Maybe there will come a time when the factors that you refer to come together to eliminate it but the way the world economy is teetering I think it would be unwise of Canon to put all their eggs into the high end basket right now.


----------



## dak723 (Nov 25, 2014)

No offense intended, but I believe the entire argument based on "full frame lenses" is flawed. Canon has EF-S lenses that are only for crop cameras, but the "Full Frame" lenses are no such thing. I have used them on crop cameras for almost 10 years and I'm sure that many others do to. In fact, you can get great deals on older "FF" lenses - such as the 28-70 mm non-L lens that gives great results on a crop camera, but less than stellar results on a FF camera due to a lot of vignetting. Calling them "FF lenses" and then basing your arguments on them has no basis in reality, in my opinion. 

Having been a crop camera user for 9 years (the original rebel) and then getting a full frame 6D, I would choose the crop camera as the better choice for general photography. I miss the extra reach and found the crop much more appropriate for "semi" macro work such as pics of flowers. Too little DOF with the 6D in many circumstances. If you shoot in daylight, mainly vacation type photos - along with semi-macro, then a crop camera will be perfectly fine. Even the 6MP original rebel is good enough to create "sell-able" pics up to 8" x 12". 

So does Canon deserve this? If you shoot in daylight, then your IQ will be high. Are the Sonys and Nikons better for people doing general daylight shooting? I doubt there can be any noticeable difference.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> There will always need to be a range of products on offer, there is no one-size fits all.
> 
> ... but the way the world economy is teetering I think it would be unwise of Canon to put all their eggs into *the high end basket* right now.



I do not mean (and never stated as much) that Canon should have just the one "full-frame" camera. Obviously they should have three to five models available, each with different capabilities. For example, a 6D'ish entry-level camera, a 5D3'ish mid-level camera, a 50MP'ish studio/landscape camera, a 1DX'ish photojournalist camera and a 50MP'ish sports/wildlife camera. For this spread of products there is obviously no single basket at risk and there is something for everyone. (Well, except for me, because I kind of like "crop-factor" MIRRORLESS cameras.)


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

dak723 said:


> No offense intended, but I believe the entire argument based on "full frame lenses" is flawed.



None taken ... offense, that is.

Here's something else to chew on: The current crop of *L*-lenses can provide the resolution necessary for the new 7D2 "crop-frame" sensor. Yet all the current "full-frame" cameras cannot use that resolution because their sensors do not have the necessary pixel-density. So, more waste?


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 25, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Here's something else to chew on: The current crop of *L*-lenses can provide the resolution necessary for the new 7D2 "crop-frame" sensor. Yet all the current "full-frame" cameras cannot use that resolution because their sensors do not have the necessary pixel-density. So, more waste?



That is the kind of nonsensical, but logical sounding, bullshit people say who don't understand how a system resolution figure is achieved.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> That is the kind of nonsensical, but logical sounding, bullshit people say who don't understand how a system resolution figure is achieved.



"Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up."


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 25, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That is the kind of nonsensical, but logical sounding, bullshit people say who don't understand how a system resolution figure is achieved.
> ...



I agree, I was looking out for the people who might be impressionable enough to buy into your snake oil garbage and I assumed you knew better, sorry if I overestimated you.

Like I said, it kind of sounds logical, but is completely erroneous and you are doing those that don't know better a huge disservice by repeating such utter garbage.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I agree, I was looking out for the people who might be impressionable enough to buy into your snake oil garbage and I assumed you knew better, sorry if I overestimated you.
> 
> Like I said, it kind of sounds logical, but is completely erroneous and you are doing those that don't know better a huge disservice by repeating such utter garbage.



Honestly, I am totally gobsmacked by the abusive resistance from the CR "regulars" to the suggestion that Canon should drop the "crop-frame" system.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 25, 2014)

Now for a dose of reality...

Canon has sold over 100 million EOS cameras and something like 130 million lenses.

Of that number, it was estimated that 120 million lenses were sold in kits with 96 million bodies.... in other words, 4 percent of the bodies sold are bought as lone items, and only 10 million lenses are sold outside of kits.

The vast majority of the market is people buying low end cameras in one or two lens kits. 

FF camera buyers are a niche market.
"After initial sale" lens buyers are a niche market.

We CR readers do not represent the typical consumer. We are a small "prestige" niche. To say that Canon should direct their efforts to meet our needs and to abandon the bulk of their market is, to say the least, ill advised. Watch what happens over the next few years.... crop cameras will go mirrorless and the form factor will shrink. The cameras like the SL1 will be the big ones, most will probably be EOS-M form factor, along with the tiny and cheaper lenses that go with them. 

FF and the big lenses will survive. There is a profitable market for them... but it will always be a niche.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> I have to say the current state of the thread goes even beyond the expected. Probably time to call it a day - surely there are lots of upcoming opportunities to call each other names.



Only if I can be the chap with the glasses and the rod!

(Good advice. Taken and thanks.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 25, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, I was looking out for the people who might be impressionable enough to buy into your snake oil garbage and I assumed you knew better, sorry if I overestimated you.
> ...



I am just as aghast when people quote one very specific comment and then talk about something completely different. I am not pro or anti crop or ff and never said I was, they both have their uses and pros and cons. 

My comment was directly aimed at your erroneous suggestion_ "Here's something else to chew on: The current crop of L-lenses can provide the resolution necessary for the new 7D2 "crop-frame" sensor. Yet all the current "full-frame" cameras cannot use that resolution because their sensors do not have the necessary pixel-density. So, more waste?"_. That is an entirely fallacious and misleading statement.

You can suggest whatever you want, I don't care, but I do hate inaccuracy and your resolution comment is so off base I felt it needed questioning. How does that make me pro or anti crop?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > That's a nice moral if you want to tell a completely different story from the one with which you started.
> ...





Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Why would you conclude everyone choosing between the 70D and 6D would choose the latter?
> ...



You continue to misinterpret my statements, and now you're outright fabricating statements you're attributing to me. Sorry, but your reading comprehension is abysmal and that makes any further discussion totally pointless.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 25, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, I was looking out for the people who might be impressionable enough to buy into your snake oil garbage and I assumed you knew better, sorry if I overestimated you.
> ...


I read canonrumors for many years, and I see consumers in North America complaining of how Canon is a greedy company. I also see many snub the APS-C users, as if they were ignorant and undemanding people. 

There is a wide range of photographers on this planet, and not everyone has the money to full frame, or do not want to carry more heavy and expensive equipment. :

Here in Brazil, a ordinary Canon 6D + 24-105mmL is being sold in Canon official store at a price equal to 4,700 US dollars.      There is the option to buy cameras from smugglers, and without warranty valid. :-[ :'(
I live in a city with 6 million inhabitants, where 90% of marriages are photographed with a Canon 60D or 7D + 18-135mm lens + flash. :'( In Nikon side is used D90 or D7000 + 18-105mm + flash. :-X

Someone keeps thinking that in the future all cameras will be full frame? :-X


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 25, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, I am totally gobsmacked by the abusive resistance from the CR "regulars" to the suggestion that Canon should drop the "crop-frame" system.
> ...



I get where you are coming from but one of the main issues I see is people overreacting to a solid questioning of their comment or opinion, saying 'that is a stupid thing to say', is not the same as saying 'you are stupid'. I say stupid things and I don't mind being called out for it when I do, and I have been, and I don't confuse people telling me that to telling me I am stupid.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 25, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Now this is the kind of thing that does upset me.

I have never been anti crop camera, Sella constructs a strawman argument and implies I am, then another poster uses the same completely unconnected quote to add weight to their comment.

I do not look down on crop camera users, in many instances they offer significant advantages over ff cameras, so how come I am now quoted twice as saying I do? Crazy.....


----------



## slclick (Nov 25, 2014)

Canon's bread and butter for bodies are 1.6 variants. The sales fund R&D for better cameras of all varieties. I personally use only FF but why in the world would I have anything against what someone else uses? It would be very juvenile.


----------



## tcmatthews (Nov 26, 2014)

This is an interesting time to be a photograph enthusiasts. The rapid developments in software and hardware of the mirror-less cameras is quite frankly amazing. It is not so interesting if you are Canon. They seem to be doing their own thing. The lack of interest (apparent or imaginary) or inability of Canon to change with the times is concerning. The half baked EOS M system which actual sells well in Japan is a poor excuse for a mirror-less system. It could even be forgiven if it was released around the same time as the Sony NEX system. But they learned nothing from Sony's early missteps. If the Rebel sales go to mirrorless Canon is poorly positioned. The camera market is shrinking. Canon could possibly profit by reducing the number of Rebel models to one. Consolidating features into fewer APC cameras. Lowering R&D cost. 

I expect that Canon will eventual get mirror-less right. It could fill in the low end right along the Rebel cameras with one prosumer model (with EFV) so satisfy the critics. I do not thing they can do it without eating into there own Rebel sales. The question is when. I say get on with it already.

Canon OWNS the pro full frame Market. That will not change anytime soon. 
I fully expect that Canon will release a true full frame rebel. 


On a side note: (but I may be misremembering it was a long time ago.)
I vaguely remember reading an interview of one of the Canon executives. I read around 9 years ago. Most of it covered the recently released 5D. In it the Canon executive basically stated that he expected most DSLR to eventual be full frame. That as soon as the manufacturing could was perfected that ASPH would be fazed out. Eventual the full frame sensor could be cheep enough to put in a Rebel. He just shrugged when asked what would happen to the EF-s mount. 

It basically covered Canons road map from then to the present. It was also part of a 10 year plan. So focusing on full frame is right in line with early Digital camera plans.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Nov 26, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> Canon OWNS the pro full frame Market. That will not change anytime soon.



I think Nikon fans would say that Nikon owns it. They have 4 FX (full frame) cameras, offer higher MP sensors plus sensors with allegedly better dynamic range, and they seem to think that that any Nikkor lens bests any Canon L lens (I saw this claim a week or so ago on dpreview *I think*.

I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying that I've recently noticed that Nikon fanboys are every bit as annoying as any other fanboys.


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > Canon OWNS the pro full frame Market. That will not change anytime soon.
> ...




I believe Canon owns the pro market, simply by observation. How many photos have you ever seen of sporting events, for the past decade (including recently) where any brand other than Canon utterly dominated? Canon owns the pro market.


That said, I think Nikon is definitely stealing chunks of the pro market. They have been taking huge losses in most segments, but they seem to be gaining in the high end DSLR submarket. A report ending a year ago showed 50% growth in that area for Nikon, which is impressive no matter how you slice it. 


I am not sure about Nikon glass...one of the reasons I stick with Canon is their glass. It's phenomenal. One of the lenses from Nikon that I would say rivals Canon's optical designs is their 800 f/5.6...which is basically a ripoff of Canon's design anyway. (Imitation is the dearest form of flattery, no? )


If Nikon keeps up with producing lenses like the 800/5.6 (which they may, or may not...Nikon still seems a bit schizophrenic in terms of how they manage that kind of stuff), then the glass game could change in a couple of years. It also looks as though Samsung is going to get into the ILC market hard, heavy, and fast, and are already working on some superteles that look very much like Canon's in terms of size, features, etc. Only time will tell about the quality and design...but I have to say, I am utterly BLOWN AWAY at the IQ coming out of the NX1 at ISO 12800...it's mindblowingly good (as one would expect, with the very advanced sensor technology they are using...arguably more advanced than even Sony's APS-C cameras, barring any issues with read noise). Puts the 7D II to shame. Makes me want an NX1 all the more now...all I need to see is how the adapters perform, and if they don't, what kind of lenses Samsung is going to put onto the market.


Anyway...the market is moving. Companies are competing. Canon certainly owns the pro segment now...and they still have good offerings. But if IQ like what the NX1 has becomes the norm for APS-C parts? Eh...I dunno. The 7D II seems less and less appealing. If Samsung can hit the market with a FF variant of that, still using BSI ISOCELL tech, and an ultra-high frame rate...that would be a game changer.


----------



## sanj (Nov 26, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > There are photographers who actually prefer the crop sensor.
> ...



There are many. MANY. Not me though except for when I need a light family picnic camera.


----------



## sanj (Nov 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > However, for those of us who do not need *GASP* "full-frame", having to purchase "full-frame" lenses for our "crop-frame" cameras 'cause Canon neglected to cater to our needs, is bad economy: we pay for what we cannot even use.
> ...



I think the same.


----------



## sanj (Nov 26, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Hmmm. Not with you there. I wait and observe. I believe MILCs are not only here to stay but to grow exponentially. May the best technology win!


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> I believe Canon owns the pro market, simply by observation. How many photos have you ever seen of sporting events, for the past decade (including recently) where any brand other than Canon utterly dominated? Canon owns the pro market.



Cavet emptor - sporting events aren't exactly the whole pro market. They're more the low investment/low income potential segment, the kind of assignment you'd get at a paper after mastering the press conference coverage.
Go into commercial or at least editorial photography and every member, including the gofers, of your crew outearns the average sports shooter by a good margin. Here Canon was dominant; today you have a good idea about who has long term sponsorship contract.


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I believe Canon owns the pro market, simply by observation. How many photos have you ever seen of sporting events, for the past decade (including recently) where any brand other than Canon utterly dominated? Canon owns the pro market.
> ...




No, sports are not the whole pro market, but they are a HUGE segment of the pro market. Weddings, portraiture, food and product photography, photojournalism, etc. are certainly parts of the pro market. Wedding photographers seem enamored by Nikon's latest offerings. They loved the 5D III, but the D750 seems to be the hot thing in that segment right now. I know a number of portrait photographers who seem to prefer Pentax (it seems to be a size thing in particular...smaller bodies, smaller lenses.) It seems as though studio photographers who frequently look to MFD have been looking to Nikon's D800 more often lately (although who knows, now that Exmors are in MFDs, they will probably go back...either way, Canon doesn't exactly have a product for them right now, nothing that competes with current competitor offerings anyway.) 


Canon has a massive presence in the pro photography world, no doubt. However the pro world does not seem as locked into Canon as they used to be. At the very least, they have diversified.


----------



## sanj (Nov 26, 2014)

slclick said:


> Let's see Canon's financials compared to it's competitors.



Not interested except that I hope their financial lead helps them with R&D to give us the best possible cameras.


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 26, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Someone keeps thinking that in the future all cameras will be full frame? :-X


I think crop cameras are safe, too. If anything, the comments above about "pro" users makes me think the days of FF cameras might be numbered.

Crop sensors have improved significantly over the last few years. And, if Canon was to implement the latest improvements in manufacturing techniques and sensor design, we'd struggle to see much IQ advantage of a FF sensor over an APS-C sensor (in fact, with other brands, you struggle to see the difference now). DOF differences and shooting at very high ISOs and more MPs will still be attractive incentives for crop camera users to change to a FF camera. But I suspect a growing number of people will decide that crop cameras are good enough. 

To differentiate themselves in a competitive market, I see more studio-based and wedding photographers moving to medium format and abandoning 1DX/D3X/D4S style cameras. (And in the next two years, there will be at least another two new, smaller, medium format systems introduced in the 1DX price range to attract these photographers.) Many wildlife and sports shooters will prefer the extra "reach" of a 7D3. Current 5D3 users will continue to transition to Sony and Fuji mirrorless systems. I don't know if there will many people left to buy Canon FF cameras.

How does this all tie into this topic? Canon have only made muted sounds about medium format and that doesn't give people looking for a medium format option the confidence to stay around for a bit longer. They will move to other brands. A very high percentage of mirrorless buyers are DSLR owners, yet they are also leaking away to other brands. We can tell from the rumors posted here and the details of patents that Canon has the ability to make class leading crop sensors, but we haven't seen much evidence of Canon investing any $$$ in manufacturing plant and instead we have Canon polishing up the same sensor they've had for how many generations of cameras? This leads to website stories about how Canon is falling behind, which might lead people doing research on their first camera to choose another brand. Added to this, there hasn't been a noticeable drive to develop EF-S lenses anyway. And with the Eos-M, a quick look at the B&H site suggests you can't even buy an Eos-M and if you already had one and were after another lens, I hope it is the 22/2 that you seek as it is the only one available.


----------



## sanj (Nov 26, 2014)

Hillsilly said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Someone keeps thinking that in the future all cameras will be full frame? :-X
> ...



Cant predict the long term future and this is quite possible. But in the near future I think full frame provides the best 'portable/speed' IQ in the market.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 26, 2014)

sanj said:


> May the best technology win!



[friendly]I do not believe the objective is for any "technology" to actually win, as there really isn't the competition as some people perceive, e.g. FF _vs_ crop and DSLR _vs_ mirrorless. For me it is more there having been a fork in the road and each "technology" moving in different directions, each with its own goals, objectives and customer base. The big question for companies like Canon and Nikon are therefore more how they can keep dominating the market by offering a diverse range of products so to have the largest possible customer base. On the other hand, if they cannot spread their resources so wide, then the logical solution would be to rather concentrate on that which is sustainable in the long run and concede the (lower revenue) "niche" markets to smaller companies.[/friendly]


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 26, 2014)

"Installed Base" of lenses in the market is large enough to keep mFT and leading APS-C mounts [Ca, Ni, Sony, Fuji] in the market for many years to come. Plus - most importantly - crop sensor cameras will always be less expensive than FF-sensored gear. 

Equally important: mirrorless cameras are significantly less costly to produce than DSLRs with mechanical components. "Solid state mirrorless" [fully electronic shutter, no mechanical parts whatsoever] cameras - both with crop and FF sensors - will dominate the market soon, since they can be manufactured much more cost effectively and with less quality variances in automated fabs by robots without a lot of human labor. 

For conservative users who prefer optical viewfinderrs, there may be a selection of mirrorless cameras with "hybrid" optical/electronic viewfinders along the lines of some Fujifilm X-cameras [e.g. X-Pro 1; X-Pro 2 rumoured to be on its way]. 

Large, Pro-grade DSLRs [EOS 1D/s/X type] with mirrors and OVF will likely survive for another 10 years or so ... for specialized applications and conservative users. Very similar to analog 1D being the last film SLRs to be phased out about 10 years after DSLRs took over the market.


----------



## Valvebounce (Nov 26, 2014)

Hi Rick. 
I'm satisfied with my gear, I am bored with the weather, the DR outside could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand today, thick fog! So currently my gear is more than a match, now the photographer, not so much! ;D
As for people using their real names, many I believe are using their business names, and many more sign their posts with their real name! I also know that some are using pseudonyms because of their line of work or other sensitivities. 
So no you are not the only one posting under your real name, perhaps the only one whose username is their real name. 

Cheers, Graham. Real name! (Valvebounce, nickname I've had for 25+ yrs! Many locals would identify me from it)




Rick said:


> Yes, yes and don't forget trolls who do not even own Canon equipment.
> 
> I may be the only guy posting here under his real name, but for all I know, this could be two dudes in their underwear and their 55 sock puppets each deployed to do battle against each other and one of them started the war with this post.


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 26, 2014)

This is the first online forum I joined. At the time of filling the profile out, it never occurred to me that you're stuck with the same user name forever......


----------



## sanj (Nov 26, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > May the best technology win!
> ...



Start always friendly: It is OPV v/s EVF. DSLR v/s ML. Both are super in their own ways, IMHO. End always friendly.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Nov 26, 2014)

I keep coming back to a certain point as it seems to be the touchstone for any company that tries to sell into the consumer marketplace.

As markets change, companies that can't keep up will experience falling revenues and may, in extreme cases, be forced to close it's doors.

Consumer desires can be fickle. What sells one moment may not be the thing that sells the next.

When we first landed in Europe I saw a lot of tourists running around with pretty high-end Canon DSLR gear strapped around their necks, but no longer is this the case. That was three years ago. What I see these days are a LOT of mirrorless (Sony APS-C, Oly, Pana, some Fuji) and a few high end Sony RX1 and the occasional Leica (of all things). But more than ANY of this, I see where cell phones and tablets have taken over for most of the tourist's imaging "needs."

For the pro-level shoots (commercial, weddings, fashion - well LOTS of fashion as this _is_ the place afterall) I see almost 100 percent Canon pro-gear. Though I have to add that the most serious fashion stuff I see being shot around town is with Fuji-blads.

For pro-level video I see LOTS of Canon 5D MkII/MkIII. Even in-studio stuff here in France where they pan back to show an overall scene.

Based on these kinds of "on the street" observations I think Canon has the portable pro-level video market sewn up. I can imagine them continuing to invest in that area. 

Canon seems to still have a strong part of the tourist DSLR (Rebel) market, but is very quickly loosing to cell phones and mirrorless. I can imagine Canon continuing to sell whatever they can into that space, but for further R&D? I don't see it.

For published fashion work I can see Fuji-blad will remain _the_ "go-to" system.

For sports and wildlife photography I can see where Canon could remain strong, but how much gear can they actually sell into a market that's likely already saturated? If the new 100-400L development cycle is any indication, we may see the existing gear in the stores for a long time to come.

Switching to the other side, I see companies like Sony doing well for any number of reasons. When I think of cell phone photography and I consider the increasing level of integration between their mirrorless systems and cell/digital networks, I can see why Sony's customers can be happy. 

There's something for nearly everyone. A cell phone with a "decent" image maker that uploads straight to the 'net is a very fun and useful thing. A decent image quality mirrorless system that integrates seamlessly into those very same networks is a dream come true for working artists. On-camera apps that increasingly provide cell-phone app capabilities but with much better IA (filters, intervolometers, color grading, image processing, etc) give folks the opportunity to create what they want without the need of a computer.

In this kind of market space the idea of "camera" is disappearing. Even as we wrangle over Canon "deserving" this or that, whatever those might be, things are rapidly in flux. 

All this is happening right before our eyes, but can we really "see" it when we're so narrowly focused on tradition and cameras and equipment capability minutia?


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 26, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> ...
> Consumer desires can be fickle. What sells one moment may not be the thing that sells the next.
> ...
> There's something for nearly everyone. A cell phone with a "decent" image maker that uploads straight to the 'net is a very fun and useful thing. A decent image quality mirrorless system that integrates seamlessly into those very same networks is a dream come true for working artists. On-camera apps that increasingly provide cell-phone app capabilities but with much better IA (filters, intervolometers, color grading, image processing, etc) give folks the opportunity to create what they want without the need of a computer.
> ...



Living in Europe, I totally agree with your observations. In germany mirrorless cameras apparently are now 29% of interchangeable camera sales [according to some recent charts from a Sony presentation]. This matches my personal observations. 

Quite a good number of my photo-enthusiast friends [definitely not not "full Pro", some are "semi-pro"] have switched from DSLRs (Canon and Nikon) have bought into mirrorless systems [especially Fujifilm] and are using their fat mirrorslappper gear less and less frequently. 

Many more occasional camera users [e.g. "soccer moms"] have switched to newer compact/bridge cams with suffiecient tele zoom range. Everybody else and for everything else, especially vacation/city trips/tourism-related photography has been largely taken over by smartphones and tablets ... and instant upload to social networks. 

Highly capable mirrorless cameras are the only way to go for manufacturers, since they can be made at so much lower cost than similarly capable DSLRs. The new price points will be USD/€ 499 for highly capable APS-C/mFT bodies and €/USD 999 for Sony A7 II type FF mirrorless cameras. 

Lenses for APS-C mirrorless will probably be exactly where Canon's EF-M lenses already are. Compact, optically very good, at very decent prices. And decent FF mirrorless zooms like 24-70/4, 16-35/4 etc. will have to come down substiantially in price ... say to around USD/€ 500. Otherwise ... not many copies will be sold.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 26, 2014)

sanj said:


> Start always friendly: It is OPV v/s EVF. DSLR v/s ML. Both are super in their own ways, IMHO. End always friendly.



May I then add: Prime _vs_ Zoom?


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 26, 2014)

sanj said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I tend to agree with you. If manufacturers can bring EVF of the XT-1 down to the prices of a simple, pentamirror system few are going to buy the latter, whereas a high quality, large pentaprism OVF still offers a great deal on larger, more general purpose cameras. However OVF manufacturers could retaliate by giving the lower end cameras a decent pentaprism system and good magnification like the 7DII. I could see someone like Pentax and Canon doing this.

Personally I do not like two systems; I want one 'do it all' system that is light enough for casual travel and good enough for professional work. 

This is possibly to do with the fact that skinflint Sporgon likes to spend his hard earned cash on fast horses and fast women, not necessarily in that order, and not photographic gear


----------



## sanj (Nov 26, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Start always friendly: It is OPV v/s EVF. DSLR v/s ML. Both are super in their own ways, IMHO. End always friendly.
> ...



No no. Hahahaha.


----------



## PVS (Nov 26, 2014)

It's like grafitti. You see them on the wall not because everybody's into grafitti but because very few are. Sometimes they're ugly, stupid and pointless while ither times they can be thought provoking raising questions on certain issues.
They don't represent the opinion of majority and can be offending but in other times can raise awareness on certain issues.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 26, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> I keep coming back to a certain point as it seems to be the touchstone for any company that tries to sell into the consumer marketplace.....



You made some very good and interesting points in your post.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 26, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Now for a dose of reality...
> ...


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 26, 2014)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> For published fashion work I can see Fuji-blad will remain _the_ "go-to" system.



Interesting that you mention Fuji-blads - There is a very high chance that a Fuji medium format announcement is imminent. Supposedly styled similar to an X-Pro 1 and using the ubiquitous Sony 50mp sensor, it will go head to head with a Sony/Mamiya medium format, rangefinder styled camera. If rumors come to fruition, these two guys are going to rule landscape and travel photography.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2014)

dilbert said:


> The thing is that Canon is now failing to capture people "stepping up" into _real cameras_. Thus it may be that the wave of Canon owners has surged and is now a swell moving towards shore.



It may be, or not. It's not like Canon is ignoring the MILC segment entirely. Granted, the M was basically a flop outside of Asia (at least until the fire sale), but the MILC market as a whole is fairly weak outside of Asia, and that was even more true when the M launched. 

As for the EOS M in Asia, don't forget it was the #2 best seller in Japan, beating out models from established brands like Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji and only a few percentage points shy of Sony's top seller. Canon's Dual Pixel AF is tailor-made for MILC applications. 

So before concluding that Canon has missed the wave, consider that on a global scale, the mirrorless wave is still quite small. Inexperienced surfers may catch it, but it's not yet going to lift profits high enough. Once that wave gets big enough, it may well be that the Big Kahuna will ride it to the top, perhaps knocking a few little surfers off their boards on the way up.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Nov 26, 2014)

I agree. I think there's a shake-up taking place in the imaging marketplace and it's something creative people can take advantage of.

For me, if there was a camera who's size and weight was between the A6000 and A7r, had the A6000's RF-style EVF, and packed a 50mpixel FF or MF sensor it'd be "all over and turn out the lights, Gracie." I'm guessing that Sony will be the one to do it, too. Fuji won't be far behind at all, and, in fact, might take the lead on this.

May we live in interesting times.




Hillsilly said:


> ChristopherMarkPerez said:
> 
> 
> > For published fashion work I can see Fuji-blad will remain _the_ "go-to" system.
> ...


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Nov 26, 2014)

Ah... but we're not dealing with corporate managers and business planners from Silicon Valley. We're dealing with large, conservative Japanese corporations. There's a difference. Long-term planning and deep deep investment over "start-up", "let's see of this flies" business thinking.

Sony is investing heavily in sensor processes and driving the business hard to make sure their parts are the preferred pieces. This is very much like Samsung and LG in the LCD display market where they invested heavily in the manufacturing process and are now dominant in that market (where, interestingly, Sony refused to invest so as to not cannibalize it's Trinatron business).




GraFax said:


> ... Looks to me like CaNikon are using the classic business gambit "let the upstarts and little guys go broke creating the market. Then, when the market matures, swoop in with better products at lower costs, crush the competitors and then buy whatever companies are left that have good internal tech". This happens in Silicon Valley every day...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 26, 2014)

GraFax said:


> The idea that Canon can build the 1Dx but can't build a quality mirror-less defies reason.



As long as it is recognized that there is a huge difference between Canon *can't* build and Canon *choosing* not to build. I have not read anything that would indicate that Canon can't build a quality mirrorless system.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 26, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> As long as it is recognized that there is a huge difference between Canon *can't* build and Canon *choosing* not to build. I have not read anything that would indicate that Canon can't build a quality mirrorless system.



Well, that's what probably most of us BELIEVE. But it can only be PROVEN by Canon themselves. ;D

Job is easier for Canon than for Sony, since they won't (have to) build 5-axis IBIS into tight mirrorless bodies.


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> GraFax said:
> 
> 
> > The idea that Canon can build the 1Dx but can't build a quality mirror-less defies reason.
> ...




I agree. It's a matter of finding what the marketplace wants. I believe there is a certain segment of the market that wants ever smaller and ever lighter....but I do not think that segment is indicative of the broader market that might be interested in mirrorless. 


Personally, I won't give up the ergonomics of standard-sized DSLRs. I also don't really like EVFs, but over time, maybe they will reach a level where I'm satisfied with them. I don't want ultra small, I don't want ultra cramped, I don't want to have my configurable button options limited, I don't want my LCD screen to shrink, I don't want the vast majority of what "mirrorless" offers. 


However...stuff an EVF or maybe a Hybrid VF that can operate optically or electronically in a DSLR body where the mirror can be locked up for electronic operation...and WOW. You've got me!  (Why the hell hasn't any camera manufacturer figured that out yet?!   I think Samsung is closeish with the NX1...but they still don't have the optical option...it's 100% purely electronic, albeit in a much better body design IMHO.)


----------



## sanj (Nov 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > GraFax said:
> ...



Funi X100 has hybrid VF. And it is fantastic. But it is not a DSLR


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 26, 2014)

Panasonic apparently just filed a patent in Japan for a new flash/accessory-shoe hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder. 
http://photorumors.com/2014/11/24/panasonic-patented-an-external-hybrid-evf-and-ovf-viewfinder/


----------



## sanj (Nov 26, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Panasonic apparently just filed a patent in Japan for a new flash/accessory-shoe hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder.
> http://photorumors.com/2014/11/24/panasonic-patented-an-external-hybrid-evf-and-ovf-viewfinder/



All a matter of time.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 26, 2014)

GraFax said:


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


I tend to agree with this too.

To my way of thinking, mirrorless cameras have two huge flaws. One is that the AF system is terrible, and the other is that the EVFs are terrible.... or at least it was in the past....

DPAF seems like it was designed for the EOS-M. I do not believe in coincidences, but I do believe that research and development projects often take far longer than planned... I think that the EOS-M was designed to be sold with DPAF and now that it is out, I expect to see a new EOS-M variant which has it.... this will be the king of mirrorless AF unless there is a significant surprise from someone else.... this also gets rid of one of the two flaws holding mirrorless cameras back.

The other flaw is the EVFs.... and they are getting better, faster and higher resolution. Some of the latest ones are starting to rival the optical viewfinders... They may not be superior, but they are certainly good enough for the masses....

So let's say Canon comes out with an EOS-M with DPAF and an optional high quality EVF.... it will probably sell well... and there goes the "mirrorless will never be accepted" crowd.....


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Panasonic apparently just filed a patent in Japan for a new flash/accessory-shoe hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder.
> http://photorumors.com/2014/11/24/panasonic-patented-an-external-hybrid-evf-and-ovf-viewfinder/




If it's hotshoe, it is not TTL. When I talk about an OVF, I mean your standard through-the-lens requires-a-slapping-mirror kind of OVF. I would rather have an EVF than an external optical viewfinder that did not give me an exact TTL image. 


There were rumors earlier this year that Canon was working on some kind of Hybrid VF. None of that has materialized...but I really want something that truly works either way...standard DSLR mirrorslapper OVF, or EVF in mirror lockup mode.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 26, 2014)

I would be fairly happy with a compact, but high-grade hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder as per the Panasonic patent. Via electronic data exchange with camera body and lens it "knows" actual focal length and focus distance settings and will automatically zoom to show an exactly matching frame and provide parallax-correction. 

In the Fuji X-Pro1 implementation I believe it is even possible to also show a wider image [if the optical viewfinder is engaged] than the image projected to the sensor - which can be of advantage in some situations (e.g. street photography) - one of the advantages of many (good) range finder cameras like Leica M. Not possible in mirrorslappers. Not possible with purely electronic viewfinders which can only display the very image that the sensor sees. 

Unfortunately NON-TTL optical viewfinders used by Canon in recent years - e.g. the ones in Powershot G-series cameras ... have been abysmal, cheap and utterly primitve. Not so the Fuji Hybrid viewfinders. 

They just need an update to the latest / highest grade LCD viewfinder panels + associated electronics ... for even less lag, more resolution, better color, etc. 

In short: I'd choose a compact, FF-sensored Sony A9 with such a hybrid viewfinder any day over a fat old Canon mirrorslapper.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> Lawliet said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



A FF 645 Sony Exmor MFD would be killer. It would be even more killer if they made it affordable.


----------



## Actionpix (Nov 26, 2014)

I use Canon since around 1985. I sticked long with my A-1's. Just before the digital race began I bought an EOS-30. All the time before I waited for the camera's technical getting reliable enough to use. (For me now lighting, autofocus etc. are good enough to stop doing stuff manual, although I will keep watching and correct when necessary.) With the EOS-30 came a new mount so I bought new lenses too. So now I have a 400mm 2.8 with excellent optical performance and a new type of mount. BUT,.. No camera with a sensor that can resolve the resolution the lens offers. And that is going on for 10 years now. I can use the lens on a 7DII and have 20MP and don't feel the resolving power of the camera is better than that of the lens, so the camera would be unnecessary high resolving. Blowing that sensor up to FF would give 50MP. Where is that cam? (Or even more MP.) Ok. Before I did not complain about new cameras not coming. But when you produce 12K lenses you ought to offer camera's with it to defend the price. I now am stuck with 1K lens resolving power.


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Lawliet said:
> ...




I agree, although I think the Pentax offering is pretty nice.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 26, 2014)

If MF, then I'd also want it mirrorless. Rather than a cubic -blad-style mirrorslapper. That rumor about a Sony 50MP MF in a Mamiya 7 style body would be along my preferences. Zero slapping, zero vibration, zero noise. And more compact. 

http://photorumors.com/2014/10/24/more-details-on-the-rumored-sonyzeiss-and-mamiya-medium-format-digital-rangefinder-cameras/


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 26, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> If MF, then I'd also want it mirrorless. Rather than a cubic -blad-style mirrorslapper. That rumor about a Sony 50MP MF in a Mamiya 7 style body would be along my preferences. Zero slapping, zero vibration, zero noise. And more compact.
> 
> http://photorumors.com/2014/10/24/more-details-on-the-rumored-sonyzeiss-and-mamiya-medium-format-digital-rangefinder-cameras/


I'd just like sony to make a sony branded back for H-Series and Mamiya for the 8000$ price of the 645z. Then the system is modular and if you like mirrorless, they could make a mirrorless body for LF lenses like Phase1 did.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 26, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> As long as it is recognized that there is a huge difference between Canon *can't* build and Canon *choosing* not to build. I have not read anything that would indicate that Canon can't build a quality mirrorless system.



For completeness, also add *may not* ... for perhaps Canon doesn't own or have a license for a crucial patent.


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > As long as it is recognized that there is a huge difference between Canon *can't* build and Canon *choosing* not to build. I have not read anything that would indicate that Canon can't build a quality mirrorless system.
> ...




I don't think that Canon is lacking patentability to make a good mirrorless. I just think that the full potential for the mirrorless market is not all that well defined. Well, maybe it is well defined, that definition is not well recognized. I really don't want a microbody mirrorless. I don't know why that's where everyone went with the first rounds of mirrorless cameras. I want a DSLR-style body. That's one of the reasons I really like the NX1...it's basically a DSLR...just a small one and without the mirror. I would actually PREFER it be bigger, especially if I was going to use larger lenses on it (like the forthcoming 300mm f/2.8 Samsung supertele). 


If/when the DSLR manufacturers realize that there is potentially a huge market for mirrorless cameras that are not microscopic in size, then I think they will have nailed it. Even better, make a hybrid device...one that can operate mirrorless with an EVF if the user chooses, or switch back to mirrorslapping OVF mode on demand.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 26, 2014)

jrista said:


> ... I want a DSLR-style body.
> ... I really like the NX1...
> .. I would actually PREFER it be bigger, especially if I was going to use larger lenses on it (like the forthcoming 300mm f/2.8 Samsung supertele).
> ...
> Even better, make a hybrid device...one that can operate mirrorless with an EVF if the user chooses, or switch back to mirrorslapping OVF mode on demand.



Such a device would indeed be BIGGER. But you might still not like it, since it would be fairly top-heavy with a "really big hump" to accomodate both: [an even more more complex] viewfinder prism AND the EVF [panel+electronics].


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ... I want a DSLR-style body.
> ...




It depends on how you design it. You could simply have something like a shutter over the EVF screen, and just project it off the same prism as the mirror does, or something along those lines. It doesn't necessarily require a huge hump.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 26, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



Well it rather depends what you're shooting. Sport, birds in flight - you need good AF, high shutter speed. For landscapes, most macro, a lot of portraiture and even street work, AF is much less important, and image quality (which the full frame will trump the crop in many circumstances) comes to the fore.



Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



I think the analogy is flawed. Sure, wordprocessors (and then computers) replaces typewriters for most purposes. That doesn't mean your predictions about future camera technologies are proven. You're just saying what feels right to you, without providing evidence.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 26, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> This is an interesting time to be a photograph enthusiasts. The rapid developments in software and hardware of the mirror-less cameras is quite frankly amazing. It is not so interesting if you are Canon. They seem to be doing their own thing. The lack of interest (apparent or imaginary) or inability of Canon to change with the times is concerning. The half baked EOS M system which actual sells well in Japan is a poor excuse for a mirror-less system. It could even be forgiven if it was released around the same time as the Sony NEX system. But they learned nothing from Sony's early missteps. If the Rebel sales go to mirrorless Canon is poorly positioned. The camera market is shrinking. Canon could possibly profit by reducing the number of Rebel models to one. Consolidating features into fewer APC cameras. Lowering R&D cost.
> 
> I expect that Canon will eventual get mirror-less right. It could fill in the low end right along the Rebel cameras with one prosumer model (with EFV) so satisfy the critics. I do not thing they can do it without eating into there own Rebel sales. The question is when. I say get on with it already.
> 
> ...



As has been pointed out by a few of us, until and unless mirrorless gets the form factor and battery life we're used to in DSLRs, we're not interested


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

scyrene said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > This is an interesting time to be a photograph enthusiasts. The rapid developments in software and hardware of the mirror-less cameras is quite frankly amazing. It is not so interesting if you are Canon. They seem to be doing their own thing. The lack of interest (apparent or imaginary) or inability of Canon to change with the times is concerning. The half baked EOS M system which actual sells well in Japan is a poor excuse for a mirror-less system. It could even be forgiven if it was released around the same time as the Sony NEX system. But they learned nothing from Sony's early missteps. If the Rebel sales go to mirrorless Canon is poorly positioned. The camera market is shrinking. Canon could possibly profit by reducing the number of Rebel models to one. Consolidating features into fewer APC cameras. Lowering R&D cost.
> ...




Exactly! The technology is fine. It just needs to be stuffed into the right package.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 26, 2014)

scyrene said:


> As has been pointed out by a few of us, until and unless mirrorless gets the form factor and battery life we're used to in DSLRs, we're not interested


You and a few others may not be interested.
I and many others are. Looking forward to lighter, smaller gear that is more capable than older, larger, antiquated stuff. 

Sony A9 may come sooner than you think, and be bettet and smaller, too.


----------



## Sportsgal501 (Nov 26, 2014)

scyrene said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > As has been pointed out by a few of us, until and unless mirrorless gets the form factor and battery life we're used to in DSLRs, we're not interested
> ...


----------



## Robert Welch (Nov 26, 2014)

As far as I know, Canon is the leading camera maker in the world, so they are doing something right.

However, as with cars, there is a lot of competition and the differences between makers is not relatively great. In such a market, it's easy to quibble on various points, and make mountains out of mole hills. Not that all detractors are doing so. There are big things like the inferior dynamic range of Canon sensors when compared to Sony/Nikon cameras. Then there is the lack of competitive mirrorless lineup. However, the dual pixel sensor technology is way ahead of everyone else, and gives Canon a big advantage in the video market and will serve them well when they do produce a viable mirrorless product. So they are far from out of the game, but they are being pushed, and that is a good thing for us, the photographers who use their products.


----------



## jrista (Nov 26, 2014)

Robert Welch said:


> As far as I know, Canon is the leading camera maker in the world, so they are doing something right.
> 
> However, as with cars, there is a lot of competition and the differences between makers is not relatively great. In such a market, it's easy to quibble on various points, and make mountains out of mole hills. Not that all detractors are doing so. There are big things like the inferior dynamic range of Canon sensors when compared to Sony/Nikon cameras. Then there is the lack of competitive mirrorless lineup. However, the dual pixel sensor technology is way ahead of everyone else, and gives Canon a big advantage in the video market and will serve them well when they do produce a viable mirrorless product. So they are far from out of the game, but they are being pushed, and that is a good thing for us, the photographers who use their products.




It's only a good thing if Canon actually steps up to the plate they are being pushed towards. It should also be noted that DPAF-like technology (and some of it much more advanced) is already being patented by Canon's competitors...so the edge will not remain Canon's for long.


----------



## tcmatthews (Nov 27, 2014)

Sportsgal501 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > tcmatthews said:
> ...



Had to fix this because I do not like Giant 1D sized DSLR.  

I prefer smaller cameras like the 60D and 6D at the largest. But even they are a little large when traveling light. There is room for improvement in ergonomics in the Canon Rebel line cameras can be both small and ergonomic. Current Rebels are just to roundish. The EOS M would have been much better if it was a little longer. The battery was turned sideways (or made lager) and turned into a grip. 

I think that cameras are best when they can balance out with the lens. It is ridiculous to expect good ergonomics with a giant lens and a tiny camera. That said cameras like the Nex 6 are great with prime lens no longer than 135mm-200mm. 

The supper-telephoto lens user is always going to want something larger.


----------



## Marauder (Nov 27, 2014)

GraFax said:


> The trend in high end mirrorless cameras is that they are getting larger not smaller. The NX1, which I've used, isn't any smaller or lighter than a DSLR. I'd expect the A9 when it arrives to be similar. Although the small chassis MLC's generate a lot of "gee how'd they do that" buzz, the "lens with a camera attached" ergo's are off-putting for a lot of serious shooters. You may not agree, but that's what many think.
> 
> edit .. Interestingly, the only bundle that's available for the NX1 includes a battery grip. Doesn't sound to me like smaller and lighter is what they are going for.



Indeed! The small factor is fine for a street photographer's tool, which is why most mirroress cameras went with rangefinder style designs. Not an issue with a 25-50mm prime. But, when you start slapping on large glass the small factor advantage erodes an actually becomes a detriment. So, one of the commonly touted advantages of a MILC (small size and light weight) either becomes a detriment or you make your MILC the same size as a DSLR to improve large telephoto handling. Although you still have the other principal MILC advantage of seeing the exposure changes you make reflected in the EVF, the disadvantages of lag (especially under low light), lower quality view and higher battery consumption. MILC's are interesting cameras---but it's a huge mistake to assume they've rendered the classic DSLR obsolete. This is especially true for action/wildlife/sports shooting!!!


----------



## jocau (Nov 27, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > As has been pointed out by a few of us, until and unless mirrorless gets the form factor and battery life we're used to in DSLRs, we're not interested
> ...



Late January/begin February 2015 to be more precise (at least for the announcement, if we can rely on SonyAlphaRumors).


----------



## npherno (Nov 27, 2014)

Marauder said:


> GraFax said:
> 
> 
> > The trend in high end mirrorless cameras is that they are getting larger not smaller. The NX1, which I've used, isn't any smaller or lighter than a DSLR. I'd expect the A9 when it arrives to be similar. Although the small chassis MLC's generate a lot of "gee how'd they do that" buzz, the "lens with a camera attached" ergo's are off-putting for a lot of serious shooters. You may not agree, but that's what many think.
> ...



I think Canon does deserve some blame. Personally, I have grown to hate the stratification of their cameras, missing features and incremental updates.

I am not tied to a body. Bodies come and go. I don't care about if the camera is mirrorless or DSLR, I just want the best image quality, at a reasonable price. I would wait for Canon and the 5DIV but I think I will probably buy a A7S or A9 with an adapter when they arrive. If Canon releases a good product by the time I buy a new body, I will go back. Easy. For pro studio shoots, I don't see much an A7 series isn't great at.


----------



## Sportsgal501 (Nov 27, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> Sportsgal501 said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...


 ;D I like the Rebels size and I liked the idea of the 7D Mark II and was ready to get one until I held one, heavier than my 50D so I had to pass.


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 27, 2014)

Robert Welch said:


> As far as I know, Canon is the leading camera maker in the world, so they are doing something right.


That path of thinking can go horribly wrong - on the more graceful side GM's/big 3's market share hasn't recovered 40 years after relying on the trope, and how well Nokia handled similar disruptive changes in technology is in recent memory.


> However, the dual pixel sensor technology is way ahead of everyone else, and gives Canon a big advantage in the video market and will serve them well when they do produce a viable mirrorless product.


What are the practical implications of DPAF in comparison to the PDAF the others use? First you trade an already dense grid of cross type sensor points for a slightly denser array of linear type points. Second you need separate readouts for AF and image generation(otherwise you could use AF while recording HD60p video or during LV sequences). The latter part in it's full severity is a consequence of Canons readout pipeline, but you'd still feel some impact in any technology that uses also image data. Now what do you gain? The ability to track subjects that are only a few pixels across without relying on contrast and motion vectors. Yet you want those two data set for subject identification anyway, but preferable at the highest possible update frequency.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 27, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> Robert Welch said:
> 
> 
> > However, the dual pixel sensor technology is way ahead of everyone else, and gives Canon a big advantage in the video market and will serve them well when they do produce a viable mirrorless product.
> ...



Excellent points! That's where samsung's NX1 AF system seems to be way ahead. Even if DPAF certainly has further potential. But canon seems to not have solved as much in hardware and to rely more on software ... In which they are not necessarily the best and greatest either. Definitely canon has not yet been able to convert dpaf into a competitively fast live view AF system. Not in the 70D and not in the 7D II.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 27, 2014)

One slightly "larger" mirrorless entry does not make a trend yet. And compared to 7d ii the nx1 is still smallish. 
I understand that many regulars here often use long/large tele lenses eg for birding, wildlife - and therefore don't mind or prefer larger camera bodies.

I prefer cameras as small as possible for a given sensor size and control set/UI. I want to use only 1 universal camera. so that i am totally used to one user interface and can operate it "blindfolded".

When i go mountaineering or biking, i put a pancake lens on it and carry it in a small case on the left shoulder strap of my backpack - ready for immediate access. 

When i go for a street photography walk, i want to carry small camera plus small pancake in my hand (eos m + 22). 

When i am on a touristy, non-photo city trip i take it along in a small shoulder bag with pancake, kit zoom and wide zoom lens (eos m + 22 + 11-22 + 18-55), 

when i occasionally shoot a wedding or more often a concert i want to put a battery grip on for more ergonomical portrait shots and for more battery power and to provide better balance with larger f/2.8 zooms (eos m fails here), 

and when i ocassionally go to the zoo or to a national park i also put the grip on and the 100-400 II plus 1.4x converter ... Plus tripod.  

And if i were into video as well, i'd put the thing into some rig and set it on top of that tripod or on a slider or dolly or whatever. With or without vertical grip - depending on nature and duration of shoot.

All with one SMALL and LIGHT camera. 

You can always and easily make a small camera bigger and heavier. But you cannot make a large, heavy camera smaller and lighter. 







GraFax said:


> The trend in high end mirrorless cameras is that they are getting larger not smaller. The NX1, which I've used, isn't any smaller or lighter than a DSLR. I'd expect the A9 when it arrives to be similar. Although the small chassis MLC's generate a lot of "gee how'd they do that" buzz, the "lens with a camera attached" ergo's are off-putting for a lot of serious shooters. You may not agree, but that's what many think.
> 
> edit .. Interestingly, the only bundle that's available for the NX1 includes a battery grip. Doesn't sound to me like smaller and lighter is what they are going for.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 27, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> and when i ocassionally go to the zoo or to a national park i also put the grip on and the *100-400 II* plus 1.4x converter ... Plus tripod.


You already have a *100-400 II*? Would you mind to share some RAW samples?
 just kidding


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 27, 2014)

jrista said:


> I don't think that Canon is lacking patentability to make a good mirrorless.



For the sake of argument, let's consider the following: nearly every top-end "mirrorless" camera uses the EPSON EVF. I am quite sure that EPSON patented the little thing, so anyone who wants to use it must either buy the already manufactured units from EPSON, or purchase a license if they want to manufacture it themselves.

I have looked at the EVF's in the latest Canon "bridge" cameras and compared to the EPSON EVF they just plainly suck. So obviously Canon doesn't have the technology to make an EVF similar to the EPSON one.

This means that Canon must either develop their own EVF technology from scratch and do it in such a way that it doesn't infringe on EPSON's patent.

Or they can buy a license from EPSON. Now, in this regard it is wholly up to EPSON to grant such a license or not. And since both Canon and EPSON compete head-to-head in the printer market and since Canon is so fond of playing the patent game, maybe EPSON just simply refused to grant a license out of pure spite.

This then effectively leaves Canon without an EVF that is on par with that in the cameras of their competitors.

_(Of course, the above is all conjecture. But it is nonetheless a possibility.)_

*ADDITION:* I see that the new Canon C100 Mark II will have a 1.23 megapixel EVF. Compare this with the 2.36 megapixel EVF in the FUJIFILM X-T1 (made by EPSON).


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 27, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > [*sarcasm*]...[/*sarcasm*]
> ...



*sarcasm* = a taunt, a bitter or wounding remark, especially one *ironically* worded.

*irony* = expression of one's meaning by language of opposite or different tendency, especially mock adoption of another's view or tone.



scyrene said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > The moral of the story (regarding typewriters) is that one year you are on top of the world, selling thousands upon thousands of units, and the next year you sell nothing, and the year after that you file for bankruptcy. Good sales today doesn't necessarily mean good sales tomorrow.
> ...



I made no predictions about future camera technology. I merely proved that "[g]ood sales today doesn't necessarily mean good sales tomorrow".


----------



## sanj (Nov 27, 2014)

npherno said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > GraFax said:
> ...



Wow. Give me tips too.


----------



## sanj (Nov 27, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



Yes absolutely. Seen it happen in the past.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 27, 2014)

sanj said:


> Yes absolutely. Seen it happen in the past.



So what was it for you? One year people can't get enough of photographs about elephants and the next year you have to give them away with each photograph of meerkats, which people can't enough of.


----------



## jasny (Nov 27, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that Canon is lacking patentability to make a good mirrorless.
> ...



Canon G1 X II has optional 2.36 MPix EVF...


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 27, 2014)

jasny said:


> Canon G1 X II has optional 2.36 MPix EVF...



[cheesy]That EVF is probably just a rebranded Olympus VF-4 (which uses the EPSON EVF) ... they even look the same![/cheesy]


----------



## sanj (Nov 27, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Yes absolutely. Seen it happen in the past.
> ...



Never sold a photo in my life…. :-\


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 27, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > and when i ocassionally go to the zoo or to a national park i also put the grip on and the *100-400 II* plus 1.4x converter ... Plus tripod.
> ...



hehe you caught me there!  
No I do not have a 100-400 II. But if I *had* one, I *could* use it on my EOS-M. 
I *do use* my 70-200 II plus Extender 1.4x on the EOS-M ... sometimes. ;D 

And if Canon brings a worthwhile EOS-M3 Pro, I *may* buy it and if so, I *might* occassionally rent a 100-400 II ... 8)


----------



## scyrene (Nov 27, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > As has been pointed out by a few of us, until and unless mirrorless gets the form factor and battery life we're used to in DSLRs, we're not interested
> ...



More capable for some things, not for others, as we keep stressing. It's not antiquated just because it's not new. Some things work well for a long time.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 27, 2014)

Sportsgal501 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > tcmatthews said:
> ...


Sure. I accept that as I get older I may want to stop carrying big gear. I accept that may be the end of my bird photography, too. Unless there's some revolutionary technology - my lens accounts for around 4/5 of the weight of my usual setup. Even if smaller bodies were ergonomic (which as I say, I doubt), it's only shaving a small amount off the total.

I realise this has all been said above. We seem to be going in circles. It boils down to, naturally, your needs and expectations shape your view of them as a company. I guess I'm lucky in that my favourite areas are their strongest.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 27, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Sportsgal501 said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...


I'm older.... I know better.... and I am still hauling around a cedar-canvas canoe and the pelican case from hell... I guess I missed out on the wisdom that comes with age


----------



## Eldar (Nov 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Sportsgal501 said:
> ...


I'm older too ... I still hawl a 50 pound backpack with me, on long hikes in the mountains, including the 1DX/600mm and tripod. I believe I would have to be tied to a wheel chair or something similar, before I'd give up the ergonomics of a good SLR and my long whites. I have just held an A7r for the first time and to me, the view finder and ergonimics were total turn-offs.


----------



## dolina (Nov 28, 2014)

I think people just want to buy more toys that they can say is "superior" to the competition.

All I want is a 5D Mark IV that is equal in features and price to the Nikon & Sony full frame bodies that will come out in 2015.

Is that too hard to ask?


----------



## Eldar (Nov 28, 2014)

Back to the original question: Does Canon really deserve this? 

Well, today is Black Friday. I have seen numerous papers and web sites full of recommendations. Some dedicated to photography. 

One independent magazine, Lyd og Bilde, which is read by lots of people, both as a magazine, on their web and through Norway's biggest newspaper, just published their list of recommendations, ranging from compact to pro cameras, in 7 groups. For the first time ever (as far as I can remember) there is not one single Canon product listed. Nasty sales figures tend to follow advice like this.

So Canon, you're receiving some punches, because you deserve it. Make sure you fight back while you're still standing ...


----------



## sanj (Nov 28, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Back to the original question: Does Canon really deserve this?
> 
> Well, today is Black Friday. I have seen numerous papers and web sites full of recommendations. Some dedicated to photography.
> 
> ...



This is not good. But if they do not list 1dx in their 'pro' list then I do not think their list is of any substance. Hmmm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2014)

dolina said:


> All I want is a 5D Mark IV that is equal in features and price to the Nikon & Sony full frame bodies that will come out in 2015.
> 
> Is that too hard to ask?



So, you want Canon to make no improvements in some areas, and downgrade in others, so Nikon and Sony can catch up? ???


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > All I want is a 5D Mark IV that is equal in features and price to the Nikon & Sony full frame bodies that will come out in 2015.
> ...



hehehe ... if Canon ever manages a 5D IV with 36 MP sensor [and low ISO noise and all-over DR 8) matching Sony/Nikon], it would be OK for me, if Hi-ISO capability would make no progress over 5D III. ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 28, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...


It will be a new and revolutionary 1920x1080 sensor in the 5D IV... everyone knows that still pictures are dead and Canon won't put in 4K video 

Seriously though, I am sure the next camera will do some things better than the competition and some things worse. Whatever the mix is, lots of people will spend time and energy complaining that would have been better spent out taking pictures....


----------



## Eldar (Nov 28, 2014)

sanj said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Back to the original question: Does Canon really deserve this?
> ...


They only list one body alternative pr. group.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 28, 2014)

the new dpreview group comparisons look similar. Not one Canon camera on top in any group, from what I#ve seen on the quick.


----------



## sanj (Nov 28, 2014)

Eldar said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Could I request you for the link? Would love to know which 'pro' camera do they recommend.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 28, 2014)

sanj said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...


It is in Norwegian though. It only list 2014 releases. Best pro camera is Nikon D810 ("the amateur´s dream, the pro´s choice"). Link attached:

http://www.lydogbilde.no/nyheter/foto-video/ta-bedre-bilder

The interesting thing though, for someone like Canon, is that these articles have a very large audience and the readers expect this to be expert advice. And for all I know (I have the RX100 III, which is a phenomenal compact camera) it may also be good advice.

we


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 28, 2014)

see also Thom Hogan's choices ... of course he is certainly no friend of Canon ... but he also only recommends 1 Nikon and 3 Sony cameras.  http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/what-you-should-buy.html

"Best Compact": Sony RX-100 III 
"Best all around camera": Sony RX-10 
"Best all-around Mirrorless": Sony A6000
"Best all-around DSLR": Nikon D810


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2014)

Eldar said:


> It is in Norwegian though. *It only list 2014 releases.* Best pro camera is Nikon D810 ("the amateur´s dream, the pro´s choice"). Link attached:
> 
> http://www.lydogbilde.no/nyheter/foto-video/ta-bedre-bilder



Well, that makes the 'recommendations' completely useless as far as high-end cameras. But thanks for sharing. :


----------



## Eldar (Nov 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > It is in Norwegian though. *It only list 2014 releases.* Best pro camera is Nikon D810 ("the amateur´s dream, the pro´s choice"). Link attached:
> ...


No, it is not useless, because it is a reference for people thinking of buying into a camera system. And the advice they are getting does not include Canon. Whether you or I agree with their recommendations, is absolutely irrelevant. Ruling these lists in the past has been one of the main contributors to Canon´s previous success and now they´re gone.


----------



## Old Sarge (Nov 28, 2014)

Eldar said:


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


I think that the point Neuroanatomist is trying to make is that Canon did not release any "pro" cameras in 2014, they couldn't be on a list limited to "2014 releases." Had Canon released the 5DMkIV in 2014 and not made the list then it might be considered a bad sign. Not reading Norwegian (heck, still working on my native English) I don't know what the categories were but did Canon release any camera's in 2014 in time to be evaluated for this article that fit into any of the categories?


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 28, 2014)

Old Sarge said:


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


7D2?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2014)

Eldar said:


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



They're 'gone' because they didn't release a high-end dSLR in 2014. What was the 2013 pro recommendation...the D610? 

FWIW, Canon bodies still top several such lists.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> 7D2?





Old Sarge said:


> ... did Canon release any camera's in 2014 in time to be evaluated for this article that fit into any of the categories?



My take on this is either that a few "list compilers" view the 7D2 as unworthy, or that Canon's wonderful marketing dept. flubbed big on the release date of the 7D2, or both.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 7D2?
> ...



The 7DII first started shipping ~2 weeks before the article Eldar linked was published. If it didn't miss the cutoff date, that would mean the list most likely isn't based on actual experience with the cameras, but on theoretical reviews of specs. If that's the case, the list is even more useless. 

Did you just suggest that not releasing the 7DII in time for it to be reviewed for a 'best of' list published in Norway (a country with fewer people than any of the world's 40 most populous _cities_), and published in Norwegian at that, was a 'big flub' on Canon's part? Please try to get a grip on reality.


----------



## Old Sarge (Nov 28, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Old Sarge said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


I, personally, feel that the 7D, when introduced, and the 7DII are both marginally "pro" cameras (and I own one of each). And the release date was late enough that I didn't think it had time to be evaluated for this particular article (reason I said: in time to be evaluated). Also, because of my ignorance of Norwegian, I don't know what the criteria were.

BTW, when I read where you still drag around a wooden canoe and camera equipment I had to think to myself, "He is sure tougher than this old man."


----------



## Eldar (Nov 28, 2014)

The interesting thing about the article/list i referred to is the absence of Canon. They have not tested the 7DII and as far as I know they have not tested the D750 and certainly not the NX-1. I suppose all three will be candidates for next year and it may be that 7DII have a significant challenge (I am still waiting for mine by the way) ... But the ones included on the list have actually been tested. 

It is also true that we are only 5 million people in Norway. But you may want to check out what the buying power of the average Norwegian is (remove the 2-3% filthy rich in any country and you will not find any higher). You can continue on to check the saturation of cameras in this population and you´ll see interesting numbers. We are also early adopters, so equipment suppliers, like Canon, normally pay a lot of attention to how our market develops, because they are likely to see similar behavior elsewhere a little later.

But the point can be developed further, if you start searching the net for camera of the year, recommended cameras etc. Compared to what it used to be, very few Canon cameras appear on the lists you´ll find.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 28, 2014)

And, since we were into our small country, check out this and start planning for your next vacation 
http://www.boredpanda.com/norway-landscape-photography/


----------



## dak723 (Nov 28, 2014)

The constant negativity regarding Canon cameras and the over-the-top praise heaped on Sony, Samsung and Nikon might indeed have a negative impact on future Canon sales. People looking for recommendations, do get information from sites like this one. And that would be too bad. Because anyone buying a new camera might get the completely mistaken idea that Canon cameras can't produce excellent images. Plus, they will miss out on the information that Canon has a great reputation for reliability and perhaps the best system of lenses and accessories available.

So, to all the naysayers who continue to bash Canon and hope for their demise. Be careful, you might get what you want - a company that drops in popularity, loses money, and can no longer spend money on improvements and innovation. Perhaps they will go under completely by 2020! I know you will all be so happy then! Keep up the good work trying to ruin things for the rest of us!


----------



## Old Sarge (Nov 28, 2014)

Eldar said:


> And, since we were into our small country, check out this and start planning for your next vacation
> http://www.boredpanda.com/norway-landscape-photography/



I really didn't need another vacation spot to add to my (long) list. Certainly a beautiful place with a variety of areas to visit. Maybe someday if I live long enough.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 28, 2014)

Eldar said:


> And, since we were into our small country, check out this and start planning for your next vacation
> http://www.boredpanda.com/norway-landscape-photography/



Wow, what a place ! Thanks for posting the link.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 28, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2014)

Eldar said:


> But the point can be developed further, if you start searching the net for camera of the year, recommended cameras etc. Compared to what it used to be, very few Canon cameras appear on the lists you´ll find.



Keep in mind that most such lists are not created by altruistic, unbiased people/organizations. The vast majority exist to earn revenue from affiliate-linked purchases. The longer a camera has been on the market, the more potential buyers already own one. Therefore, recommending the newest cameras in a given segment is 'enlightened self-interest' from a financial standpoint. 

For each major FF 'pairing' from a couple of years ago (1D X/D4, 5DIII/D800, 6D/D600), Nikon has released a recent update, and Nikon added the D750 to the mix. We can speculate on why (except for the D610, which it's pretty evident was released to fix the D600 oil-spot-banned-from-sale-in-China debacle), but regardless the fact is Nikon's FF lineup is 'fresher'. That doesn't mean it's selling better, but it does mean it's more likely to be recommended by those with a bias, namely financial gain from affiliate links.


----------



## CANONisOK (Nov 28, 2014)

Eldar said:


> And, since we were into our small country, check out this and start planning for your next vacation
> http://www.boredpanda.com/norway-landscape-photography/


Excellent reference! I just moved to Stavanger this week and can't wait to start checking out the sights in this region.


----------



## meywd (Nov 28, 2014)

Eldar said:


> And, since we were into our small country, check out this and start planning for your next vacation
> http://www.boredpanda.com/norway-landscape-photography/



Thanks for sharing, you live in a very beautiful country, do you need software developers there?


----------



## RobertP (Nov 29, 2014)

I checked out the Sony A7 lineup on the internet last night. I couldn't find a single lens I would actually want to pair with the camera. The native lens lineup appears to be three zooms and an expensive prime. If I wanted a Sony sensor tomorrow then I'd buy a Nikon D750 or D810 and some Nikon lenses. I wouldn't be willing to buy in to the Sony system just yet.

I'm tempted by the D750 but the warning about not getting the cables wet puts me off. We get more than our fair share of rain in Britian but we do have a lot of coastline that I'm hoping to explore next year. I'm reluctant to buy a camera that I can only take out when the sun is shining and the sea is calm.

At the moment I have the purchase of a 7D Mark II pencilled in for next Spring ...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 29, 2014)

dak723 said:


> People looking for recommendations, do get information from sites like this one.



I doubt too many people come to a rumor site for information on their purchasing. The would go to a review site of which there are plenty. Also, I doubt anyone would base their purchasing decision on one or two threads on the entire forum. There are plenty of fanboy threads here to advertise Canon products. 

I would not worry about Canon's future based on this website.... I am sure Canon isn't either.


----------



## sanj (Nov 29, 2014)

Eldar said:


> And, since we were into our small country, check out this and start planning for your next vacation
> http://www.boredpanda.com/norway-landscape-photography/



I just spent an hour on Google checking out Norway. It is on my bucket list now.


----------



## rainless (Nov 29, 2014)

Hey there! First time poster, long-time reader (as long as this forum has existed).

My take on it is that... Canon still makes great cameras. The 70D is a great camera. The 7DII is a great camera.

But beyond *just* making a great camera... they've really failed to innovate.

At this point Canon should've had 4k in a DSLR before anybody. They should definitely have had something out to compete with the Black Magic section (or at least have added the ability to shoot RAW video natively in the firmware on the 5D, 6D, and 7D cameras), and they really need a compact solution to the hell that Sony's about to rain on them with the A7ii line.

I think the problem isn't, so much, that Canon has done anything "wrong"... they just need more cameras to cover a broader and more divergent user base.

It isn't just "pros and consumers" anymore. There are a wide variety of people out there with specific needs. There's a customer out there who's looking for exactly something like an a6000. There are budget videographers looking for something exactly like a GH4. And all the pros are going nuts over the A7S.

Canon has the technology to build a camera at each of these levels. Sony not including in-body 4k leaves the door wide-open for Canon to make a camera that competes better with the GH4 (before Nikon throws one up there). And the 6D is way overdue for a refresh (Nikon has already had the 600, 610, and now the 750 while Canon has been stuck in neutral.)

They need more full-frame solutions, more compact solutions, and their video performance is long overdue for some new codecs and upgrades and 4k definitely wouldn't hurt them as it's quickly becoming the standard. Just throw it in there before Nikon does and everybody will be happy.


----------



## Synkka (Nov 29, 2014)

One thing I don't understand is if you have the established position that there are better sensors in the market, why are you still using canon?
I know some people have a significant investment already in Canon and that is why they don't swap, but I am quite confused why many people who seem to be unhappy with canon gear continue to use and post on this forum, particularly stating how the next competitor camera is the best etc and they will be swapping.
Is the reason you are still here because of Canon gear in some way or another?


----------



## Eldar (Nov 29, 2014)

Synkka said:


> One thing I don't understand is if you have the established position that there are better sensors in the market, why are you still using canon?
> I know some people have a significant investment already in Canon and that is why they don't swap, but I am quite confused why many people who seem to be unhappy with canon gear continue to use and post on this forum, particularly stating how the next competitor camera is the best etc and they will be swapping.
> Is the reason you are still here because of Canon gear in some way or another?


If all lenses were made with a universal mount, then a lot of people would have used a lot of different cameras. But since we´re sitting with so much invested in EF lenses, we´re also stuck with the cameras with EF mount.

I also think it is worth repeating that most of us are very happy with most of what a Canon body delivers, including build quality, ergonomics, AF and their CPS service, to mention a few. But knowing that there are significantly better sensors out there, we want to see the same performance from a Canon sensor. 

I don´t believe you'll find very many real Canon bashers on this forum, but you´ll find quite a few who are getting a bit impatient, having waited for a new high resolution, improved DR, improved low ISO noise sensor for a bit too long.


----------



## sanj (Nov 29, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Synkka said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I don't understand is if you have the established position that there are better sensors in the market, why are you still using canon?
> ...



Very well said.


----------



## rainless (Nov 29, 2014)

Eldar said:


> If all lenses were made with a universal mount, then a lot of people would have used a lot of different cameras. But since we´re sitting with so much invested in EF lenses, we´re also stuck with the cameras with EF mount.
> 
> I also think it is worth repeating that most of us are very happy with most of what a Canon body delivers, including build quality, ergonomics, AF and their CPS service, to mention a few. But knowing that there are significantly better sensors out there, we want to see the same performance from a Canon sensor.
> 
> I don´t believe you'll find very many real Canon bashers on this forum, but you´ll find quite a few who are getting a bit impatient, having waited for a new high resolution, improved DR, improved low ISO noise sensor for a bit too long.



You really hit the nail on the head. I *love* canon bodies. But the fact that they're always so slow to innovate is really irritating.

I remember choosing my first pro DSLR. I tested out the grips and build quality of ever camera that existed, and Canon was far and away the best. That's still the same today (though the D750 is pretty... damned... good.)

I mean Magic Lantern was basically invented by frustrated Canon users. It says a lot that they're still the biggest alt camera firmware out there.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 29, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Yay! That gives me hope


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 29, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I don´t believe you'll find very many real Canon bashers on this forum, but you´ll find *quite a few who are getting a bit impatient*, having waited for a new high resolution, improved DR, improved low ISO noise sensor for a bit too long.



True, although one could expand considerably on the list of examples you gave there.


----------



## tcmatthews (Nov 29, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Will you stop miss quoting me already.  scyrene said that. I am more than happy to sacrifice some ergonomics for a lighter package. As for shot per battery. Never really an issue even with mirror-less. I not shooting birds or sports for current mirror-less. So 200-300 shots is more than enough for most people. You can break you back or hire a mule if you want. 

For me the size of a 1D is an ergonomic turn off. It is simple to large for my short fat fingers. So for each their own.


----------



## Sella174 (Nov 29, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> As for shot per battery.



The counter on my FUJIFILM X-T1 stands at 2247 and I just recharged the battery for the fifth time (including the initial charging when purchased.) This averages to 561 photos per charge. And I use the EVF 90% of the time ...


----------



## scyrene (Nov 29, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Haha sorry to include you in the endless nested quotes. There's room for both types of gear. That's one reason I got an EOS-M, for social events where a DSLR is too big. But for birding, it's hard to part with the big stuff.


----------



## tcmatthews (Nov 29, 2014)

scyrene said:


> tcmatthews said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...


I do not relay mind being in endless nested quotes but Sportsgal501 hacked up the quotes. I kept seeing your comment attributed to me over and over again. That is a little annoying.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 29, 2014)

tcmatthews said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > tcmatthews said:
> ...



Oh right! Sorry. I doubt anyone else has followed this far anyway


----------



## slclick (Nov 29, 2014)

time for an ad nauseum lock


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Nov 29, 2014)

slclick said:


> time for an ad nauseum lock



Too true!


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 30, 2014)

dilbert said:


> * A number of CR regulars likely have EF-S lenses that will become worthless if Canon dumps APS-C DSLRs



Not at all. There's no reason a mirrorless full-frame camera can't support APS-C lenses just like Nikon full-frame cameras do. For that matter, there's no reason a full-frame DSLR can't support APS-C lenses; it just requires some cleverness in the way you swing the mirror so that it doesn't hit the back end of the 10–22. 

Heck, if you built a perfect enough mirror, you could probably get away with swiveling the mirror at the middle and putting the sensor on the bottom, facing up, which would be about as simple as current DSLRs. But if you insist upon keeping the mirror out of the sensor's optical path, you can do a slide and pivot.




dilbert said:


> * If Canon dumps APS-C DSLRs then the only DSLRs that Canon will sell are the more expensive full frame DSLRs that not everyone can afford



The main reason APS sensors are so expensive is that the economies of scale aren't there. Ramp it up to Rebel levels of production, and I doubt it would make a hundred dollars difference in the price.




dilbert said:


> * Dumping APS-C would mean that FF DSLRs are required for the full pricing spectrum, devaluing the equipment owned by various people.



If you don't cannibalize yourself....




dilbert said:


> * Dumping APS-C would mean people need high megapixel cameras (anyone for 50MP?) to deliver similar pixel density to the 7D2 and more MP = more expensive camera



Maybe, but if they would upgrade their fab equipment to something capable of producing smaller features (which they'll probably have to do eventually anyway when they catch up with the rest of the world and move to BSI), I'd expect the resulting improvement in accuracy to increase yield at the same time. So there's a decent chance that it would actually be cheaper, even after factoring in the equipment costs.




AvTvM said:


> Panasonic apparently just filed a patent in Japan for a new flash/accessory-shoe hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder.
> http://photorumors.com/2014/11/24/panasonic-patented-an-external-hybrid-evf-and-ovf-viewfinder/



A rangefinder OVF? That's about as useful as mammary glands on a masculine Sus domesticus. 




AvTvM said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Even better, make a hybrid device...one that can operate mirrorless with an EVF if the user chooses, or switch back to mirrorslapping OVF mode on demand.
> ...



Not necessarily. If your mirror is reflective on both sides, you could design the camera to use the mirror in all photographs, with the mirror pivoting in the center. Then, place the sensor at the bottom, facing up. Place the LCD at the back of the camera, facing towards the lens. When taking a picture, or when in live view mode, flip it so that the mirror reflects light from the lens down into the sensor, and from the LCD panel up into the OVF. 




scyrene said:


> As has been pointed out by a few of us, until and unless mirrorless gets the form factor and battery life we're used to in DSLRs, we're not interested



Of course, if you take that to extremes, mirrorless will never happen, because OVFs will always provide a battery life benefit for a given battery size. 




rainless said:


> I think the problem isn't, so much, that Canon has done anything "wrong"... they just need more cameras to cover a broader and more divergent user base.



Actually, I'd argue quite the opposite. Canon makes too many cameras. They've spread themselves too thin, and thus can only afford to turn over their core product lines every three or four years. If they adopted a more Apple-like approach—building a smaller number of devices that each were more capable, they'd be able to target the broader, more divergent user base just as easily, but with lower R&D cost per unit.

And more importantly, more and more people want hardware that can serve more than one purpose. That's why you see people using cell phones for photography instead of point-and-shoot cameras. The more a product line becomes specialized, the worse it will do in a modern market.

What Canon should be making right now is four cameras:


Entry-level crop body (Rebel) at about $700
Mid-range full-frame body (6D upgraded with the 5D Mark III's focus sensor) at about $1,400
High-end full-frame body (high-MP version of the 1DX), at about $2,500.
Full-frame or crop mirrorless

That's it. The 1DX/5D Mark III replacement (and optionally the 6D replacement) should be metal; the others should be plastic. All four bodies should have the same basic core feature set—Wi-Fi, GPS, RF flash triggering, articulating screen, and DPAF—and the same menu system. That way, the main board and operating system could be identical across models released at about the same time, while driving different outboard sensor assemblies and focus sensors. The top model should also have the fast focus drive feature.

The cost savings from cutting out half their models would translate into being able to update every model at least twice as often, which would significantly improve sales to non-pro consumers, resulting in better economies of scale, allowing for a price reduction. And that price reduction at the high end would then allow some of the current mid-range bodies to go away without hurting sales significantly.

In particular, by pulling the high-MP 1D body down to the 5D Mark III's price range, there would be no reason to ever develop a 7D Mark III or a 5D Mark IV. Similarly, by pulling the focusing system from the 5D Mark III into the 6D, it would then be a great step-up body from the consumer crop body line.

More importantly, this would remove the motivation for unnecessary feature fragmentation that Canon has exhibited so badly as of late, where one moderately low-end body has GPS, one low-end body has Wi-Fi, one low-to-medium-end body has both, and the high-end bodies have neither. It would eliminate the reason for putting craptastic focus sensors in the 6D because there would be no second high-end body (5D) to compete with. Basically, this would solve everything that's wrong with Canon's lineup today, IMO.


----------



## jrista (Nov 30, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...




That idea is even better!  Either way, however you do it, there are ways of fitting an EVF into a camera with a standard mirror-slapping OVF. I'll take it however it's designed.


----------

