# What if Canon were no longer #1?



## Mikehit (Dec 18, 2017)

Just supposin'....

Talking to a third party rep yesterday and he was saying that there are some new marketing figures coming out showing that Canon are no longer #1 for FF camera sales. Apparently this was sales based on profit, not shipping and Sony had taken #1. Though not sure if it was Japan, Asia or global.
The problem with marketing is that you can spin the numbers a lot of different ways but this really would mark a significant turnaround in the market, and the fact that (if true) Sony could get anywhere near this would be a surprise at this time. But it will be interesting to see what comes out in the next few days.

So what do you think is the likelihood of this actually happening?


----------



## BasXcanon (Dec 18, 2017)

Uhmmmm at that moment...... everyone's gonna sell it all..........
11-24mm L for 600$ listed on Ebay, 200-400mm F4 for 1000$ and many more for me.

Oh and metabones EF to E mount Version 6 will be 2k $ of course.....


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 18, 2017)

No-one cares.

Canon has the best glass and the most reliable system as a whole. That’s not changing.


----------



## brad-man (Dec 18, 2017)

It wouldn't matter to me, but it would matter to Canon. Perhaps they would release some of that tech in the patents they're sitting on. Competition is always good.


----------



## LDS (Dec 18, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> So what do you think is the likelihood of this actually happening?



I suppose Sony is reiterating its sales figures from NPD Group’s Retail Tracking Service, as it did in April, when it said it had overtaken Nikon.

So probably a US thing, and limited to the NPD survey capabilities - participating retailers.

Even so, would it matter to your photo? Will your gear suddenly stops working, or will deliver worse images? It doesn't look photos taken with Nikon gear got worse since Sony boasted it got before Nikon.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 18, 2017)

I Don't buy it. I work on a tourist Island that get anywhere from 500-2000 tourists a day(predominantly chinese but a mix of all nationalities). Sony A series cameras are the least common cameras I see. By a long margin. Maybe a half dozen a day compared to dozens of canon and Nikon full frames and scores of canon and Nikon entry levels. I am guessing if the figures are accurate they are very specific and limited.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 18, 2017)

LDS said:


> Even so, would it matter to your photo? Will your gear suddenly stops working, or will deliver worse images? It doesn't look photos taken with Nikon gear got worse since Sony boasted it got before Nikon.



It doesn't matter to me at all - I buy gear to do what I want it to do. Why do you assume I am worried my gear is any good? This was a question about peoples' view of the market, not the worthiness of gear.
I find that when numbers come out there is all sort of criticism of the numbers and retrenchment of biases, so I thought is interesting to ask the question from a slightly different angle and have a look-see at what people think about the possibility, and if any numbers do suggest such a significant change.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 18, 2017)

I'm sure some day it will be true but not today.
Canon has been very successful with its incremental upgrade model and its excellent glass.
Sony are getting more serious about glass and have the full frame mirrorless cornered at the moment.

I think mirrorless is the future so Canon need to bring a good model to the market.
The M series might be good now but it didn't start well it put me off ever trying it.
It could also be the case that if the rest of Sony is not doing well their camera section could be squeezed. That's not the case today but you never know.
Canon is a more steady eddie.
They are a bit of a Nokia like company.


----------



## PavelR (Dec 18, 2017)

I bought my brand new Canon camera several years ago 1DIV. Then 1DsIII [second hand] later and I've bought two Sony FF bodies this year. I do not think I'm the only one...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2017)

I heard Fuji was #1 at the Best Buy store in Long Beach, CA during the month of October.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 18, 2017)

brad-man said:


> It wouldn't matter to me, but it would matter to Canon. Perhaps they would release some of that tech in the patents they're sitting on. Competition is always good.



This


----------



## dak723 (Dec 18, 2017)

Wouldn't matter to me one bit. Not sure why it matters to anyone - as long as Canon stays in business and does well enough to continue to put out products. And it f they didn't - then I will get a photo equipment camera from some other company if and when my stuff no longer works. Already have one Olympus to go along with my one Canon camera. The fact that people root for companies as if they were sports teams competing against one another is so ludicrous that I want to yell "Grow up" every time I see the various trolls and fanboy comments that dominate the internet.


----------



## Talys (Dec 18, 2017)

If we're just talking FF cameras, I'd be pretty surprised. I rarely see a Sony FF anywhere other than in a camera shop store, and most of them don't even present them out of the box, the way they do with every Canon and Nikon body. 

For myself, it wouldn't matter. The usability of the Sony bodies would have to double and the price of top-end Sony glass would need to drop by half for me to seriously consider it to replace Canon. Since I don't think that's going to happen any time soon, Canon is pretty safe, for me.

There are some things that would preclude me from buying a current Sony $3000+ body -- some are features, like the lack of gaskets and any weather sealing beyond "tight fit". Now, I'm a fairweather guy, but I'm not going to buy a top shelf body without. And some are design: I'm not going to spend $10,000+ just to get started with a system that I really don't enjoy using.

If Nikon had a couple of missing/upgraded lenses, I'd think that I'd consider the D850 -- except in reality I wouldn't, because everything is backwards, and it's just too painful to make that switch again. I switched once from Nikon, and getting used to the backwards thing was not fun.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 18, 2017)

"What if Canon were no longer #1" in sales????

I'd still be extremely happy with the pictures I am taking with my 5DIV, M3, G7XII, and ~$15,000 of glass and accessories I own.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 18, 2017)

Slim and none. The rep must have smuggled some "Grape Stomper" weed out of my state of Nevada.


----------



## aceflibble (Dec 18, 2017)

Couldn't give a rat's arse. Are you under the impression that Nikon and Fuji users are walking around with glum expressions, not even bothering to take any photos because they're only #2?


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 18, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> Couldn't give a rat's arse. Are you under the impression that Nikon and Fuji users are walking around with glum expressions, not even bothering to take any photos because they're only #2?



Why would you even think I thought that? Is that fact that someone told me something you don't agree with so unsettling.
All I asked was what people thought of the possibility that the market leader has been usurped.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 18, 2017)

It would make a big difference, but not in the way anyone here is thinking.

Until I started reading this forum, I didn't even know Canon was No. 1. I bought my first Canon back in the 1970s, when Nikon was No. 1 for pros and Pentax had the bulk of the amateur market. I bought Canon because I couldn't afford Nikon at the time and Canon was of near equal quality. I was surprised when I started following this forum and learned that Canon had overtaken Nikon and was even more surprised at how much that seemed to matter to so many people.

Anyway -- here is why it would matter. If Canon lost the top slot in sales it would mean they seriously misread the market. It would mean that mirrorless sales are far stronger than anyone predicted. That would indicate a failure on their part that would no doubt lead to some serious changes in the company management. It could mean that investors might sell off some of their Canon stock or at least buy less stock, which in turn could lower stock prices and reduce the amount of capital available to the company.

It would introduce a level of uncertainty that might prompt the company to cut expenses, scale back certain lines and concentrate on the portions of its business that are more predictable and profitable . So yes, it would matter.

But, of course, sales reps are notoriously uninformed and unreliable so I doubt if the source of this claim has any real knowledge of the market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Anyway -- here is why it would matter. If Canon lost the top slot in sales it would mean they seriously misread the market. It would mean that mirrorless sales are far stronger than anyone predicted.



Does that holds true, given that this bit of information (if correct) applies specifically to _full frame_ ILCs?


----------



## unfocused (Dec 18, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway -- here is why it would matter. If Canon lost the top slot in sales it would mean they seriously misread the market. It would mean that mirrorless sales are far stronger than anyone predicted.
> ...



What do you think? Since we are dealing with purely speculative and no doubt false information, it's a little crazy to even speculate. In this theoretical example, which I don't believe for a minute is correct, I do think it would be an indication that Canon at a minimum underestimated the rate of adoption of mirrorless technology for full frame cameras. 

Whether or not that would have a major impact on sales or profits, I don't know. But certainly, Canon's management would be asking how and why they had misread the market.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 18, 2017)

If this is...

1) ...coming from a selected slice of data in a selected quarter for selected products by a third party salesman I spoke to once- Zzzzzz. End the thread. Canon will plug away until a demonstrable loss of share (or threat to loss of share) surfaces.

2) ...showing a clear trend of units leaving Canon and headed to a competitor (i.e. not an overall market depression, but an actual movement of unit share), Canon would undoubtedly respond with whatever missing piece was driving the loss of share. But such moves wouldn't be overnight. See how long Canon took to respond to on-chip ADC on sensors (a few years)*, how long until EOS M arrived*, how long we are still waiting for FF mirrorless, etc. 

* Let the record show we got such things even though Canon _didn't_ lose share. 

But if you're looking for some 'if sales turn sour, Canon has to have a come to [deity of your choice] moment and realize the deep-seeded ills of not pleasing its forum-dwelling enthusiast userbase with things they want really baaaaaadly', please drive on. _*Canon doesn't scratch itches.*_ Canon keeps you from getting itchy in the first place with a broad range of products that simply work.

- A


----------



## Otara (Dec 18, 2017)

It doesnt matter much to me in that overall I think we're in a fairly mature market, and I dont feel particularly brand loyal if any company came out with a compelling alternative.

If wildlife photography died as an interest area and equipment focussed on doing well at that went out of vogue or drastically increased in price, that would worry me more.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 18, 2017)

To the original point: if Canon wasn't #1, I'd chuck all my Canon gear in the trash and buy the new #1 brand. After all, #1 is the best...


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 18, 2017)

If Canon were no longer #1, then my main camera would be an Olympus TG-5.... I would carry my Canon gear as backup....


----------



## AlanF (Dec 18, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> If Canon were no longer #1, then my main camera would be an Olympus TG-5.... I would carry my Canon gear as backup....


The TG5 is damn good - I bought one for my granddaughter.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 18, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon were no longer #1, then my main camera would be an Olympus TG-5.... I would carry my Canon gear as backup....
> ...


Can't do this with my 7D2..... OK, could do it once.... if I was real fast.... but not a second time.....


----------



## ritholtz (Dec 19, 2017)

I will delete my account here and join sonyrumors forum. What is the point in reading no 2 brand rumors.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 19, 2017)

"So what do you think is the likelihood of this actually happening?"

Next year when Sony releases 400f2.8, 600f4, 200-600mm, 200f1.8 and 135f1.8 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 19, 2017)

ritholtz said:


> I will delete my account here and join sonyrumors forum. What is the point in reading no 2 brand rumors.



And think of poor Neuro..... he will have search out and delete 10,000 posts that say canon is best and the sales prove it!


----------



## slclick (Dec 19, 2017)

Don't mess with the best cuz the best don't mess


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 19, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > I will delete my account here and join sonyrumors forum. What is the point in reading no 2 brand rumors.
> ...



YAPODFN.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 19, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> I heard Fuji was #1 at the Best Buy store in Long Beach, CA during the month of October.



But only for one hour on one day.


----------



## slclick (Dec 19, 2017)

I read that Canon is ******* over on the MFT Rumors forum, so I bought an M5 to help out.


----------



## Woody (Dec 19, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> Why would you even think I thought that? Is that fact that someone told me something you don't agree with so unsettling.
> All I asked was what people thought of the possibility that the market leader has been usurped.



From Thom Hogan's latest post on *16-Dec-2017*:

"The rest of the world should be glad that Canon's management tells the design boys to cool it every time the market share hits 50%."
- http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-year-end-comparitor.html


----------



## Woody (Dec 19, 2017)

slclick said:


> I read that Canon is ******* over on the MFT Rumors forum, so I bought an M5 to help out.



By Thom Hogan:

"M5 or A6xxx?
M5. Oh dear. Did I just hear my Inbox fill up with Sony fan hate mail? 

This is a far tougher call than it at first seems, yet the analysis ends up clearly in Canon's favor when the dust clears.

The Sony cameras tend to be technical wizards. That Sony packs all that they do in the little A6xxx bodies is remarkable, but that isn't without consequences. We've had heat issues at times. The offset EVF makes for a strange and awkward hold on such a small body. We've got Sony's Tiny Buttons to deal with again (did someone give Sony a special break on buttons, as long as they come in Small?). 

Meanwhile, Canon made the smallest DSLR you've ever seen. It holds like a DSLR, it shoots like a DSLR (even has a DSLR sensor), and it is controlled like a DSLR. They just put the already small SL2 into a shrink ray machine, tweaked a couple of things, and ended up with what has to be the smallest APS-C camera that handles well. 

No, the focus speed isn't Sony wiz-fast. No, the frame rates aren't Sony wiz-fast. No, the deep shadows aren't Sony wiz-post processable. No, there isn't 4K video. No, no, no. 

*And yet, the M5 is an example of where the sum of the parts is greater than the sum of the parts, while the Sony A6xxx bodies tend to be the sum of the parts coming up as less than the sum of the parts.* You're not going to get any Cool Cred shooting the Canon. You're going to be called old and boring. Not hip with it."

- http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-year-end-comparitor.html


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 19, 2017)

Woody said:


> From Thom Hogan's latest post on *16-Dec-2017*:
> 
> "The rest of the world should be glad that Canon's management tells the design boys to cool it every time the market share hits 50%."
> - http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-year-end-comparitor.html



And apparently Canon sells an EF-M 22mm f/2.8! And STM is all you need for a perfect lens! Who knew?

- A


----------



## ritholtz (Dec 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > From Thom Hogan's latest post on *16-Dec-2017*:
> ...


He might be referring to EF-M 22mm f/2. Please Canon, make one for SL2 users. Some one spending lot of time on DPR is bound to havev these pipe dreams about Sony or Nikon overtaking Canon. In reality, Canon is going to steadily increase mirror-less market share.


----------



## greger (Dec 19, 2017)

If Canon was number 2, so what! I have been shooting Canon science 1974. I can only afford to upgrade my camera body. I like my lenses too much to switch. My 17-85 improves with each new body. I want a 18-135 when it packs it in, but for now it’s fine seeing I use my 100-400 most of the time. I like to shoot BIF.


----------



## tron (Dec 19, 2017)

ritholtz said:


> I will delete my account here and join sonyrumors forum. What is the point in reading no 2 brand rumors.


That would be interesting only if you started criticizing sony that they are not good enough and they are ******* if they do not do ... <filler here> ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Besisika (Dec 19, 2017)

unfocused said:


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


+1
Personally, I don't care whether they are #1 or not. I am not a shareholder. As long as they produce gear that does the job for me I am good. Nevertheless, that would indeed wake them up a bit, and who knows we may get better gear than we already have.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 19, 2017)

While entertaining, and thats one of the forum purposes, it brings to mind the post last year by a member with supposedly inside information saying that all future Canon cameras would be mirrorless, and he had it from someone inside Canon who knew for sure. It received a similar response. A 7D MK III is coming, will it be mirrorless?


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 19, 2017)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> While entertaining, and thats one of the forum purposes, it brings to mind the post last year by a member with supposedly inside information saying that all future Canon cameras would be mirrorless, and he had it from someone inside Canon who knew for sure. It received a similar response. A 7D MK III is coming, will it be mirrorless?



One of the guys in my camera club had a mirrorless 60D.... He sent it back and they gave him another.....


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 19, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > While entertaining, and thats one of the forum purposes, it brings to mind the post last year by a member with supposedly inside information saying that all future Canon cameras would be mirrorless, and he had it from someone inside Canon who knew for sure. It received a similar response. A 7D MK III is coming, will it be mirrorless?
> ...



;D I had a 5 series mirrorless for a while. Didn't like it !


----------



## SkynetTX (Dec 19, 2017)

I always liked the questions beginning with "What if ...". What if the 1200D were FullFrame? What if I stayed home the day I took a shot of a spider eating a wasp? What if I already had a telephoto lens when I was visiting Switzerland this summer? What if a meteor didn't hit the Earth about 65 million years ago? Who cares?
Currently Canon is the best in any way. Of course, they could have even better bodies and lenses as well as a better service for the Gallery, but as long as the current gear works and does the job well, no one cares if they are #1 in sales or not.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 19, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> What if a meteor didn't hit the Earth about 65 million years ago?



Then we would have a bunch of T-rex's on the forum complaining about the size of the grip on Sony cameras..... a grip that was obviously designed for Godzilla!


----------



## Quirkz (Dec 19, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> _*Canon doesn't scratch itches.*_ Canon keeps you from getting itchy in the first place with a broad range of products that simply work.



This is beautiful. Or something. Well at least it made me laugh.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 20, 2017)

Quirkz said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > _*Canon doesn't scratch itches.*_ Canon keeps you from getting itchy in the first place with a broad range of products that simply work.
> ...



I honestly liken Canon to Honda -- but in some alternate universe where all the other car manufacturers are trying to build (I don't know) Pontiacs. Everyone is selling the vroom, 'doesn't it feel exciting?', etc. yet there goes Canon, putt-putt-putting away and never breaking down on you.

Canon: No alarms and no surprises since forever.

- A


----------



## stevelee (Dec 20, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> I heard Fuji was #1 at the Best Buy store in Long Beach, CA during the month of October.



Canon is *******!


----------



## jayphotoworks (Dec 20, 2017)

stevelee said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I heard Fuji was #1 at the Best Buy store in Long Beach, CA during the month of October.
> ...



Companies that are not in 1st place tend to be willing to take more risks. Consider GoPro. Currently, they are not in an enviable situation right now with competitors like SJ and Yi taking a chunk out of their action camera market. Their drone entry failed right out of the gate and they have now turned into alternative markets like VR in their attempt to stay relevant. I expect they might have to really redefine their next Hero camera or make inroads into other ventures to expect to stay around in the next few years. 

I actually picked up GoPro's new VR camera and although I've had a number of lower end consumer VR cameras previously, some of these new options have improved significantly in terms of features and resolution (5K+). At the same time, consumer grade VR has become more accessible and I ended up also getting a Windows MR headset combo and shortly afterwards I was enjoying some of the content I shot without tinkering with settings. It just worked. Time will tell whether or not VR will make an impact this consumer cycle or fade away like the last 3D cycle did. I must have only watched 10 shows on my 70" 3D I got 6 years ago.

How is this relevant? Years ago, Canon's 5D2 changed my perspective in video production and steered me down a viable path for additional revenue generation. I haven't seen anything quite so groundbreaking from Canon since then because they really haven't taken any more risks in the market. Actually, they decided to regress and create a separate product line for video entirely and strip away these features via product differentiation from their still cameras. As we all know, video production took off and is a big deal today, but it could have easily gone the other way.

In the past, I blamed Sony for its checkered history in consumer electronics and stayed mostly clear of their products. Whether it was their induced format wars, to their lens mount fiasco or frequent planned obsolescence or abandonment, I was not inclined to tread into Sony's ecosystem at all. They almost take too many risks and at times can seem like loose cannon. But watching them slowly change from a company that would loose money in all of their divisions other than their entertainment and gaming divisions, to more recently their progress at being the #1 sensor manufacturer globally at more than 50% and their maturing camera products with less experimentation, I decided to try them out. It looks like some of the risks and subsequent mistakes they made years ago are starting to pay off today. 

Personally, I see cameras as being creative tools that should maximize the owner's ability to focus on the storytelling or creative aspect as best as possible. Creativity can sometimes be inspired by a product's innovation, to fuel or spark an idea from a concept or origin. I understand Canon's products are reliable and simple. I started shooting right away with my C200 without a manual vs my Red which needed a menu simulator app on my smartphone so I could actually remember where to even find certain menu options while working in the field, not to mention making shading maps, and calibrating temps ahead of time. But Canon today is definitely not at the forefront in terms of innovation and maybe not again until they start falling behind.


----------



## Duct_Taper (Dec 20, 2017)

ahsanford said:


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



Maybe this is why I ended up in the Canon system - the approach felt familiar (I own two Hondas)!


----------



## Isaacheus (Dec 20, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > Couldn't give a rat's arse. Are you under the impression that Nikon and Fuji users are walking around with glum expressions, not even bothering to take any photos because they're only #2?
> ...



Doesn't worry me who is number one as such (although always nice to have gear with a company that doesn't always look like it's about to finish up and seems to be quite low in recent releases, ie pentax)

What would be nice is if Canon took it as a bit of a shake up, if they really have dropped down the ladder, and bring out more competitive models to match/exceed the market


----------



## dak723 (Dec 21, 2017)

jayphotoworks said:


> ...
> Personally, I see cameras as being creative tools that should maximize the owner's ability to focus on the storytelling or creative aspect as best as possible. Creativity can sometimes be inspired by a product's innovation, to fuel or spark an idea from a concept or origin.



I hope you can give us an example of how any Sony innovations help spark your creativity.

Somehow people on this forum continue to love innovation even though - in my opinion - there has been nothing particularly innovative in cameras since they added video. I would consider most innovations that people on this forum go all goo-goo over (such as focus peaking) as mostly gimmicks. They say there is a sucker born every minute, and I guess these types of internet forums prove that without a shadow of a doubt. If you like what Sony is offering, please get one. Or Nikon. The idea that Canon - just because they are Canon apparently, can just take the lead in innovation, quality, lenses, etc. is ridiculous. The chance that one company just out does all the others in every aspect is unrealistic. 

If you like Sony, fine. I'm sure pretty much every camera out there today can do the job. But the fact that Sony screwed up the flange distance in their FF mirrorless - and then had to make almost all their lenses longer to compensate does not give me confidence that they are serious about quality. The A7 II I briefly owned underexposed by about 1 1/2 stops. Again, if they can't do the basics right, why should I be swayed by their innovation. Of course, it is easy to argue - that is why they stress their innovation - 'cause that's all they have going for them.


----------



## Hflm (Dec 21, 2017)

dak723 said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


This is a really unsubstantiated and subjective comment.

The flange distance is not flawed. This is not a "fact", like you seem to imply, but subjective.

"Dear Mike!
We have an answer for you now: because of the shorter flange focal distance of mirrorless camera systems compared to SLR systems (e.g. E-mount: 18mm, F-mount: 46.5mm), some lenses could be designed differently. This could result either in a slightly smaller (shorter) barrel, or in a more complex, higher performing lens compared to a comparable SLR lens of the same focal length and speed. Of course, it is not possible to overcome the laws of physics. The diameter of the entrance pupil is always fixed by the focal length and speed.
Completely new optical designs like our Loxia Distagon T* 2,8/21 benefit from the short flange focal distance of the E-mount, leading to a more compact lens compared to the SLR lens with the same data.
Best regards
ZEISS Camera Lenses Team"

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/zeiss-confirms-e-mount-shorter-flange-distance-brings-advantages-over-dslr-lenses/

I had the A7rii, too, am shooting weddings professionally using Sony and Canon. There was no 1.5 stop underexposure. Maybe you messed up metering modes?


----------



## RGF (Dec 23, 2017)

there are many ways to do accounting and rankings. I am sure with enough data I can make Nikon #1


----------



## dak723 (Dec 24, 2017)

Hflm said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > jayphotoworks said:
> ...



My comments are based on my experience and are my opinions. While I do not have any proof, I have read a number of articles that stated that the Sony A7 cameras were originally designed to be APS-C (with appropriate flange distance) and then changed somewhere midstream to be FF (without increasing the flange distance). I am not a journalist, so I can not verify if this is true. Regardless of whether this is true or not, the short flange distance was problematic enough so that Sony began making lenses longer to compensate. Their kit lenses do not have this extra length and received very poor reviews based on their edge and corner performance. My personal experience matched the poor reviews. So, my opinion is that Sony screwed up the flange distance. Your comments from Zeiss are irrelevant. I did not ever say that having a shorter flange distance than a FF DSLR does not offer advantages. Nor does Zeiss say what the ideal distance is. I somehow doubt they would say 18mm or whatever Sony is using. Believe me, if Canon comes out with an 18mm flange distance for their FF mirrorless, I will offer up the same complaints. 

The fact that the A7 II that I bought underexposed by 1.5 stops does not mean that all A7 II models underexposed the same amount or at all. I did not mess up the metering modes and regret that you felt the need to insult my abilities rather than accept my word. After I returned the A7 II, I tried the A7 and that camera only underexposed by about 1 stop. In all fairness, I have purchased Canon and Olympus cameras that varied a bit in their exposure in the same model, too. !.5 stops was probably the most I have experienced however.

Again, these are my opinions based on the experience of buying both an A7 And A7 II.


----------



## JP (Dec 24, 2017)

Great... it would force them to do what #3 has been doing... / Make significant upgrades with technology they have had for YEARS... many many Years... rather than these tiny little incremental upgrades.. 

Years ago, I was known as "BeerBoy".. on DPreview.. and the reason why I was well, known, was because I personally knew several field testers of Canon Prototype equipment.. Back then they had a 16.7mp 1DsMkII, Canon already had a 55mp sensor that was being tested. About 10 years before the release of the 200-400, with the built-in telephoto extender, I was well aware of it...and even posted about it... only to be ridiculed by the community of people who know nothing more than what they heard from their local camera store, who knows nothing more than they do.. I was the one who broke the news that they were releasing a 5D body with an obvious feature..(the large review screen on the back, compared to the typical tiny screen on the 1.6 crops like the 20D)... I knew it was FF, and was a much slower camera body, but felt good in the hands, because I knew 3 people who had it in their hands... That being said, I didn't come out and say.. It will have a 2.5" screen and a FF sensor, and 3fps, and a 1/200ths top sync speed, because I didn't want to harm the relationship with the people who broke the NDS agreement they had signed with Canon... which would have caused them irreparable harm in their careers.. but I said what I could, and even with what little I did say, caused huge waves.......and I do believe that the groundwork for CanonRumors was founded by the things that I wrote regarding the upcoming mystery camera that I leaked tidbits of info about.. 

Canon has been holding back on many..... many technologies... By the time we see the patents, they have already begun a marketing strategy of when to release it... The 5D4...was a very marginal upgrade compared to what they could have done, according to my sources.. The 6D2 was even a greater bummer... (I pre-paid for one, and have sold it since, because I pretty much hated it)... was such a let-down... I'm hoping that Sony will kick their butts enough now, that Canon gets their act together, and releases what I know they can... what they could have......what the 5D4 should have been.... which I think is what the 5D7 will be..if they continue to have upwards of 60% professional market domination... The 1Dx2...is about 10 years behind what they could be releasing based on what I have heard... which amazingly, over the last 10 + years, has turned out to be pretty much spot-on! Pray that Sony... dominated... if you have an extensive Canon lens system, like I do... If not for that, I would have switched, too.. 

JP


----------



## dak723 (Dec 24, 2017)

JP said:


> Great... it would force them to do what #3 has been doing... / Make significant upgrades with technology they have had for YEARS... many many Years... rather than these tiny little incremental upgrades..
> 
> Years ago, I was known as "BeerBoy".. on DPreview.. and the reason why I was well, known, was because I personally knew several field testers of Canon Prototype equipment.. Back then they had a 16.7mp 1DsMkII, Canon already had a 55mp sensor that was being tested. About 10 years before the release of the 200-400, with the built-in telephoto extender, I was well aware of it...and even posted about it... only to be ridiculed by the community of people who know nothing more than what they heard from their local camera store, who knows nothing more than they do.. I was the one who broke the news that they were releasing a 5D body with an obvious feature..(the large review screen on the back, compared to the typical tiny screen on the 1.6 crops like the 20D)... I knew it was FF, and was a much slower camera body, but felt good in the hands, because I knew 3 people who had it in their hands... That being said, I didn't come out and say.. It will have a 2.5" screen and a FF sensor, and 3fps, and a 1/200ths top sync speed, because I didn't want to harm the relationship with the people who broke the NDS agreement they had signed with Canon... which would have caused them irreparable harm in their careers.. but I said what I could, and even with what little I did say, caused huge waves.......and I do believe that the groundwork for CanonRumors was founded by the things that I wrote regarding the upcoming mystery camera that I leaked tidbits of info about..
> 
> ...



Try not to dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back! ;D

Having patents or testing products is not indicator of what actually works and can be used successfully. Since all cameras are producing similar results today, the idea that someone had today's technology 10 years ago is rubbish. Yes, Sony offers more specs - but the basic technology for taking photos hasn't changed much and will not change much do to the limits of physics. All the upgrades have been incremental since the first DSLR. If you like a lot of bells and whistles - and some of the tech that works best in mirrorless (focus peaking, high fps) go Sony. Please.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Dec 27, 2017)

I don't really mind. I wish Canon was third so they can be more competitive in their offering. 

I'm pretty happy with my 5D IV. I hope the 5D V/5D-Mirrorless will be a significant upgrade.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2017)

bokehmon22 said:


> I wish Canon was third so they can be more competitive in their offering.
> 
> I'm pretty happy with my 5D IV.



So, Canon competes so poorly in the ILC market that you spent >$3K on their latest high-end model? Yeah, that makes sense...


----------



## bokehmon22 (Dec 27, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> bokehmon22 said:
> 
> 
> > I wish Canon was third so they can be more competitive in their offering.
> ...


I didn't said they compete poorly. Their 5D IV isn't the most competitive when it comes to features. 

I shoot mostly wedding and engagement. I have to consider the entire ecosystem such as my existing lens, lighting, etc and not just camera body. 

My 5D IV won't compete against any Sony/Nikon offering, but it get the job done. I wish Canon gave us more value on their camera body.

If I didn't shoot weddings, I would switch to Sony and using adapted lens right now.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 27, 2017)

bokehmon22 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > bokehmon22 said:
> ...



So why don't you switch? Why does shooting weddings prevent that? Is it because you don't think the Sony's are reliable enough for a wedding?


----------



## dak723 (Dec 27, 2017)

bokehmon22 said:


> My 5D IV won't compete against any Sony/Nikon offering, but it get the job done. I wish Canon gave us more value on their camera body.
> 
> If I didn't shoot weddings, I would switch to Sony and using adapted lens right now.



Just curious and hoping you could elaborate on what features exactly Nikon/Sony are offering that you miss on your 5D IV.


----------



## NancyP (Dec 27, 2017)

I would still be out there with my 6D classic shooting macro and landscapes.


----------



## AUGS (Dec 28, 2017)

NancyP said:


> I would still be out there with my 6D classic shooting macro and landscapes.


This! (Although my cameras differ)
All cameras a great these days, regardless of manufacturer. If one works better for you, use it. Canon does a great job for me. The reality is, its the 6 inches behind the camera that matter the most.


----------



## Isaacheus (Dec 28, 2017)

dak723 said:


> bokehmon22 said:
> 
> 
> > My 5D IV won't compete against any Sony/Nikon offering, but it get the job done. I wish Canon gave us more value on their camera body.
> ...



Not the op, but not having a tilting screen on the 5dmk4 was a bit of a missed opportunity I thought.
I don't have a 5d myself, but that's a large reason why I didn't upgrade to it


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 28, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > bokehmon22 said:
> ...



They're saving that for the 5DV ! After all, in three years time or so what else will there be to add ? Until the Bayer Array sensor is replaced with something more advanced they ( and others) are running out of road in terms of significant improvements that will encourage people to upgrade.


----------



## Isaacheus (Dec 28, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



There are heaps of features canon could have added to the next 5d though, and put a tilting screen in this one:

Astro tracker like Pentax
Ibis like panasonic and others
Stacked sensor for faster readout and fps
Fast fps and larger buffer (10 would be very nice)
Focus stacking in camera
Pixel-shift like pentax again
Hybrid view finder 
Smaller 4k codec with a full frame readout
120fps at 1080
Peaking and zebra indicators

Although it would have been awesome if these had been in the current one, a lot of these do depend on an ibis method - are there any canon patents for this? 

Does the 5dmk4 have a true silent shooting option or just 'quiet'?


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 28, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Isaacheus said:
> ...



The key word is significant - to enough people to make an upgrade viable. The tilt / swivel screen seems to be well accepted now and I've come across a few people with the 5DIV who'd like that feature. As for silent mode, well I don't have the 5DIV, I have the 5Ds, but haven't used that for weddings yet. However I have shot weddings on the 5DII when the Vicar / Priest has ruled that I can only take pictures during the actual ceremony if there is no noise and flash. So I just shot that part in Liveview


----------



## Isaacheus (Dec 28, 2017)

Sporgon said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Fair enough, although I'd consider ibis and the resulting additions significant, but it might just be me in that camp...

Global shutter might do it. Or a bayer filter with a monochrome 'pixel' to improve the high iso performance (although at the potential cost to the colour?)


----------



## stevelee (Dec 28, 2017)

After using the tilting screen on my G7X II when taking pictures looking up into domes and cathedral towers, and using the swivel screen of my T3i when photographing the solar eclipse, I bought a 6D2, and might not have bought any flavor of a 5 even if I could have afforded one. The utility of a moveable screen is not some I want to do without. I guess if I had a specialized professional use for a 5, that would be different, and I’d still have a 6 for general purposes.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Dec 28, 2017)

dak723 said:


> bokehmon22 said:
> 
> 
> > My 5D IV won't compete against any Sony/Nikon offering, but it get the job done. I wish Canon gave us more value on their camera body.
> ...



EVF, IBIS, Eye AF. Nikon have in camera auto AF fine tune your camera lens. Sony isn't require to. I still have to buy software to fine tune my lens.

I don't do use videography professionally but I use some for vacation, family, and BTS. I wish Canon clean 4K file and IBIS would definitely help.

I'm fine with all Canon short comings for now, and I'm able to make images I want to make even with my 6D, but I have to spend >$3 again, I don't know if I would buy Canon body with each iteration of Sony camera keep on refining and have more compatibility with adapted lens while Canon keep offering lackluster update.

I only have 5 lens:2 L-lens (70-200 II 2.8, 24-70II 2.8 ) and a couple Tamron and Sigma Art lens.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 28, 2017)

bokehmon22 said:


> EVF, IBIS, Eye AF. Nikon have in camera auto AF fine tune your camera lens. Sony isn't require to. I still have to buy software to fine tune my lens.
> 
> I don't do use videography professionally but I use some for vacation, family, and BTS. I wish Canon clean 4K file and IBIS would definitely help.
> 
> ...



EVF - you can only have EVF if you take the mirror out of the way and when you do that you have LiveView. Canon have patented a hybrid VF but this has not appeared yet.
IBIS - why do you want this instead of in-lens stabilisation? 'IBIS' seems to have become a bit of a mantra but I have not been sure why - if you want to use third party non-stabilised lenses this is pretty much a niche market. 
Eye AF - by all accounts it was great when it worked but it was fraught with problems. I am pretty sure there is a reason Canon did not persist with it
Nikon have in camera auto AF fine tune your camera lens - and by all accounts is next to useless. Probably why Canon has not put it in their models yet but (if rumours are true) will have it in 7D3.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2017)

dak723 said:


> bokehmon22 said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious and hoping you could elaborate on what features exactly Nikon/Sony are offering that you miss on your 5D IV.
> ...



If you feel strongly about EVF, IBIS and Eye AF, you need to switch brands. I don't see any of these three being implemented by Canon. Certainly not in the next generation of bodies. In-camera autofocus fine tune is much more likely. It's a natural for dual pixel sensors, so I would not be surprised to see it debut eventually. Probably just a matter of getting it perfected sufficiently to make it worthwhile.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 29, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> bokehmon22 said:
> 
> 
> > EVF, IBIS, Eye AF. Nikon have in camera auto AF fine tune your camera lens. Sony isn't require to. I still have to buy software to fine tune my lens.
> ...



I find these statements dead wrong and closed-minded. Tack sharp with my f1.4 primes every times, even in low light. *Please don't give false information.*



_DSC2397 by Dylan Nguyen, on Flickr



_DSC0402 by Dylan Nguyen, on Flickr


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 29, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> bokehmon22 said:
> 
> 
> > EVF, IBIS, Eye AF. Nikon have in camera auto AF fine tune your camera lens. Sony isn't require to. I still have to buy software to fine tune my lens.
> ...



Because I can shoot at 1/5 with my f1.4 primes without tripod. Why you think Canon releases 85mm f1.4 IS???


----------



## NancyP (Dec 29, 2017)

IBIS has some appeal for the users of vintage lenses without IS.


----------



## Isaacheus (Dec 29, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> bokehmon22 said:
> 
> 
> > EVF, IBIS, Eye AF. Nikon have in camera auto AF fine tune your camera lens. Sony isn't require to. I still have to buy software to fine tune my lens.
> ...



I can't speak to the auto-af tuning, but I'd have thought dual-pixel tech would be great for this

Ibis is surprisingly convenient, even with canon's own non stabilised primes; 50mm and 40mm have all worked well for stills, and video handheld is halfway decent too. I'm only using adapted lenses, I believe the two systems work together when using native stabilised lenses, which would be great with the canon L f4 zooms I have

Eye-af works well even with the canon lenses, I personally find it easier than trying to adjust the focus point, or re-composing. 

EVF - I'd say both have pros and cons, and it would come down to the individual for what they prefer. No debate there. Hybrid VF would be great

In the end though, I think Canon can and should do better in pretty much all the camera features. Otherwise you'll have the situation where the parts that are simply ok for this model get reused in the next, even after the competition have moved on and offer more bang for the buck


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2017)

Dylan777 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Eye AF - by all accounts it was great when it worked but it was fraught with problems. I am pretty sure there is a reason Canon did not persist with it.
> ...



Apple, meet Orange. Orange, allow me to introduce you to Apple. 

It's apparent from Mikehit's statement (that Canon had offered Eye AF and didn't continue offering it), that he was referring to eye-_controlled_ AF (e.g., the EOS 3), where the camera detects the photographer's eye looking through the VF and selects the AF point based on that. In fact, that was his misunderstanding of the feature being discussed, namely Eye AF, where the camera detects and tracks the subject's eyes.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 29, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> IBIS - why do you want this instead of in-lens stabilisation?



Because every lens you can benefit from optical stabilization at no added cost. All else being equal1, why *wouldn’t* you?

1. I’ve ready many claims about this. A common mantra is that for longer focal lengths it’s better in lens and for wider focal lengths it makes little difference, and that working together you can get better results that a single method alone. I’ve not seen a test which isolates the variables enough to satisfactorily back up any of those claims.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2017)

3kramd5 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > IBIS - why do you want this instead of in-lens stabilisation?
> ...



Because all else *isn't* equal. IBIS is less effective at longer focal lengths, so I'd prefer in-lens IS. 

However, if the question above didn't include 'instead of', I'd choose to have both...which is an option with systems other than Canon and Nikon.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Can you quantify that? I haven’t seen it done. I’ve seen people compare for example canon IS on with Sony IBIS off to canon IS off with Sony IBIS on, but there you still have too many variables. Say the former is demonstrated to be better. Is it because it was done in lens? Is it due to that lens specifically versus that body specifically (e.g. the actuation distance is tuned for wide FOV because those companies producing it have not long lenses*)? Is it because canon has been implementing it longer and is better at developing those algorithms? 

If a truly conclusive test has been done I haven’t seen it. I agree with your final position: both is probably better than one or the other.

*This would suggest it’s better to keep in in lens so the implementation is specific.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 29, 2017)

My G7X II has built in stabilization for both stills and video. My 6D2 appears to have it just for video, and it appears to work similarly to the software stabilization in FCP X. I find it interesting that it is turned off if you turn off stabilization on the lens, but works with non-stabilized lenses. I am unsurprised that it doesn’t work with lenses 800mm and up.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Dec 29, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> bokehmon22 said:
> 
> 
> > EVF, IBIS, Eye AF. Nikon have in camera auto AF fine tune your camera lens. Sony isn't require to. I still have to buy software to fine tune my lens.
> ...



It sounded like you are making excuses for Canon instead of them giving us the option of what to do with it. 

EVF on A9/A7RIII is good enough for me. Canon have alot of patented stuffs, but they haven't release it for whatever reasons. I'm only discussing what's available now. They already have EVF on their compact mirrorless camera, and 5 axis IBIS for video in 6D II, M5 as well as other camera.

-IBIS is good for non stabilized lens such as Sigma Art series, Canon 24-70 2.8, Canon 135. All great lens but IBIS would be beneficial for video and photography. If it doesn't appeal to you, you can turn it off. Canon IS lens such as 85 1.4 IS is more expensive than Sigma 85 1.4 Art. If the camera have IBIS, you would save some money. 

I'm not sure why Canon withhold these features in their professional FF camera. Instead they release feature that are half bake like dual pixel and incremental upgrades like more AF point, more Mpx, a little more DR.

As someone who build their entire portfolio on Canon 6D and made alot of money off weddings with it, I am used to making more with less and know camera isn't everything. Still, it's disappointing to see Canon lackluster attempt at competing when they can make 5D IV so much better by having faster card slot, more codec choice for video, and features such as IBIS. 

You may not like mirror-less, but there are growing group of young photographers who switches to using mirror-less FF for their needs. If Canon release a 5D-M FF camera even below their flagship camera models and continue making to refine EVF, IBIS, I'm sure they would sold a lot of camera and keep their loyal base happy.


----------



## Isaacheus (Dec 29, 2017)

bokehmon22 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > bokehmon22 said:
> ...



I'm not sure the 6dmk2 has Ibis, I believe it's just an electronic stability system, much like one can do in post through final cut pro.

Useful yes, but just software.


----------



## Rocky (Dec 29, 2017)

Who care who is #1. You buy the camera that you like( want) and keep it as long as it is doing what you want.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 29, 2017)

bokehmon22 said:


> I'm not sure why Canon withhold these features in their professional FF camera. Instead they release feature that are half bake like dual pixel and incremental upgrades like more AF point, more Mpx, a little more DR.



As usual, people assume that Canon can just do whatever they want and are thus holding back all this technology. Since Canon's professional FF cameras are (so far) not mirrorless, looking for mirrorless features such as an EVF is unrealistic.

I believe someone looked this up, but I have no way of knowing if it is true, but they have no IBIS patents. Can't withhold something that you have no way of producing if you don't have a patent for it. Instead they have gone the in-lens stabilization route. That is the reality - not that they are holding anything back, as you believe. 

As is typical of the Canon basher, things they do have, such as dual pixel, as considered half-baked, or somehow not innovative. 

Are Canon cameras perfect? Of course not. My guess is that most consumers of high-end FF cameras are not particularly interested in most of the things you believe should be added. I guess time will tell.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> bokehmon22 said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...


The 6D2 does not have IBIS.

What it does have, is a video mode where the image captured is slightly larger than 2K and cropped to 2K to "fit over the previous frame". This is the same as shooting in 2.7K and using post-production to crop to 2K while aligning frames to eliminate jitter. It seems to work fairly well.... not quite as good as post-production, but WAY!!!!!!! more convenient.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2017)

bokehmon22 said:


> Canon IS lens such as 85 1.4 IS is more expensive than Sigma 85 1.4 Art. If the camera have IBIS, you would save some money.



The corollary is that means less money for Canon. Perhaps their choice makes more sense in that light. 




bokehmon22 said:


> You may not like mirror-less, but there are growing group of young photographers who switches to using mirror-less FF for their needs. If Canon release a 5D-M FF camera even below their flagship camera models and continue making to refine EVF, IBIS, I'm sure they would sold a lot of camera and keep their loyal base happy.



They released an APS-C MILC and fairly quickly rose to #2 on the overall MILC market. Face it – the only reason Sony sells more FF MILCs is that Canon doesn't make one – yet. Given their manifestly successful performance in the ILC market, odds are that Canon will release a FF MILC exactly when it will benefit them the most...and no sooner.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2017)

bokehmon22 said:


> Canon IS lens such as 85 1.4 IS is more expensive than Sigma 85 1.4 Art. If the camera have IBIS, you would save some money.



???????

Are you really suggesting that Canon should have designed it's lenses and bodies for an IBIS system, despite the fact that they use mirrored systems without it? Perhaps they should ignore all the compatibility of legacy products?


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> bokehmon22 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon IS lens such as 85 1.4 IS is more expensive than Sigma 85 1.4 Art. If the camera have IBIS, you would save some money.
> ...



With featutres in M1and M3 Canon already good enough for #2...Welcome to Canon world :


----------



## bokehmon22 (Dec 29, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> bokehmon22 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon IS lens such as 85 1.4 IS is more expensive than Sigma 85 1.4 Art. If the camera have IBIS, you would save some money.
> ...



Of course their decision is to maximize their profit by omiting certain features, but it doesn't make it right to us as a consumer. Why are you defending them on that point? I don't own Canon stock so I don't care about their income.

I wouldn't be surprised if they sold more FF mirrorless camera than Sony if they make one. I don't disagree with you. They know if they gave us everything we want like mirrorless D850, that would be more camera than most of us ever needs. Even the Canon 5D IV is all I need as a wedding photographer. It's on sale right now for $2200. 

If Canon ever release a mirrorless camera, I wouldn't expect much based on features from 5D IV and 6D II releases. It would be just another iteration update like most phone are nowadays - a little more MPx, a little more Dynamic range, a little more FPS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2017)

bokehmon22 said:


> Of course their decision is to maximize their profit by omiting certain features, but it doesn't make it right to us as a consumer. Why are you defending them on that point? I don't own Canon stock so I don't care about their income.



Toyota sells cars. Odds are they'll sell many cars next year and remain among the most popular car makes. Am I defending Toyota?

Apparently, you believe stating facts and drawing logical conclusions constitutes 'defense'. I suppose that makes sense – if you're on the offense against Canon, facts supporting them will seem defensive. They're just facts, I suggest you get over it. Or not...I don't really care.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 30, 2017)

bokehmon22 said:


> Of course their decision is to maximize their profit by omiting certain features,



So what exactly do they have in their technological armoury that they are omitting? 
You use of words like 'omit' and 'defending' to justify your position are approaching pathetic. If you want any credence please state what you think Canon is capable of with their current technology then argue about why they may or may not be omitting it. Otherwise it smacks of a kid at Christmas screaming 'WAAAH! I want I and they won't give it to me'.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Dec 30, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> bokehmon22 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course their decision is to maximize their profit by omiting certain features,
> ...



Probably a lot, but nobody outside Canon really knows. If they’re like other technology companies, they probably have dozens of capabilities in undisclosed/non-productized IP for every patent applied for.

They are also very conservative and tend to slow roll things rather than rushing functionality to market (for better or worse) - witness the late activation of DPAF in the cinema cams.


----------



## Isaacheus (Dec 30, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> bokehmon22 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course their decision is to maximize their profit by omiting certain features,
> ...


[/quote]

I think the quotes have gotten mixed up, but the apparent omission for most people is the 6dmk2 sensor being the older tech (or lower dynamic range than the other recently released models), the removal of All-i video compression in that camera, and peaking being available in the point and shoots but not in the higher end dlsr models. I'm sure there are others, but those do stand out a bit


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> ...peaking being available in the point and shoots but not in the higher end dlsr models. I'm sure there are others, but those do stand out a bit



Yeah, my EOS M and even my PowerShot S100 have in-camera HDR, but they omitted it from my 1D X. What greedy, camera-nerfing bastards, omiting such a critical feature.


----------



## midluk (Dec 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > ...peaking being available in the point and shoots but not in the higher end dlsr models. I'm sure there are others, but those do stand out a bit
> ...


And even the 1300D has a food mode, but they didn't put that into the 5D4.


----------



## dafrank (Dec 30, 2017)

dak723 said:


> Wouldn't matter to me one bit. Not sure why it matters to anyone - as long as Canon stays in business and does well enough to continue to put out products. And it f they didn't - then I will get a photo equipment camera from some other company if and when my stuff no longer works. Already have one Olympus to go along with my one Canon camera. The fact that people root for companies as if they were sports teams competing against one another is so ludicrous that I want to yell "Grow up" every time I see the various trolls and fanboy comments that dominate the internet.



+1


----------



## Cory (Dec 30, 2017)

Not #1 to who?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2017)

Dylan777 said:


> With featutres in M1and M3 Canon already good enough for #2...Welcome to Canon world :



Welcome to the _real_ world. It's the place most people live, although that 'most' clearly excludes some CR forum members. :


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 30, 2017)

Cory said:


> Not #1 to who?



Apple


----------



## dafrank (Dec 30, 2017)

First a little history.

I started out, in the 1970's, as a committed amateur photographer, scrimping like mad to purchase a Canon FTb and then an F-1, plus a few basic lenses (the budget Canon 35mm f/3.5 was a favorite). They were both great cameras, especially the F-1. Even then Canon's breech-lock bayonet lenses were especially good and not too expensive. When I decided to jettison my other ambitions and launch my now 40 year career as a successful professional photographer, I spent all of my savings and more, living on soup and optimism, over a couple of years time, to buy what I then considered "pro" film (of course) gear: a Hasselblad CM, the cheapest Sinar 4"x5", and a Nikon F2 with a few lenses for each. They all worked very well, but the Nikon was my least used and the Hassy my most. I shot mostly ad and editorial type people and product stuff then.

Slowly my work shifted more towards national magazine and feature news type work. Then I began using the Nikon more. When the Olympus OM-1 came out, it blew me away. I could replace the Nikons, with nearly identical quality (or sometimes better) results, while reducing my camera bag weight by almost half, and size by about 20%. And that sweet giant viewfinder image has never been bested in an SLR, even up until this day. That was a no brainer for someone who had to have all that could use carried on my shoulders all day.

All this gear lasted until I finally met my wife, and I decided that I needed to travel the world less in order to raise a family. So, I built a pretty impressive studio in order to expand my car shooting business, and went back to bigger format film again, this time selling off the Hassies and, after toying with a Pentax 6x7 for a brief time, going full bore with the Fuji GX680 system, adding 8"x10" to my large format system, and going back to Nikons (F3, F4, F5). Again, I used my medium format system the most, large format a close second, and 35mm film the least. However, those F5's were great cams. I had my own E-6 processing line in-studio for checking my shots 45 minutes after exposure. And, by 1996, I had a series of $50,000.00 high-res drum scanning units and was scanning my film and retouching it on the first serious, non-proprietary desktop computers capable of handling large color bitmap files. Soon thereafter, I then adapted my large format cams to Phase One digital backs.

For many a year I had hoped for some company to create a serious hand held digital camera that could create a decent digital file that could somewhat compare to either the results from a Phase One or from a drum-scanned 6x8 piece of Fuji Provia; there would be no hope of coming near the results from scanned 4x5 or 8x10 film for a very long time afterwards. I saw my first possibility in the Nikon D1X. I bought a couple of very early bodies, among the first to enter the US, so early that they hadn't yet created the firmware to change the menu system from Japanese to English. When Bibble raw file conversion software came along several months later, I could process the results from the odd-shaped native sensor's dimensions to yield a slightly up-res'd image as a decent sized Tiff file with a conventional 2x3 ratio, because only the total vertical pixel count had to be increased in order to achieve a 10 MP file at that ratio. I was almost there with professional hand held digital camera.

Then came the Canon 1DsII, and it changed everything. After testing some pre-production loaners from the local rep at my studio for a couple of weeks, I was flabbergasted. Not only could this cam replace my Nikon D1x's, but also, for me - not everyone - it could replace my Phase One gear, which by that time was only marginally better for most of the work I did. I called and wrote to Nikon brass to ask if they could give me any hope that they would soon, or even in a couple of years, match or exceed what Canon had then - a solid great performing full frame digital camera of 16 MP or more. They refused to comment, except to somewhat insult me in an arrogant tone for even asking them. My path was clear. I sold all my Nikon and Phase One gear and bought a couple of 1Ds's and a whole lot of Canon L glass. That's where I stand today, but now with 5D4's and even more glass. Plus, I have long jettisoned all of my medium and big format gear as well. For my work, I have achieved a great goal, a sort of gear list Nirvana - one system for everything. No it's not perfect, but it works for me, and for my clients.

Sorry for this long detailed story, but there's a point here to be made. Don't switch gear unless there is a very good reason, a goal to be met in your own work (or amateur output) that your current gear just can't meet. We're not talking about one-and-a-third stop of extra HDR here. Plus, eventually small, or even substantial, deficits in camera specs are almost always sea-sawing back and forth between brands over a couple of years time. A better rationale would be that you've switched your interests from macro still-lifes to sports action photography. Then, if had the resources and you could spare the costs, switching from a system that had little available with which to shoot action would be rational and a good reason to spend your available resources. Most people don't have the resources that I had to switch gear around as much as I did, and believe me, if anything, I have way understated the amount of gear, and the changes made to the types and brands that I used over many decades, and I only wish that I now had the cash saved that I sometimes needlessly spent when I wasn't contemplating major changes in my photo work itself. So not switching on a whim of wanting to have the "best" specified or number-one-selling gear is not a very effective position to take if what you want to do is take better pictures. That is rather obviously a matter for the improvement of your skills through self- or formal education and constant practice.

In summation, if Canon falls to number two in sales, but continues to offer what I need to make the pictures I want and need to take, I just don't care, even a little tiny bit.

Happy New Year to all.

Regards, David


----------



## Isaacheus (Dec 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > ...peaking being available in the point and shoots but not in the higher end dlsr models. I'm sure there are others, but those do stand out a bit
> ...



Eh, I'm not saying you need to use all the features, but there are some that would be useful to have, peaking for manual focus is one for me personally. 

Would I base a purchase on just one or two features not in a camera? Probably not, but having those features does mean I'd be more likely to upgrade /not look elsewhere to options that have more features in one unit.

The food program, yeah, I can live without. I'll give Canon a pass for not including that in the 1dx

Edited for proper sentences etc*

Also, not trying to imply Canon should put every feature into the top line cameras, I was just answering about some features that canon has but don't put in some cameras. Not trying to start a theme of Canon greedy etc (they are a company trying to make money so I don't expect freebies)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Isaacheus said:
> ...



Yes, I understand. Focus peaking is important to you, so they should add it. In-camera HDR is useful for my friend, Alexis, so they should add it. Miniature simulation mode for Mary. Zebras for Xavier (he loves safaris). Fall foliage mode for Fred. Underwater WB for Ulric. Oh, and food photography is the chosen genre of Alexis' brother, Alex, so they should add that, too...it had to go into Shooting Menu 17, that was the next available slot with so many amazing and important features to add. Sadly for Alex, by the time he scrolled to select food mode, the busboy had cleared his perfectly-presented but uneaten meal.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > With featutres in M1and M3 Canon already good enough for #2...Welcome to Canon world :
> ...



Two different audiences, Canon clearly targeted a budget side. Those want and enjoy more features wouldn't have Canon in their bag. Canon will continue extracts the last juice out of Canon dslr users before they bring out decent mirrorless. Yup max profit for them and careless about their users. We all see how dslr vs mirrorless sale last few years :


----------



## Isaacheus (Dec 30, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I think you've missed the point of my reply initially, i was just giving examples of technologies and features that Canon has available but doesn't include in some of the more expensive models. 

The ones I listed are just ones I'm aware of as they would appeal to me. 

It doesn't really worry me if Canon don't include certain features, I just won't buy that model if it doesn't fit my needs


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 31, 2017)

People have short memories and strange expectations. I remember buying my first F1N after using A1's for years and wondering where all the features were! If you wanted shutter priority you had to buy a grip, if you wanted aperture priority you had to buy a finder, and on it went.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 31, 2017)

Isaacheus said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Isaacheus said:
> ...



When the 7D2 came out, I was appalled that it did not have WiFi or a touch screen..... but I got one anyway.....

I think that there always going to be “missing” features based on what Canon thinks most people want (or don’t want) on each particular model. For example, no “green box” mode on the 1DX


----------



## Isaacheus (Dec 31, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yeah, I don't think any camera is going to have all the features everyone will want. It really comes down to whether the 'missing' features mean the camera can't do what the buyer is hoping to use it for


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 31, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



That why I didn't upgrade to 1dx ii, no greenbox ;D


----------



## tron (Dec 31, 2017)

That's why I sold my 2 5D3 cameras... Oh wait I have 5D4, 5DsR and 7D2 so that's enough ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2017)

Dylan777 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



A budget side? Yes, and a high-end side. The 5DIV costs more than the a7RIII, the 1DX II more than the a9. I guess the M-series is so far from decent that it only manages to outsell every other line of MILCs on the market (given that Canon has one line and is #2, whereas other makers have several MILC lines). Careless about users? If careless is giving the market the right feature sets at the right price points such that the majority of ILC buyers choose a Canon ILC, then...yes. I'm not sure what you see, but while the shrinking ILC market has resulted in an increase in MILC share, absolute MILC sales have been flat for years and dSLRs still hold the solid majority of the market.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 1, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



"The 5DIV costs more than the a7RIII, the 1DX II more than the a9" ==> I know you don't believe in Sony specs, both 7r III and A9(mirrorless) are much better cameras compared to 5D IV & 1DX II(DSLR) - from MP, AF points to fps. I strongly don't believe 5D and 1Dx are the main foods to keep Canon alive --- my crystal ball telling me is their budget models(rebels and cheap lenses).


" I guess the M-series is so far from decent that it only manages to outsell every other line of MILCs on the market (given that Canon has one line and is #2, whereas other makers have several MILC lines) " ==> you should be thanksful that mirrorless market are pressure Canon to release M5 & M6. Otherwise you would have shooting your M6 with an AF speed from M1.


"If careless is giving the market the right feature sets at the right price points such that the majority of ILC buyers choose a Canon ILC," ==> this is where Canon has an upper hand over other companies. They have much larger loyal customers willing to wait and buy Canon products, regardless, how behind they are. As long it has Canon logo on it, it's good as gold for them. Here an Exp: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34133.0 , Yup it's in patent for Canon and hoping it will go into production. At same time, Sony A9 and others compact models are ready in their customer hands.

"MILC sales have been flat for years and dSLRs still hold the solid majority of the market. " ==> I'm not good reading graph, maybe you can tell me??? Look at Oct numbers for 2017 in CIPA.

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2018)

Dylan777 said:


> "The 5DIV costs more than the a7RIII, the 1DX II more than the a9" ==> I know you don't believe in Sony specs, both 7r III and A9(mirrorless) are much better cameras compared to 5D IV & 1DX II(DSLR) - from MP, AF points to fps. I strongly don't believe 5D and 1Dx are the main foods to keep Canon alive --- my crystal ball telling me is their budget models(rebels and cheap lenses).



I don't believe in Sony specs? What, do I think they're lying or something?  However, it's true that I don't believe a spec list makes a better camera. Do you? 

I have no doubt that Canon profits from both ends of their lineup, but I agree that the lower end generates more revenue for them. By the same token, Sony generates vastly more revenue from selling tiny sensors to smartphone manufacturers than from their ILC line. 




Dylan777 said:


> " I guess the M-series is so far from decent that it only manages to outsell every other line of MILCs on the market (given that Canon has one line and is #2, whereas other makers have several MILC lines) " ==> you should be thanksful that mirrorless market are pressure Canon to release M5 & M6. Otherwise you would have shooting your M6 with an AF speed from M1.



The M and M2 are what put Canon into the #3 MILC position, and the M3 put them into #2. With only one line, it's clear that Canon has chosen to make only a limited investment in mirrorless so far. What pressure are you talking about? 




Dylan777 said:


> "If careless is giving the market the right feature sets at the right price points such that the majority of ILC buyers choose a Canon ILC," ==> this is where Canon has an upper hand over other companies. They have much larger loyal customers willing to wait and buy Canon products, regardless, how behind they are. As long it has Canon logo on it, it's good as gold for them. Here an Exp: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34133.0 , Yup it's in patent for Canon and hoping it will go into production. At same time, Sony A9 and others compact models are ready in their customer hands.



So it's your contention that people are mainly driven by brand loyalty and are willing to purchase inferior products just because of the logo on them? I'm sorry that your view of humanity is so cynical and dim. I believe people purchase the products that best meet their needs. But many on this forum seem to think their own personal needs represent the majority, and that's plain foolish.




Dylan777 said:


> "MILC sales have been flat for years and dSLRs still hold the solid majority of the market. " ==> I'm not good reading graph, maybe you can tell me??? Look at Oct numbers for 2017 in CIPA.
> 
> http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html



I don't get your point here. The graph you attach shows exactly what I stated, MILC sales flat (and due to decreasing dSLR sales, MILC share is increasing, but still the minor fraction of ILCs). The Oct 2017 CIPA data show that dSLRs are 65% of the ILC market for October and the year to date. 65/35 is a solid majority.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 2, 2018)

Dylan777 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



thom hogan prefers the M5 over the Sony A6xxx series camera bodies. Even sonydpreview editors have stated the same exact thing. when they are out shooting they'd shoot with the M5 over Sony bodies.

Perhaps it's more Canon knows more about the market and what people will actually use over other companies.

There's more to cameras than simply spec sheets. fun fact. the M5 is the only mirrorless camera out of both companies that you can change iso/wb/shutter/aperture/ec/af without moving your eye from the viewfinder or fiddling with a menu.

canon has posted significant sales increases this year in mirrorless, if mirrorless is overtaking DSLR sales, the reason for it is Canon. Not sony that still to this day is stuck with a 17% or less marketshare.

fun fact #2. Sony to this day has never bragged about it's overall marketshare in the ILC market since 2006-8 timeframe. Since that time, they have bragged about isolated or niche segments of the market or regionally for their marketshares. They even stopped reporting the % of Mirrorless marketshare they feel they hold in 2015.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 2, 2018)

Dylan777 said:


> "If careless is giving the market the right feature sets at the right price points such that the majority of ILC buyers choose a Canon ILC," ==> this is where Canon has an upper hand over other companies. They have much larger loyal customers willing to wait and buy Canon products, regardless, how behind they are. As long it has Canon logo on it, it's good as gold for them. Here an Exp: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34133.0 , Yup it's in patent for Canon and hoping it will go into production. At same time, Sony A9 and others compact models are ready in their customer hands.



You call it brand loyalty. I call it a reality check that demonstrates the much-claimed advantages of Sony of Canon mean little to the average camera buyer: those 'advantages' are not enough to make them switch brands. 

And if you 'crystal ball' is right in that Canon's position is held up by people buying lower end models then you sort of shoot yourself in the foot.
Research time after time has shown that 70% of people buy their first camera and lens (body+ 1 or 2 zooms) and never buy another camera or lens in their life. So your crustal ball would interpret this as year-on-year sales being driven by people with no brand loyalty. So after nearly 10 years of so-called advantages (starting with their supposedly magnificent sensors) Sony have *still *not manage to grab superiority. In any other tech business, the sort of advantages claimed on behalf of Sony have would have resulted in them zipping to first place yet they have barely 20% of the market. 
Which brings us back to the first point: the gizmos in Sony cameras don't actually mean much to _most_ people. To some like yourself, yes. But not to most.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 2, 2018)

Dylan777 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Each person is entitled to their opinion - and each person will have different preferences in what they consider important, but folks who love specs can't seem to see beyond them. Saying that the A7 II and A9 are much better cameras than the 5D IV and 1DX ii is not a fact, but merely your opinion. More MPs do not necessarily make a better camera (in fact, it can be quite the opposite), nor do more AF points (which can make it more difficult for non-action shots). But all that aside, it ignores other attributes that spec lovers tend to ignore. Is the build quality better on the Sony's? The ergonomics? Color rendition (which some may argue is by far the most important quality of a camera)? How about exposure accuracy? How about weather sealing?

I have not tried the newer Sony models, so I can not speak directly to them, but based on the earlier Sony models, they have a long way to go in those areas. Oh, but there aren't really any specs to measure those things, so I guess they don't count.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 2, 2018)

Dylan777 said:


> "If careless is giving the market the right feature sets at the right price points such that the majority of ILC buyers choose a Canon ILC," ==> this is where Canon has an upper hand over other companies. They have much larger loyal customers willing to wait and buy Canon products, regardless, how behind they are. As long it has Canon logo on it, it's good as gold for them.



Not saying there aren't brand loyal folks as you describe, but I am not one of them. I probably have had more Olympus cameras than Canon, and bought the Sony A7 II with no hesitation to replace my Canon 6D. (It didn't replace my Canon, nor my Olympus E-M1 either). I bought the M5 mainly due to curiosity and was quite prepared to return it if not satisfied. I didn't return it because I would consider it to be a very good camera. Not because it is a Canon, but because it takes excellent photos, is small and light, fun to use, is easily customizable, and the lens choice (while small) fits my needs and the quality of lenses is very high for the price. Unless someone really needs FF or a wider lens selection, I would recommend the M5 over the Sony A7 II without a doubt. It has nothing to do with the brand. It has to do with photography. Yes, photography (perhaps people here have heard the word although it is rarely mentioned compared to the word specs...)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2018)

dak723 said:


> It has nothing to do with the brand. It has to do with photography. Yes, photography (perhaps people here have heard the word although it is rarely mentioned compared to the word specs...)



I don't know what you mean. Photography is central to this forum. For example, we could discuss how to frame a portrait. 







Or geometric art.


----------



## reef58 (Jan 2, 2018)

Dylan777 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I generally don't insert myself in these debates, but I am curious. I sell all of my Canon gear two camera bodies and 7 lenses along with other accessories. I then place my order for new Sony gear. It arrives. I take it down to the beach at sunset, place the camera on the tripod and take some pictures. The next day I take the new Sony and a long lens to do some wildlife work. I download the photos into Lightroom. Now what do I get for the effort? What will I see that I didn't with the 5d4? What are all of the advantages I have gained? This is a serious question. I am curious. I won't lie the D850 got my attention.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 2, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > "The 5DIV costs more than the a7RIII, the 1DX II more than the a9" ==> I know you don't believe in Sony specs, both 7r III and A9(mirrorless) are much better cameras compared to 5D IV & 1DX II(DSLR) - from MP, AF points to fps. I strongly don't believe 5D and 1Dx are the main foods to keep Canon alive --- my crystal ball telling me is their budget models(rebels and cheap lenses).
> ...



"However, it's true that I don't believe a spec list makes a better camera. Do you?" ==> I do, because it helps my photography more enjoyable and more convenient( Eye-AF-Tracking no need to use joystick to focus on person eye, silent shooting 100% no sound, proper exposure, DOF in EVF etc...). 

If spec list doesn't make camera better, why did you end up with 1Dx instead of 6d??? Do you truly believe that extra grip and extra weight from 1Dx helps you get more keepers at BIF/sports? 

"The M and M2 are what put Canon into the #3 MILC position, and the M3 put them into #2" ===> the more you try to defend Canon the more I see your view more and more "cynical, dim and foolish". M1 with the price tag $799, was DOA(still remember that the $299 sale for M1?) and few later models didn't even show up in US(just Asia). And of course, you still brag about those products.


"I don't get your point here. The graph you attach shows exactly what I stated, MILC sales flat"==> yes, mirrorless is flat due to products have not yet matured - battery life, lack of native lenses and EVF etc.... At the same time, what do you see on DSLR market? It drops years by years, nearly 50%. Yes, ILC is getting smaller. Smartphones are getting better,better each years and it might have to do with that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2018)

Dylan777 said:


> "However, it's true that I don't believe a spec list makes a better camera. Do you?" ==> I do, because it helps my photography more enjoyable and more convenient( Eye-AF-Tracking no need to use joystick to focus on person eye, silent shooting 100% no sound, proper exposure, DOF in EVF etc...).
> 
> If spec list doesn't make camera better, why did you end up with 1Dx instead of 6d??? Do you truly believe that extra grip and extra weight from 1Dx helps you get more keepers at BIF/sports?



Sure, features can help photography. But 'enjoyable and convenient' are highly subjective. After using a 70-200/2.8 mounted on a MILC for a couple of hours, I found the experience very inconvenient and the pain in my hand and wrist was anything but enjoyable. But, I can use my 1D X and 70-200/2.8 all day long with ease and comfort. Eye-AF sounds nice, but I can already focus on eyes. Truly silent shooting would be great if I shot weddings, but I don't. Too bad you couldn't achieve proper exposure without a MILC, I don't have any issues there. Was the DoF Preview button on your dSLR broken?

Does the number of AF points in a spec list equate to AF system performance? I'd take the 50D's 9-pt AF over the 6D's 11-pt AF, personally. The 6DII has 26 MP as a top-line spec, compared to only 18 MP in my 1D X. According to you, that makes the 6DII a better camera, right? 




Dylan777 said:


> "The M and M2 are what put Canon into the #3 MILC position, and the M3 put them into #2" ===> the more you try to defend Canon the more I see your view more and more "cynical, dim and foolish". M1 with the price tag $799, was DOA(still remember that the $299 sale for M1?) and few later models didn't even show up in US(just Asia). And of course, you still brag about those products.



Of course I remember the 'fire sale'. Do you understand that MILCs are far more popular in Asia than in North America? 45% of the ILCs sold in Japan from Jan-Oct 2017 were mirrorless; in the Americas, only 22% of ILCs sold were mirrorless. So you're suggesting the fact that Americans don't buy mirrorless means they are of low quality? That's beyond cynical, that's asinine and bigoted. Try to open up your mind, just a little bit. 




Dylan777 said:


> "I don't get your point here. The graph you attach shows exactly what I stated, MILC sales flat"==> yes, mirrorless is flat due to products have not yet matured - battery life, lack of native lenses and EVF etc.... At the same time, what do you see on DSLR market? It drops years by years, nearly 50%. Yes, ILC is getting smaller. Smartphones are getting better,better each years and it might have to do with that.



Since spec lists are so important to you, did you know that the number of shots per battery and EVF resolution are on the spec sheets, and the range of native lenses is on each company's website? But I guess you only care about the specs that are important to you, and if those are better, the camera is better. Do you think the specs that matter to you are the ones that matter to everyone?

So MILC's have been around for nearly 10 years (starting as mainstream with the Panasonic Lumix in 2008), but they haven't yet matured. Damn, that's pathetic! In 10 years, the consumer dSLR (starting with the Canon 300D in 2003) was more than fully mature...in fact, the decline of the dSLR market is at least partly due to market saturation – for the last decade, dSLRs have been sufficiently good and (relatively) affordable enough that most people only ever need to buy one kit.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 2, 2018)

I know this is an impossible task, but I will try anyway -- let's inject a little sanity into the debate.

Are cameras durable goods? For most of the last 100 years, the answer has been "yes." People expected that if they bought a good quality camera, especially an interchangeable lens camera, it would have a lifespan of 10 years or more.

Enter the digital revolution and we all got hooked on rapid technological change. Improvements were coming so fast that a case could be made to upgrade your camera every two to three years. But, as with any technology, it matured and the improvements we see today are incremental. 

At the same time, we saw a revolution in cell phones that turned them into the most popular and practical cameras for the majority of people. 

So, there are two trends going on in the camera market. On the one hand the collapse of the point-and-shoot market because cell phones have turned out to be a better product than single-purpose cameras for most users.

On the other hand, in the higher end "enthusiast" and professional market, the pace of change is returning to the traditional pattern, where buyers are treating their cameras as durable goods, and see no need to upgrade frequently, because not that much is changing from model to model.

A third factor, still unknown as to its impact, is the advent of mirrorless cameras that may or may not be challenging the traditional SLR form factor. 

While some people want to make predictions on the future of mirrorless, there simply isn't sufficient data yet to know anything. 

Here is what we do know regarding mirrorless:

Mirrorless is a very good format for APS-C sensor cameras, because it hits a sweet spot of high quality and small size. But, even in the case of APS-C, the advantages shrink when you add longer lenses, or need to shoot sports or wildlife in action.

The jury is still out on full frame mirrorless. Physics is a difficult thing to overcome and most of the size advantages of mirrorless evaporate when you add full frame lenses into the picture -- especially if you want longer focal lengths.

Mirrorless cameras are capturing a sizable share of the market. However, in terms of actual numbers, the sales are flat. Will they continue to be an important, but smaller share of the overall interchangeable lens camera market, or will they suddenly shoot up in sales and dominate? So far, the numbers indicate that it is the former case, not the latter. 

Regardless, mirrorless cameras have not had a significant impact on Canon's market position. Canon is demonstrating that they can and will compete aggressively in the mirrorless market. A case might be made that mirrorless is having an impact on Nikon's relative position in the market, but Nikon is demonstrating a willingness to compete aggressively against Sony, so I would not rule them out just yet.

Both Canon and Nikon have about a century of experience with the ups and downs of the camera market. They have seen the boom and bust cycle before and have emerged stronger for it. Sony does not have that same experience or record.

Dylan777 is a tireless advocate for Sony. He went all in, selling his Canon gear and buying Sony. Having made the plunge, he has a vested interest in feeling good about his decision and he feels compelled to tell everyone what a great decision he made. He is entitled to his own opinion. But he isn't entitled to his own facts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I know this is an impossible task, but I will try anyway -- let's inject a little sanity into the debate.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 2, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I know this is an impossible task, but I will try anyway -- let's inject a little sanity into the debate.
> 
> Are cameras durable goods? For most of the last 100 years, the answer has been "yes." People expected that if they bought a good quality camera, especially an interchangeable lens camera, it would have a lifespan of 10 years or more.
> 
> ...



+1

High end cameras are evolving into durable goods. The lenses are already there. Year to year sales have very little relation to the usage stats..... for example, I might be a fanatic canon shooter, but not buy a new body for at least 5 more years....


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 2, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> +1
> 
> High end cameras are evolving into durable goods. The lenses are already there. Year to year sales have very little relation to the usage stats..... for example, I might be a fanatic canon shooter, but not buy a new body for at least 5 more years....


_
Disclaimer: I am not a professional that depends on my gear to make a living._

That said, Don's nailed it. That's 100% me. I giggle at the thought of spending $3k+ for a 5D4 when my 5D3 is still 90% as good some five years after buying it. 

And it's not for the lack of money. I have the money to buy a new rig every year if I was so inclined, but it's against my nature to chase happiness through tech or convince myself that moving from point A to point B on the plot below is going to be some barrier-smashing technological advancement that I need.

- A


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 2, 2018)

I enjoy healthy debate with any well-mannered persons. The more we get into the debate, the more improper languages got into conversation. 

I might have went too deep with Neuro on Canon vs Sony(DSLR vs Mirrorless) and if I have hurt anyone feeling, I *sincerely* apologize.

Dylan


----------



## slclick (Jan 2, 2018)

Some folks live in a bizarre universe which breaks their camera bodies when the subsequent model is released. Glad I don't, my 5D3 is nearly as good as the day I bought it (early adopter) and far more camera than I need ...I would have been a good 6D user if it had been out at the time.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 2, 2018)

slclick said:


> Some folks live in a bizarre universe which breaks their camera bodies when the subsequent model is released. Glad I don't, my 5D3 is nearly as good as the day I bought it (early adopter) and far more camera than I need ...I would have been a good 6D user if it had been out at the time.



Nearly?


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 2, 2018)

slclick said:


> Some folks live in a bizarre universe which breaks their camera bodies when the subsequent model is released. Glad I don't, my 5D3 is nearly as good as the day I bought it (early adopter) and far more camera than I need ...I would have been a good 6D user if it had been out at the time.



+1. Again, this is 95% me. My upgrade-from-crop-to-FF choice was in early 2012, and it was between the 5D2 and 5D3. I had an 'Apple get-in-early and maximize time before my phone / laptop / etc. is obsoleted' mindset at the time and went all in on the 5D3 shortly after it was announced. Were the 6D on offer at that time, I very well may have gotten it.

Now, 5 years in the rear view with it and I'm actually glad I went big. It's built like a weapon, it has a massive ecosystem of third party items to use with it, and it continues to _not say no_ to new things I try to do with it. I may have gotten hamstring or outgrown a 6D, but other than a mythically better sensor that will not appear, I have yet to bonk my head or trip myself up on what the 5D3 cannot do -- which I why I haven't upgraded.

Further, the more I shoot and the more I learn about new bodies, cameras are much less like phones and their buyer's remorse, perception of obsolescence, etc. My 5D3 is an instrument that does a job and I enjoy using it -- period. I whinge about little things regularly here, but in truth I'm delighted with what I already have.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > +1
> ...



I bought my first digital camera in 1994.... since then, both at home and at work, I have yet to upgrade to the next model.... At a minimum, I skip models because the incremental differences are just not worth it to me. When the DSLRs first started to appear, there were great leaps in capability between models..... like jumping from a max ISO of 1600 to 6400.... now we are lucky to see a third of a stop jump with the next model. And realistically, the quality of imaging between Canon, Nikon, and Sony is so close as to be irrelevant.... your AF system is worth way more to you than your sensor, nobody cares what the DR is of a blurred photo... just like they don't care about the quality of your picture of the branch that the eagle was sitting on and you missed because poor ergonomics slowed you down enough to miss the shot...

At least to my mind, glass is a far better place to put your imaging dollars....


----------



## slclick (Jan 3, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Some folks live in a bizarre universe which breaks their camera bodies when the subsequent model is released. Glad I don't, my 5D3 is nearly as good as the day I bought it (early adopter) and far more camera than I need ...I would have been a good 6D user if it had been out at the time.
> ...



Sure, what is so hard to understand about that? The sensor gets dirty, I clean it but it's still not pristine and the exterior has wear marks. I have used it for over 5 years and 90k snaps. Nearly sounds pretty good to me.


----------



## slclick (Jan 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Some folks live in a bizarre universe which breaks their camera bodies when the subsequent model is released. Glad I don't, my 5D3 is nearly as good as the day I bought it (early adopter) and far more camera than I need ...I would have been a good 6D user if it had been out at the time.
> ...



this


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Some folks live in a bizarre universe which breaks their camera bodies when the subsequent model is released. Glad I don't, my 5D3 is nearly as good as the day I bought it (early adopter) and far more camera than I need ...I would have been a good 6D user if it had been out at the time.
> ...



This is pretty much me, as well. I've upgraded bodies only when the one I had did not meet my needs. Started with a T1i/500D, when first getting back into photography after a long P&S hiatus and finding the camera couldn't keep up with our young daughter – I wasn't sure if photography would be a long term hobby, or quickly fade from interest. It was the former, and as I started shooting birds the T1i wasn't cutting it, so I switched to the 7D. Wanted better IQ for low light shooting of kids, added the 5DII (the 5DIII was not yet available). Then the 1D X was announced, combining the speed/AF of the 7D with the IQ of full frame, and I preordered one.

The 1D X II came along...and while I could buy one, the 1D X does what I need. So...I buy lenses.


----------



## dcm (Jan 3, 2018)

+1

Similar story. My equipment has evolved as my skills and interests grew, moving from film to G series to T2i/S95 to 6D/M to 1DX2/M5. I started purchasing L lenses with the T2i and still have a few on my wish list but I can wait until have I have time and opportunity to use them. 

It helps to have a supportive wife, she even suggested we drive down to Bosque del Apache NWR for the day to take some photos while we were visiting Sante Fe, NM, last November. I need to get her some better binoculars one of these days. ;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 3, 2018)

slclick said:


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



It’s not hard to understand what nearly means, I was merely wondering what has become deficient in such a way that it still works but not quite as well. Wear marks don’t affect how well it works. A dirty sensor might but as stated can be cleaned. Buttons can fail or become less responsive (what I expected in your camera). I’d say to the best of my ability to tell, mine works exactly as well as the day I bought it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2018)

dcm said:


> I need to get her some better binoculars one of these days. ;D



Might I recommend the Canon 10x42 L IS WP binoculars? ;D


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 3, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> dcm said:
> 
> 
> > I need to get her some better binoculars one of these days. ;D
> ...



Fanboi! ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dcm said:
> ...



Perhaps, but honestly, IS binoculars are great. I have a standard set from Nikon, and the Canon 10x30 IS (which I got for free), and the IS makes a huge difference. I may pick up the 10x42's at some point...


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 3, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


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



Oh, but real birders only use Swarovski, you can't possibly get good results with Canon binoculars!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> Oh, but real birders only use Swarovski, you can't possibly get good results with Canon binoculars!



Do the Swarovskis have better dynamic range?


----------



## Orangutan (Jan 3, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, but real birders only use Swarovski, you can't possibly get good results with Canon binoculars!
> ...



I don't know, but I can tell you that the Canons have worse DR!


----------



## slclick (Jan 3, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


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



You didn't ask that, you simply asked 'nearly?' 

To answer your more complete question...nothing has become deficient.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > +1
> ...



DSLR's are more much ahead on the maturity curve than the average Mirrorless is. They are also on longer release cycles, and there is less manufacturers of DSLR's than there is mirrorless. All of which contribute to declining shipments when compared to mirrorless.


----------



## Tugela (Jan 3, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Just supposin'....
> 
> Talking to a third party rep yesterday and he was saying that there are some new marketing figures coming out showing that Canon are no longer #1 for FF camera sales. Apparently this was sales based on profit, not shipping and Sony had taken #1. Though not sure if it was Japan, Asia or global.
> The problem with marketing is that you can spin the numbers a lot of different ways but this really would mark a significant turnaround in the market, and the fact that (if true) Sony could get anywhere near this would be a surprise at this time. But it will be interesting to see what comes out in the next few days.
> ...



What is happening is that the transition to MILC is continuing and picking up steam. Since Sony is leading the charge in FF in this area, obviously they are taking top spot and will continue to do so in the immediate future, at least until such time as Canon and/or Nikon get serious about MILCs.

The issue is that most of the performance enhancements in ILCs going forward is going to come from the computer inside the camera, and MILCs benefit far more from this than DSLRs. DSLRs have gone about as far as they can go, while MILCs have no ceiling in that respect, so as technology develops time will favor MILCs in the market place.

I think that neither Canon nor Nikon have the processors to seriously compete with Sony in the MILC space, so in the short term (the next few years) we should expect cameras like the a7 to start to dominate in the market. Sony are due for another processor refresh around 2018, so things like the a7III and a7SIII may be a significant step up from the current market leader a7RIII in terms of overall performance (primarily on the video side). You have to think that is making Canon and Nikon execs pretty nervous around now, because as things stand they are not really in a position to compete against that.


----------



## transpo1 (Jan 3, 2018)

Tugela said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Just supposin'....
> ...



Agree.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2018)

Tugela said:


> What is happening is that the transition to MILC is continuing and picking up steam. Since Sony is leading the charge in FF in this area, obviously they are taking top spot and will continue to do so in the immediate future, at least until such time as Canon and/or Nikon get serious about MILCs.
> 
> The issue is that most of the performance enhancements in ILCs going forward is going to come from the computer inside the camera, and MILCs benefit far more from this than DSLRs. DSLRs have gone about as far as they can go, while MILCs have no ceiling in that respect, so as technology develops time will favor MILCs in the market place.
> 
> I think that neither Canon nor Nikon have the processors to seriously compete with Sony in the MILC space, so in the short term (the next few years) we should expect cameras like the a7 to start to dominate in the market. Sony are due for another processor refresh around 2018, so things like the a7III and a7SIII may be a significant step up from the current market leader a7RIII in terms of overall performance (primarily on the video side). You have to think that is making Canon and Nikon execs pretty nervous around now, because as things stand they are not really in a position to compete against that.



LOL. ;D

Thanks, with the bitter, unrelenting cold in New England and a blizzard on the way, I needed a good laugh to lighten the mood. 

The transition to MILC is picking up steam? Fact: the MILC market has been flat for five years (as long as CIPA has been tracking them as a subset of ILC shipments). dSLR sales have been declining, but where is your evidence that those sales are part of a transition? Far more likely (Occam's razor and all that), market saturation and maturity (very incremental improvements in lines) account for the bulk of the decline. 

Canon can't compete with Sony in the MILC space? Globally, Canon has grown rapidly from no mirrorless offerings to #2 in sales. So, they've already beaten all of Sony's competitors...who's next?

The a7 series will dominate the market? To suggest that any full frame camera will dominate the ILC market is beyond ridiculous, beyond ludicrous, it's simply asinine. 

The, "Current market leader a7RIII," which market is it leading, exactly? The sub-sub-niche market of full frame MILC, where there's only Sony and the even more uber-niche Leica in the game? That's like saying Kia is the market leader of car brands that start with the letter K. Sheesh. 

Canon execs are nervous? Given that Canon's relatively limited investment in mirrorless to date has brought them to #2 in the global MILC market, and Sony already dropped out of the dSLR market because they couldn't compete with Canon and Nikon...if anyone is nervous, it's the Sony execs quaking in terror of the possibility that Canon will make serious efforts in the MILC space. 

While not good for much else, at least your post provided me with a hearty guffaw. Thanks!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 3, 2018)

Tugela said:


> The issue is that most of the performance enhancements in ILCs going forward is going to come from the computer inside the camera, and *MILCs benefit far more from this than DSLRs.*



Not at all. The only difference is that a MILC can display what the processor is doing via its primary (electronic) view finder. An SLR could do exactly everything a MILC can do in mirror lockup mode using the rear display (or with an added EVF.

Whether Canon and Nikon have SOCs to compete this generation may be an open issue, but building and programming processors is a well understood discipline. Managing the associated heat is sometimes more difficult (especially in weather-sealed boxes), but the generally bigger form factor of an SLR can be exploited for thermal management.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 3, 2018)

Tugela said:


> I think that neither Canon nor Nikon have the processors to seriously compete with Sony in the MILC space, so in the short term (the next few years) we should expect cameras like the a7 to start to dominate in the market. Sony are due for another processor refresh around 2018, so things like the a7III and a7SIII may be a significant step up from the current market leader a7RIII in terms of overall performance (primarily on the video side). You have to think that is making Canon and Nikon execs pretty nervous around now, because as things stand they are not really in a position to compete against that.



You nailed it. Canon's going to fold while the going's good because... processors. :

For the umpteenth time, though Sony has a clear technological leg up in parts of the spec sheet, in sensor performance, buffer/fps performance, etc. _Canon seems impervious to losing share as a result._ It is possible that folks value other things than the point you are making:

Processors don't stack up to 65 first party full-frame lenses.

Sensors don't stack up to wonderful ergonomics and controls.

Eye AF doesn't stack up to terrific reliability, service and resale value.

So circling any one part of the spec sheet or flagging a core tech advantage that Sony has _as some endgame-level development that Canon cannot overcome_ is simply ridiculous. 

- A


----------



## transpo1 (Jan 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > I think that neither Canon nor Nikon have the processors to seriously compete with Sony in the MILC space, so in the short term (the next few years) we should expect cameras like the a7 to start to dominate in the market. Sony are due for another processor refresh around 2018, so things like the a7III and a7SIII may be a significant step up from the current market leader a7RIII in terms of overall performance (primarily on the video side). You have to think that is making Canon and Nikon execs pretty nervous around now, because as things stand they are not really in a position to compete against that.
> ...



Exactly. Which is why we continue to fight for competitive features from Canon because the system itself is superior.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 4, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Exactly. Which is why we continue to fight for competitive features from Canon because the system itself is superior.



The system is superior which why they have to fight to be competitive....run that by me again....


----------



## transpo1 (Jan 4, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. Which is why we continue to fight for competitive features from Canon because the system itself is superior.
> ...



Ergonomics, lens selection is all better than the competition. DPAF is great. But other sensor tech and video features are lacking. Being #1 in sales means they’re not incentivized to adopt competitive video features or the processing power to keep up with them. One can only hope that their next generation of cameras (including the rumored FF mirrorless) will do so.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 4, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > transpo1 said:
> ...



Maybe (and this was my point, as it is for Neruo and others) for the average camera buyer video features are a good second place to things like ergonomics and lens selection so Canon don't need to rush into the video market. I am sure they are incentivised to do it, but only once they have met the functions that really drive their market (ergonomics, lens selection etc).
You keep making the mistake of confusing 'prioritising' with 'incentivising'.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> For the umpteenth time, though Sony has a clear technological leg up in parts of the spec sheet...



I think you give Sony too much credit. Sony has a "clear technological leg up" only if you consider the difference between receiving a 98 on a term paper a significant leg up over receiving a 97.


----------



## transpo1 (Jan 4, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



My use of the word is correct- because Canon is ahead, they are not incentivized to add 4K into many models or to quickly develop the next generation of processors to keep up with it. In fact, if 4K were not in competitors’ models, I doubt they would implement it at all. This is called competition. If Sony were crushing them in camera sales (which they are not), Canon would be incentivized to move faster and compete on these features. Which is why I hope other manufacturers begin to catch up with Canon, because greater competition will bring a windfall of greater features at greater pace at more competitive prices to us all.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 4, 2018)

unfocused said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > For the umpteenth time, though Sony has a clear technological leg up in parts of the spec sheet...
> ...



Respectfully, I don't think I do.

On *sensors*, they've gone from a clear gap a few years back (esp. DR for landscape / studio shooters, consider D810/D800/D800E/A7R2 vs 5D3) to a smaller gap now. 

On *throughput*, it's a comical delta between Sony and Canon. Roughly three thousand dollars gets you Sony's 42x10 vs. Canon's 30x7 or 50x5.

On *AF*, I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison looking at point counts as the systems are different (I prefer SLR setups strongly here). But one could argue that having AF points across the entire frame (without pulling an iPad-photography-like handheld liveview move with an SLR) is a very nice thing for Sony.

On the bigger top-line features, Sony also fares well: IBIS, tilty-flippy in the higher end FF space, the ability to adapt other lenses, amplify light in the VF, not need manual focusing screens, etc. are nontrivial features. 

On a less top-line feature level, it's more of a push to me. Sony has Eye AF and a faster flash sync, Canon has DPAF and DPRAW (if that ever blossoms).

I can't speak to video (not my thing), but the 5D4 does some nasty crop things that Sony doesn't, correct?

So I honestly believe there's something to Sony (and Nikon) offering more in their bodies-per-dollar these days. _They kind of have to_ in order to win share from the #1 company. But that doesn't dismiss some huge entrenched 'system advantages' Canon has (EF portfolio, reliability, ergonomics), nor does it tempt me to leave the fold.

- A


----------



## transpo1 (Jan 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


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



Seems to be a very honest and smart assessment.


----------



## bwud (Jan 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> On *sensors*, they've gone from a clear gap a few years back (esp. DR for landscape / studio shooters, consider D810/D800/D800E/A7R2 vs 5D3) to a smaller gap now.



Being as how “spec sheets” are being discussed, I’d argue the gap between Sony and Canon sensors is just as large today (or actually larger; sony’s latest addition is far more difficult than its earlier differentiator) as in the recent past. If one goes by differences,

Sony had on dye ADC and BSI
Canon had DPAF

Then canon “caught up” by having DPAF and on dye ADC, but now Sony has on dye ADC BSI full frame stacked DRAM sensors in production.

How meaningful the manifestation of that technology is is arguable. The A9 is certainly impressive, largely due to that stacked sensor architecture.



ahsanford said:


> On *AF*, I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison looking at point counts as the systems are different (I prefer SLR setups strongly here). But one could argue that having AF points across the entire frame (without pulling an iPad-photography-like handheld liveview move with an SLR) is a very nice thing for Sony.
> - A



Unfortunately, as you drift from the center of the frame, the AF gets less reliable (anecdotally based only on my own experience with an A7Rii for >2 years and an A7Riii for about 2 months), much like my 5Diii.

I wonder how DPAF compares.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 4, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Seems to be a very honest and smart assessment.



Now, I've been accused of being a Canon apologist here more than once. We could easily split hairs on how the big sexy top-line spec sheet items with Sony aren't fully realized in the field or are marginalized by some fine print. We could also argue DPAF is a far more useful piece of technology than Eye AF, or that IBIS isn't as valuable as Lens IS, etc. We could totally pick apart what Sony _isn't_ delivering that we have with Canon today. But these latest supercameras (D850, A9, A7R3, A99 II despite some limiting fine print) are imposing offerings.

- A


----------



## bwud (Jan 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Seems to be a very honest and smart assessment.
> ...



I’d argue that vociferously. DPAF allows PDAF from practically anywhere on the sensor. An eye tracking AF code could be added to make use of that hardware. EyeAF alone is neat and works really well (it’s like black magic), but ultimately is only as good as the hardware it runs on, and currently that hardware relies on a limited number of masked pixels. 

If Sony starts making split pixel sensors (they have the capability as is evidenced by the sensors they built for Samsung’s latest galaxy smartphones, but probably not yet the IP given the lack of it in any of their own products) or if canon releases an eye tracking algorithm for live view, then you have harmony with really neat software running on really capable hardware.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


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



Sorry, but I'm not convinced. I realize it's down to personal needs/interests, but all the differences you mention would still count only about 1 point out of 100 if I were grading the two brands -- hence my comment regarding the difference between a 97 and 98 on a term paper. 

I don't want to belabor the point (although what's CR Forum for if not to belabor points?), but just to hit a highlight or two:

Sensor: There has never been a "clear' advantage between camera sensors. At least, not if you believe the testing sites or real-world experience of photographers. Canon sensors were modestly weaker in shadow recovery at lower ISOs, until they moved to on-chip conversions. But, there are still plenty of photographers out their using 1DX and 5DIII bodies who don't feel particularly hobbled by these terrible sensors.

Throughput: Yes, the 5DIII was miserable if you made the mistake of shooting at the maximum frame rate using the SD card slot. But, the CF slot always cleared quickly. The 7DII, 1DXII and 5DIV all have sufficient buffers that I seldom run into any problems with them and I shoot a lot of sports at high fps. 

Autofocus: DPReview has made much about the difference in performance between Nikon and Canon and I'm inclined to take them at their word, because I do know that Canon's autofocus is less than perfect under challenging conditions shooting sports. Indeed, that's why so many sports shooters stick to single point or expanded modes. But, then we aren't comparing Nikon and Canon are we? And, again, let's keep things in perspective. Autofocus isn't magic. We've still got to take some responsibility for developing our skills. 



> On the bigger top-line features, Sony also fares well: IBIS, tilty-flippy in the higher end FF space, the ability to adapt other lenses, amplify light in the VF, not need manual focusing screens, etc. are nontrivial features.



Sorry, I don't consider any of those bigger top-line features. I don't shoot enough video to care about IBIS and with the advent of 4K, software stabilization is much easier to achieve. Plus, once again, what's wrong with learning some skills? IBIS holds no advantage for stills and simply introduces one more thing that can go wrong when the camera's banging around in my truck. 

I don't have any objection to a tilt screen, but it's not a feature that influences me in the least. 

Why would I need to adapt other lenses? I can buy any lens I want in a Canon mount. Don't care about clogging up the viewfinder with gimmicks and would never consider changing focusing screens. 

So, I stand by my personal assessment – For me, these are trivial differences. One point on the term paper.


----------



## zim (Jan 4, 2018)

Spock said:


> If Canon were no longer #1, then they would be #2.



That is an assumption and therefore illogical


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 4, 2018)

zim said:


> Spock said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon were no longer #1, then they would be #2.
> ...



So Canon sits in the number one spot......

Another company passes them and takes over the number one spot.....

At that point. Canon is number two.....

This, of course, does not preclude another company then passing Canon and taking over the number two spot, so logically, if Canon slips from #1, they will then be #2 for however long or brief that stay is.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 4, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Spock said:
> ...



Not true. You are forgetting WHY canon are going to lose the number 1 spot. They are ******* remember. They will lose the spot because they are going to go out of business overnight due to the CEO having nightmares about SONY sneaking up behind them. They won't go to No2. They will disappear from the list altogether


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 4, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



I disagree!

I think that Canon will buy Olympus, and print a pile of 1DX3 labels to put over top of the E-M1 Mark2 labels


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jan 4, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > transpo1 said:
> ...



I don't really buy this argument. If being second was the incentive to improve the features that your superiors have over you then why do SONY refuse to make an ergonomically better product? Making a camera that most serious photographers cannot stand the feel of seems strange to me when it is obvious that they have decided the potential size advantage of mirrorless is lost in the pursuit of image quality(ie .quality lenses negating size benefits)


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 4, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> I don't really buy this argument. If being second was the incentive to improve the features that your superiors have over you then why do SONY refuse to make an ergonomically better product? Making a camera that most serious photographers cannot stand the feel of seems strange to me when it is obvious that they have decided the potential size advantage of mirrorless is lost in the pursuit of image quality(ie .quality lenses negating size benefits)



Just riffing:

1) Maybe Sony thinks their ergonomics are more on-target for the mirrorless community than SLR veteran skeptics like us might believe. Sony may have its own data that says that a beefier / easier to hold bigger glass body is not what the market wants, that only a small percentage of A7/A9 owners want to put f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes on it, or that the product becomes decidedly less desirable to the target market if it is bigger than X.

2) Sony may want to 'minimize the new' and maximize the reusability of body componentry, batteries, etc. for cost or speed to market reasons. That lets them focus on sensor/VF/AF/pipeline internals or possibly free up folks to design other types of camera bodies.

3) Sony has data that 'MORE HORSEPOWER MORE NOW GIMME MOOOOHAAHAHA' remains the #1 ask of their user base, and not designing a new body shape lets them dole out the drugs new bodies more quickly.

I personally don't know what glue they are sniffing with the A7R3 coming out with (ostensibly) an A9 / thicker but very similar grip A7R2 body. The grip to mount side-to-side distance is too small for the GM lenses and the grip itself is not thick/chunky enough to shoot fast glass all day as comfortably as a CaNikon one.

- A


----------



## bwud (Jan 5, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Just riffing:
> 
> 2) Sony may want to 'minimize the new' and maximize the reusability of body componentry, batteries, etc. for cost or speed to market reasons. That lets them focus on sensor/VF/AF/pipeline internals or possibly free up folks to design other types of camera bodies.



I think the reality is closer to: Sony leadership sites size (ie the ability to be small) as *the* number one advantage of the alpha mirrorless line over SLR. Right or wrong, that’s their strategy.

3) Sony has data that 'MORE HORSEPOWER MORE NOW GIMME MOOOOHAAHAHA' remains the #1 ask of their user base, and not designing a new body shape lets them dole out the drugs new bodies more quickly.



ahsanford said:


> I personally don't know what glue they are sniffing with the A7R3 coming out with (ostensibly) an A9 / thicker but very similar grip A7R2 body. The grip to mount side-to-side distance is too small for the GM lenses and the grip itself is not thick/chunky enough to shoot fast glass all day as comfortably as a CaNikon one.



I got a finger stuck once but I was holding the camera in a weird way. My hands are slightly above average per http://www.theaveragebody.com/average_hand_size.php. There is clearance to the GM bulge, but not much.

As for comfort, A7Riii is in my estimation no more comfortable than A7Rii. However with the vertical grip it’s much better. I don’t have to death grip it, it will just hang from my fingertips like my 5D3. Controls are well located though I still struggle with the rear dial (probsbly from decades using cameras without them).


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 5, 2018)

bwud said:


> I think the reality is closer to: Sony leadership sites size (ie the ability to be small) as *the* number one advantage of the alpha mirrorless line over SLR. Right or wrong, that’s their strategy.
> 
> ....
> 
> ...



So size is the number one factor in their appeal but you need a grip to make it comfortable. Adding cost as well. 

Hmmm.....great design philosophy.


----------



## bwud (Jan 5, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > I think the reality is closer to: Sony leadership sites size (ie the ability to be small) as *the* number one advantage of the alpha mirrorless line over SLR. Right or wrong, that’s their strategy.
> ...



It is what it is. In product development there are are often compromises made due to the weird whims of leadership.

I think Sony would be wise to make the alpha line about 1/2” taller. It would be far more manageable (I barely get two fingers on without the vertical grip), the battery capacity could increase significantly, etc. But until leadership changes, size is king.


----------



## Talys (Jan 5, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> So size is the number one factor in their appeal but you need a grip to make it comfortable. Adding cost as well.
> 
> Hmmm.....great design philosophy.



Keep in mind that some people don't rent/use before they buy. Instead, they go to the camera store, where something like an A7RII/III feels pretty good with a relatively small lens attached. Also, they're holding it for a thirty seconds at a time. "Wow, look, OMG, I can have a FF camera that feels like a point and shoot! How awesome is that!"


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 5, 2018)

Talys said:


> Keep in mind that some people don't rent/use before they buy. Instead, they go to the camera store, where something like an A7RII/III feels pretty good with a relatively small lens attached. Also, they're holding it for a thirty seconds at a time. "Wow, look, OMG, I can have a FF camera that feels like a point and shoot! How awesome is that!"



...or they walk into B&H in Manhattan, play around with an A7R2 for about 10 seconds and realize what a fail the ergonomics are. It was an pretty quick reality to absorb. 

Thanks for the pics, Bwud!

Working with that grip and working well with that grip are a different things. I see Sony wheeling out a smaller crop body (non-7D) grip on their FF rigs -- it's a grip reminiscent of my old T1i. You can shoot with it, but it's not comfortable. A few prior posts on this:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33709.msg693701#msg693701

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33528.msg688331#msg688331

I continue to contend that the A7/A9 size is fine if you don't plan on using heavier non-monopodded/non-tripoded glass -- but in fairness, it _is_ well designed for a the 'keep it small' shooter of the Fuji, EOS M or m43 mold who may not be slapping huge lenses on it. 

- A


----------

