# Predictions on What to Expect From Canon in 2016



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 26, 2015)

```
<p>I think we’re all waiting eagerly for 2016, as we expect a lot of new consumer, prosumer and professional products from Canon.</p>
<p>Below is what we expect to see from Canon with some predicted specifications.</p>
<p><strong>Canon EOS-1D X Mark II</strong>

This is a no-brainer and we expect this to be the first big product announcement from Canon in 2016.</p>
<p><strong>Predicted specifications:</strong> 20-24mp, ISO 409,000, 15fps, 4K Video, DIGIC 7, More than 61AF Points, Dual CFast, GPS</p>
<p><strong>Canon EOS 5D Mark IV

</strong>We expect to see a brand new version of Canon’s most popular full frame camera soon after the EOS-1D X Mark II, most likely in early Q2 of 2016. The big question with this camera, will it shoot 4K?</p>
<p><strong>Predicted Specifications: </strong>28-32mp, ISO 409,000, 8fps, DIGIC 7, More than 61 AF Points, CF & SD, GPS, Wifi, NFC</p>
<p><strong>Canon EOS 6D Mark II

</strong>Canon’s entry level full frame DSLR is likely to get an update, but we don’t think it’ll come until the end of 2016, perhaps even after Photokina in September. It should be an incremental update to help keep the price down.</p>
<p><strong>Predicted Specifications:</strong> 25mp, 6fps, DIGIC 7, 19 AF Points, SD Card, Wifi, GPS, NFC, Swivel LCD</p>
<p><strong>Canon EOS 80D

</strong>Canon will be updating the EOS 70D some time in the first half of 2016 we think and it should be a decent upgrade for the popular APS-C camera. We don’t expect anything revolutionary, as the EOS 7D Mark II isn’t due for an update anytime soon.</p>
<p><strong>Predicted Specifications: </strong>24mp, 6fps, DIGIC 7, 19 AF Points, SD, Wifi, GPS, NFC, Swivel LCD</p>
<p><strong>Canon EOS M4

</strong>We honestly have no idea what Canon may have up their sleeves for the EOS M4. We do expect a departure from the EOS M3 and someone of a “relaunch” of the system in the first half of 2016. We’re not sure if we’re going to see a full frame mirrorless camera any time during the year.</p>
<p><strong>Predicted Specifications:</strong> 24mp, 10fps, DIGIC 7, A Bazillion AF Points, SD, Wifi, GPS, NFC, Swivel LCD</p>
<p><strong>EF & EF-M Lenses

</strong>We expect to see a lot more new lenses added to the Canon lineup, as 2015 was a pretty good year. Below are the lenses we expect to see in order of most likely to least likely. Again, these are just predictions for the moment.</p>
<ul>
<li>Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L III</li>
<li>Canon EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6L IS</li>
<li>An ultrawide Non-L EF zoom</li>
<li>Canon EF 50 f/1.4 USM</li>
<li>Canon EF 600mm f/4 DO IS</li>
<li>Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L III</li>
<li>Canon EF 200 f/2L IS II</li>
<li>Canon EF 800 f/5.6L IS II</li>
</ul>
<p>We also expect to see new EF-M and non L zooms during the year. As always, lenses are the hardest part of the Canon lineup to predict and get information on.</p>
<p>Sound off on the forum.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 26, 2015)

I hope Canon adopts 4k, USB Type C across its range of SLRs in 2016. Also I would really like to see EF 60mm f/2.8 Macro.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 26, 2015)

I can somehow get the 800mm f/5.6 will be upgraded due to competition with Nikon, but the 200mm f/2? Why? It's a relatively new lens, and I can imagine it selling many copies per year.


----------



## MintChocs (Dec 26, 2015)

Hopefully a replacement for the 100D/SL1, though I feel as it aimed at amateurs, Canon is hardly likely to do so.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 26, 2015)

Some interesting products, to be sure. 

Very little of interest to me, though. The 1D X II specs aren't a big enough boost to tempt me, the 1D X meets my needs quite well. I do hope they add anti-flicker though. 

The 600/4 DO could be tempting, but only if the IQ is at least as good as the current 600/4 (including performance with 1.4x and 2x TCs). 

Right now, the lens most likely to end up in my kit next is the 11-24/4L.


----------



## Foxdude (Dec 26, 2015)

I'd like to have EF85mm F1.2 L III
Really interested also what will they do with M system


----------



## dolina (Dec 26, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> I think we’re all waiting eagerly for 2016, as we expect a lot of new consumer, prosumer and professional products from Canon.</p>
> <p>Below is what we expect to see from Canon with some predicted specifications.</p>
> <ul>
> <li>Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L III</li>
> ...



L will be USM
Non-L will be STM

200 and 800 prime will probably be updated once all the other lenses mentioned are updated.


----------



## roxics (Dec 26, 2015)

I expect all Canon DSLRs this year to be 4K. I just bought a used smartphone from 2013 for $175 that shoots 4K. Even iPhones that are usually the last to adopt such features now shoot 4K. If a $500+ dollar dedicated camera doesn't shoot 4K, there will be hell to pay. Same with wifi, eveything these days has wifi, even my $100 blu-ray player from three years ago. 

There are certain things in technoogy we expect to happen for good reason. Mostly because such technologies have already saturated the market, that leaving them out just shouts "greed" on the part of the manufacturer at a certain point.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 26, 2015)

CR, Very curious as to why you believe we will have a third iteration of the 85L before/in lieu of a new 50L first. Seems that 50 is more in need of upgrade and I suspected with the new 35L that a new 50L would be hot on its heels. No? Share your thoughts on this please? Thanks!


----------



## krisbell (Dec 26, 2015)

I'm always on the lookout for long telephotos so while the 200-600mm interests me, the 600mm DO has me positively salivating.


----------



## tron (Dec 26, 2015)

I highly doubt that 1Dx II and 5DIV will have the same max ISO (native or extended) especially if 1Dx will have less megapixels than 5D4. The current models do not.


----------



## RGF (Dec 26, 2015)

Looking forward to the 1DX M2 and 5D M4. Wonder much improvement there will be ISO - will new 12,800 be the same as previous 3,200 (2 stop improvement)?

Also remember previous post that there will be new technology in the viewfinder. Is this still pending?

Plus the 16-35 III.

New M4 will be nice if current EF lens work on it.


----------



## George D. (Dec 26, 2015)

<p>Canon EOS 5D Mark IV
We expect to see a brand new version of Canon’s most popular full frame camera soon after the EOS-1D X Mark II, most likely in early Q2 of 2016. The big question with this camera, will it shoot 4K?</p>
<p><strong>Predicted Specifications: </strong>28-32mp, ISO 409,000, 8fps, DIGIC 7, More than 61 AF Points, CF & SD, GPS, Wifi, NFC</p>


I pre-order! Just don't get any ideas with raising the price...


----------



## geekpower (Dec 26, 2015)

so does this mean we shouldn't expect an update to the 135L until 2017?


----------



## rfdesigner (Dec 26, 2015)

dolina said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I think we’re all waiting eagerly for 2016, as we expect a lot of new consumer, prosumer and professional products from Canon.</p>
> ...



Dissagree

I'll cite: 28IS,24IS & 35F2IS

All modern non-L USM glass


----------



## DattaGroover (Dec 26, 2015)

Foxdude said:


> I'd like to have EF85mm F1.2 L III
> Really interested also what will they do with M system


Just curious. I own an 85 1.2L II

Are you assuming the III will be better (as I'm sure it would be) or are there specifics you don't like about the II (for example slow focus acquisition)?


----------



## DattaGroover (Dec 26, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Seems that 50 is more in need of upgrade and I suspected with the new 35L that a new 50L would be hot on its heels.


That would be my bet as well.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Dec 26, 2015)

24-70 BR
70-200 BR
...


----------



## Ladislav (Dec 26, 2015)

I don't get too excited. Too many L/DO lenses in expectation but when I check history of releasing L lenses, Canon rarely did more than 3-4 releases per year. 4 meant a very good year. Could be because of limited production capacity for Pro grade equipment. Fingers crossed for a new 50L. 

http://www.eflens.com/lens_articles/canon_lens_date_codes.html


----------



## DattaGroover (Dec 26, 2015)

Chaitanya said:


> I hope Canon adopts 4k, USB Type C across its range of SLRs in 2016. Also I would really like to see EF 60mm f/2.8 Macro.


Don't know if this is true, but I heard that the MK IV will only go to 1080p. Hope that's not true. Their motive (as I see it) would be to protect and promote their cine line.


----------



## RGF (Dec 26, 2015)

George D. said:


> <p>Canon EOS 5D Mark IV
> We expect to see a brand new version of Canon’s most popular full frame camera soon after the EOS-1D X Mark II, most likely in early Q2 of 2016. The big question with this camera, will it shoot 4K?</p>
> <p><strong>Predicted Specifications: </strong>28-32mp, ISO 409,000, 8fps, DIGIC 7, More than 61 AF Points, CF & SD, GPS, Wifi, NFC</p>
> 
> ...



so did I. Hope price is not sky high. 4K does not matter to me.


----------



## RGF (Dec 26, 2015)

Ladislav said:


> I don't get too excited. Too many L/DO lenses in expectation but when I check history of releasing L lenses, Canon rarely did more than 3-4 releases per year. 4 meant a very good year. Could be because of limited production capacity for Pro grade equipment. Fingers crossed for a new 50L.
> 
> http://www.eflens.com/lens_articles/canon_lens_date_codes.html



I am retired now, but when I worked in a food company we were constantly balance too many flavors (expensive in production - switching between flavors, inventory management both finished goods and ingredients, ...) versus delighting the consumer with their particular favorite flavor.

At some point Canon will face this with their lenses. Segmenting the consumer is good, but you only need to go so far.


----------



## davidmurray (Dec 26, 2015)

Chaitanya said:


> I hope Canon adopts 4k, USB Type C across its range of SLRs in 2016. Also I would really like to see EF 60mm f/2.8 Macro.



I'm wanting cinematic 4K - the real deal 17:9 4.2.2 stuff, but not in a stills camera.
I'm wanting cinematic 4K with good zoom and iris control, and with ND filters, and with good low light picture quality.

So, I'm wanting a proper 4K video camera for when I wish to record video footage.

I enjoy doing my 5D, but see no value in trying to record video when the controls don't allow me the sort of footage I want to take.

So. I'm sticking with Canon for stills - I take it everywhere, but will be buying a good semipro Sony handycam for video.


----------



## JMZawodny (Dec 26, 2015)

RGF said:


> Looking forward to the 1DX M2 and 5D M4. Wonder much improvement there will be ISO - will new 12,800 be the same as previous 3,200 (2 stop improvement)?



Two full stops might be a stretch, but if they move the digitization onto the sensors we might expect a 2 stop increase in dynamic range at low ISO that will also translate nearly that much of an improvement at high ISO. That would make for a huge year for Canon as many would upgrade from their current bodies, no matter what. I'm certainly going to get one or the other this year as I can't afford for my aging 5D2 to quit on me without replacement in hand.


----------



## Luds34 (Dec 26, 2015)

geekpower said:


> so does this mean we shouldn't expect an update to the 135L until 2017?



Does a 135mm from Sigma count?


----------



## Michael Burnham (Dec 26, 2015)

No EOS REBEL SL2??? ??? I love my 7 D mk II, 70D and SL1. Especially love the SL1 for traveling and I'm looking for an update to that compact light-weight DSLR.


----------



## adventureous (Dec 26, 2015)

No predictions of the 1DC dropping another $4000 ?


----------



## gsealy (Dec 26, 2015)

I am very interested to see what happens with the 1Dx II and how far they go with it. Is it going to be a beast, or sorta like a beast?


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 26, 2015)

I predict that they will release a camera body that most people on this forum will dismiss, yet will sell well and those who get it, will love it..... and it will have an articulated touch screen and WiFi.....


----------



## Foxdude (Dec 26, 2015)

DattaGroover said:


> Foxdude said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to have EF85mm F1.2 L III
> ...



There is lot of glass, but I think focus speed can still be improved. Also I don't like focus by wire. I think new version will get that fancy BR element and new coatings. F1.4 would be fine also to keep weight and size down. 1.2 is sexy thoungh...


----------



## Kim Bentsen (Dec 26, 2015)

Surely, a 24-70mm/2.8L IS, if for no other reason than Nikon has one now, and everyone asks why Canon don't.

45mm TS-E and 90mm TS-E, because Canon owes us those two to complete the series of 4 TS-E lenses.

That's it, and I will not ask for more! (for a while).


----------



## Gnocchi (Dec 26, 2015)

What about a 30mm efs 1.8 ?? C'mon canon surely you can build one of these ? Us efs shooters want a fast normal!


----------



## rs (Dec 26, 2015)

Foxdude said:


> DattaGroover said:
> 
> 
> > Foxdude said:
> ...



Competitors and third party manufacturers make f1.4 alternatives to Canon's 50 and 85L's because they don't have the luxury of making lenses exclusively for Canons EF mount with its very generous 54mm throat diameter. I'd suspect with Canons recent roll when it comes to lenses, there's no reason why they can't make a 50/1.2 or an 85/1.2 every bit as sharp wide open as the 35L II.


----------



## ofirga (Dec 26, 2015)

Does anyone remember the Non L EF 70-300 rumored last year?


----------



## rs (Dec 26, 2015)

roxics said:


> I expect all Canon DSLRs this year to be 4K. I just bought a used smartphone from 2013 for $175 that shoots 4K. Even iPhones that are usually the last to adopt such features now shoot 4K. If a $500+ dollar dedicated camera doesn't shoot 4K, there will be hell to pay. Same with wifi, eveything these days has wifi, even my $100 blu-ray player from three years ago.
> 
> There are certain things in technoogy we expect to happen for good reason. Mostly because such technologies have already saturated the market, that leaving them out just shouts "greed" on the part of the manufacturer at a certain point.



Bear in mind the heat generated by high speed full sensor read out from large chips. There are only a handful APS-C and larger censored cameras which offer 4k recording. Sonys have a habit of overheating, and Samsung are now leaving the market. Canon of course got there back in 2013, before anyone else.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 26, 2015)

I agree, that is a long list of lenses. I have a hard time believing Canon will release that many in a single year.

I'm also surprised that Canon Rumors Guy is putting the 200-600 that high on the list. It would be nice to see it released in 2016, but I'm not that optimistic. 

If it is released, I expect a lot of people on this forum will be disappointed at the price. Being very optimistic, I expect it to be somewhere north of $2,500 -- a little higher than the Sigma sports lens but less than $1,000 more.

I would expect an SL2 during the year, probably with the 70D sensor. An SL2 with the 70D's sensor and autofocus, along with wifi and touchscreen, could be a very nice little travel camera for those who don't want to invest in a new lens mount.


----------



## MrToes (Dec 26, 2015)

*Let's hope for new sensor tech to push our DR with Less Noise.*


----------



## Peer (Dec 26, 2015)

adventureous said:


> No predictions of the 1DC dropping another $4000 ?



Yea, I guess if the remaining 1DC stock isn't that big, it might not happen until shortly before the 1DX2 is announced. 

-- peer


----------



## George D. (Dec 26, 2015)

If 5D4 is positioning as the better counterpart of D810 maybe there's also room for an astrophotography oriented spin-off, like the D810A (IR). I'm not into it but if they have an ace up their sleeve why don't they just use it.


----------



## Big_Ant_TV_Media (Dec 26, 2015)

the 80D will be at least 20-24MP 7-8 fps SD/CF cards possible
improved WIFI,NFC better weather sealing 19+AF POINTS better buffer and improved video maybe even 4K
other then that 1DX2 and 5D4 specs that are noted in the original post are big possibilities besides 4K video thats a big WHAT IF?


----------



## that1guyy (Dec 26, 2015)

How do you expect the 80D to only shoot 6fps when the current 70D shoots 7fps? Stupid.


----------



## that1guyy (Dec 26, 2015)

I hope Canon starts making their bodies lighter and smaller. Like Nikon is doing. Their D750 is incredibly light and smaller than the other full frame dSLRs but still have incredibly good ergonomics and is fully weather sealed.


----------



## Machaon (Dec 26, 2015)

rs said:


> DattaGroover said:
> 
> 
> > Foxdude said:
> ...



I'm also very interested to see what Canon can achieve in a EF 85 mm f/1.2 L III. Their Blue Spectrum Refractive technology could see good control of the notable chromatic aberration in the II lens, which I find very distracting for my taste in such a high-end piece of glass.


----------



## rs (Dec 26, 2015)

that1guyy said:


> How do you expect the 80D to only shoot 6fps when the current 70D shoots 7fps? Stupid.



40D - 10 MP, 6.5 FPS
50D - 15 MP, 6.3 FPS
60D - 18 MP, 5.3 FPS

80D having more MP and less FPS than the 70D is not inconceivable


----------



## fentiger (Dec 26, 2015)

Canon have stated earlier this year that only the 1DXII will have 4K, So don't expect it on anything else


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 26, 2015)

I predict a new camera for ME this year. Yes, I'm thinking, CR10 on that one. I had a long chat with myself, and myself told me that I deserve it. Who would I be to argue?

Happy X Mass


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 26, 2015)

+1 on the lens



neuroanatomist said:


> Some interesting products, to be sure.
> 
> Very little of interest to me, though. The 1D X II specs aren't a big enough boost to tempt me, the 1D X meets my needs quite well. I do hope they add anti-flicker though.
> 
> ...


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 26, 2015)

And its a 1DXII!



JMZawodny said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Looking forward to the 1DX M2 and 5D M4. Wonder much improvement there will be ISO - will new 12,800 be the same as previous 3,200 (2 stop improvement)?
> ...


----------



## RGF (Dec 26, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I'm also surprised that Canon Rumors Guy is putting the 200-600 that high on the list. It would be nice to see it released in 2016, but I'm not that optimistic.
> 
> If it is released, I expect a lot of people on this forum will be disappointed at the price. Being very optimistic, I expect it to be somewhere north of $2,500 -- a little higher than the Sigma sports lens but less than $1,000 more.



afraid you may be correct about the price though the Nikon 200-400 is below $1500. Wonder if Canon will try to compete with this lens and not make the 200-600 consumer grade and not L


----------



## jaayres20 (Dec 26, 2015)

I would love love a 1DX II to replace my 1DX and possibly a FF mirrorless to use during well lit portrait sessions.


----------



## RickWagoner (Dec 27, 2015)

rs said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > How do you expect the 80D to only shoot 6fps when the current 70D shoots 7fps? Stupid.
> ...



A great reason not to upgrade from a 70D if you have one!


----------



## veng (Dec 27, 2015)

MintChocs said:


> Hopefully a replacement for the 100D/SL1, though I feel as it aimed at amateurs, Canon is hardly likely to do so.


I'd love to see a prosumer Sl1 replacement. Simply the best tech they can cram into the smallest body possible and letting the price increase from the SL1 accordingly.


----------



## IglooEater (Dec 27, 2015)

C'mon Hurry up with that 5d IV already, and don't overprice it- I need it to push down the prices of used 5d IIIs


----------



## unfocused (Dec 27, 2015)

RGF said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I'm also surprised that Canon Rumors Guy is putting the 200-600 that high on the list. It would be nice to see it released in 2016, but I'm not that optimistic.
> ...



I can't see Canon releasing a 200-600 that is less than either the list price of the Sigma Sports Lens or less than the price of the 100-400. While third party manufacturers may "trick" the autofocus into thinking an f6.3 lens is an f5.6, Canon won't do that, which means it must be f5.6. It will also be USM, as a slow-focusing 200-600mm is not going to cut it. I don't think Canon will worry too much about the pricing of the Nikon -- it's not like Canon users will buy a Nikon lens. Finally, Canon is not blind to the value of putting a red ring on their lenses, which adds to the perceived value. 

Honestly, if a 200-600 materializes for under $3,000 it will sell very well. As for me personally, I'll keep using my 150-600 Sigma Contemporary until the Canon shows up in the refurbished store on a 15% off sale, which means I'm probably two years or more away from getting this lens when and if it materializes.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Dec 27, 2015)

that1guyy said:


> I hope Canon starts making their bodies lighter and smaller. Like Nikon is doing. Their D750 is incredibly light and smaller than the other full frame dSLRs but still have incredibly good ergonomics and is fully weather sealed.



I like the weight, especially when coupled with a heavy lens like the 70-200. Gives it a more balanced feel. But you do feel it at the end of the day


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 27, 2015)

unfocused said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



You guys are crazy, under $3,000 for a 107mm front element 200-600mm L IS tele zoom, that is the same sized front element with more internal elements and much more complicated build as well as being bigger and heavier than the 300 f2.8 IS MkII that costs $6,000.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 27, 2015)

That lens will sell very well when it comes out at double or more what you just said.



privatebydesign said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 27, 2015)

As every year, Canon will not bring anything that excites me:

• 1DX II - marginally improved iteration, sensor tech still lagging, 4k, 8000 USD/Euro, mirrorslap, no thanks
• 5D 4 - marginally improved iteration, sensor tech still lagging, 4000 USD/Euro, mirrorslap, not as good as D810, no thanks
• 80D - marginal iteration, carefully positioned below 7D2, mirrorslap, no thanks
• 3 or 4 rebels, not even marginally omproved, tunnel viewfinder, 18 mp sensor from 2001, mirrorflip, no thanks
• SL2 - marginal iteration, carefully marketing differentiated against rebels and 70D, mirrorflip, no thanks
• EOS M4 - marginal iteration, with EVF, price hiked to 1500 USD/euro, mot as good as 2013 Sony A600, no mirrorslap, but still no thanks

• 200-600, 600 DO, 800 II, 1200 II and a few more superteles, all as big, white and expensive as a lear jet, no thanks
• some L primes as big and expensive as 35 II, no thanks
• some 55-350/5.6-6.7 consumer zooms, no thanks

Most importantly: No kick-ass FF mirrorless system that blows Sony A7 system totally out of the water. So, not interested Canon. Will not buy anything of the above listed stuff. Purchase of Sony A7R II in late 2016 not unlikely, when price comes down. Or kick-ass Sony A8 in 2017.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 27, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> I think we’re all waiting eagerly for 2016, as we expect a lot of new consumer, prosumer and professional products from Canon.



Of course I hope for a lot of new releases so maybe the ones I am looking for are included.
Looking at the last few years and Canon's marketeting strategy I am not sure if we'll see half of what's mentioned at all.

My two cents on this list:


Canon EOS-1D X Mark II: no-brainer as it is an Olympic games year, agreed. Only release date and specs are disputable
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV: surely in 2016 but I see it after the Olympics and closer to Photokina, so say late Q2 or early Q3. 
Canon EOS 6D Mark II: Not this year. Too many FF bodies in one year. quite unlikely for Canon. But I hope to be true
Canon EOS 80D: Must come this year. Maybe Q1, maybe for Photokina but with enough distance to any FF announcement. 
At least right on time for the Christmas sales
Canon EOS M4: Whatever will come, whenever it'll come I've lost my faith in EOS M line. They messed up the relaunch once the can do it again.

As for the lenses:

Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L III: Should come together with the 1DX2
Canon EF 200-600 f/4.5-5.6L IS: This one would surprise me if it comes before 2017. A non-L supertele is wanted more by the crowd
An ultrawide Non-L EF zoom: Don't know. Maybe together with the 80D?
Canon EF 50 f/1.4 USM: I really hope for this one. But I can't belive it to come before a new 50L
Canon EF 600mm f/4 DO IS: As we already saw a mockup of this I'd say this will be out at the Olympics - at least for some there
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L III: Don't know. I's be in for a new 85/1.8
Canon EF 200 f/2L IS II: I can't believe it for this year. Too many big whites in one year.
Canon EF 800 f/5.6L IS II: I can't believe it for this year, too. Too many big whites in one year. But it was mentioned several times - so maybe...

My personal wish list:

EF 50 f/1.4 USM II
EF 85 f/1.8 USM II (maybe in 2017)
EOS 5D4, so much improved that I'll be really tempted. Otherwise I'll wait for 5D5


----------



## Meatcurry (Dec 27, 2015)

roxics said:


> I expect all Canon DSLRs this year to be 4K. I just bought a used smartphone from 2013 for $175 that shoots 4K. Even iPhones that are usually the last to adopt such features now shoot 4K. If a $500+ dollar dedicated camera doesn't shoot 4K, there will be hell to pay. Same with wifi, eveything these days has wifi, even my $100 blu-ray player from three years ago.
> 
> There are certain things in technoogy we expect to happen for good reason. Mostly because such technologies have already saturated the market, that leaving them out just shouts "greed" on the part of the manufacturer at a certain point.



It's easy to put put 4K on a smartphone as the sensor is tiny, as we know Canon gave us the first full frame DSLR with 4K in 2012(1DC), and I think the 1DX2 will have that capability, however I think you will be disappointed if you're expecting it on anything else as Canon really don't see their DSLRs as video devices anymore. However they may give us a hybrid mirrorless system camera with 4K. Either way it will be interesting.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 27, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> As every year, Canon will not bring anything that excites me:
> 
> • 1DX II - marginally improved iteration, sensor tech still lagging, 4k, 8000 USD/Euro, mirrorslap, no thanks
> • 5D 4 - marginally improved iteration, sensor tech still lagging, 4000 USD/Euro, mirrorslap, not as good as D810, no thanks
> ...



You sound like a kid who gets loads of great toys for Christmas, but throws a tantrum because they didn't get one particular toy they asked for.

The predicted list is huge, a lot more releases than any previous year I can think of. If you can't find anything in there to like, then Canon really isn't the company for you and you'd be doing us all a favour by going away.


----------



## Proscribo (Dec 27, 2015)

rs said:


> that1guyy said:
> 
> 
> > How do you expect the 80D to only shoot 6fps when the current 70D shoots 7fps? Stupid.
> ...


Bear in mind that while 50D was the high-end of crop the 60D wasn't anymore because of the introduction of 7D. Don't see why XXD-line would move downmarket with 80D. I'd suspect 7fps with more than 19 af points but less than 40, also it won't have all the great AF-options that 7DII has.

Then again, no one really knows at this point.


----------



## RickWagoner (Dec 27, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



Canon will lose the birders if they don't compete with the 150-600s, only thing that has kept birders with Canon is the old 100-400 and 400 5.6 back in the day. Now Nikon and even Sony bodies can be used with great for the price glass. This opens up a new world of dr for birders amongst other things. Only few people care enough about the L build quality when there is a great optic at a lower price. It is like the 55-250stm is the king lens for backyard beginner bird shooters, no reason to upgrade to anything else because the optic is that great for the price. Do a plastic 55-250stm optic in a 200-600mm ef-s mount and Canon Will keep their hold on the birding market. Why do you think the 7d2 is $1k now? for the $1700 price birders could go with a Tamron or Sigma lens on a D750 and still get usable fps and buffer but entirely different world with high iso, full frame or in crop mode, more features and just as great focusing system for a couple hundred dollars more. On the streets and in the forest i have seen more D750s being used than 7d2s by birders in the last year, hell before the days Tamron announced the 150-600 you were lucky to see two people with Nikon bodies shooting because it was all Canon with 100-400 or 400 5.6's...those days are done for Canon though.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2015)

RickWagoner said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...


Why have a 200-600mm in an EF-S mount? The lens will weigh just about the same whether it is FF or crop. The new Nikon 200-500mm is FF and so are the Tamron and Sigmas because there is no point in having them dedicated to crop. The weight and size of these superteles are dictated by the weight and size of the heavy front elements, which will be the same for FF and crop. Many a keen birder values portability as well, and 400mm is an excellent compromise. 400mm on crop gives a much better fov for birds in flight. There is room for all lenses.


----------



## 100 (Dec 27, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> As every year, Canon will not bring anything that excites me:
> 
> • 1DX II - marginally improved iteration, sensor tech still lagging, 4k, 8000 USD/Euro, mirrorslap, no thanks
> • 5D 4 - marginally improved iteration, sensor tech still lagging, 4000 USD/Euro, mirrorslap, not as good as D810, no thanks
> ...



Dear “forum-slapper”,

So you want a kick-ass full frame mirrorless system for years now and still keep hanging around a Canon forum “asking” (or might I say demanding?) such a system… 
You can’t accept “No” for an answer? 
If Canon was a woman and you acted the same way you’d probably have a restraining order by now. 

If Canon is too much woman for you to handle, please do yourself a favor and move on. Buy yourself a mail-order Sony bride and some extra batteries and be happy. If (In the distant future) Canon comes up with a kick-ass full frame mirrorless system and some good dedicated glass for it, you’re Sony system will still be just fine so there is probably no reason to jump ship once again. 
So just go for it and get your own “My First Sony”


----------



## infared (Dec 27, 2015)

Would LOVE to see a serious Canon FF Mirrorless camera with a revolutionary new sensor and incredible AF capabilities that work with all my EOS lenses....
A guy can dream....can't he.....


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 27, 2015)

Foxdude said:


> DattaGroover said:
> 
> 
> > Foxdude said:
> ...



85L is not top of my list for existing lenses (here I have the 50L, 400mm f/5.6 L and 300 f/4 IS L) but it could use an incremental update on several fronts: focus speed, focus by wire, electrical parts prone to fail, "extended" rear element at risk of damage and reduce fringing and other artifacts wide open and when shooting at night. 

Nice to think about how much lenses have improved meanwhile!

I'd love a 85L f/1.2 sports lens as Canon promised us when the 85L II was released - but next time for real - to keep shutter speed up when the lights go down.


----------



## rs (Dec 27, 2015)

RickWagoner said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Yeah, right. How can you compare Nikon D750 AF combined with a third party reverse engineered lens vs Canon 7D II and the Canon 100-400 II? Especially the D750 with its AF points all crammed into the centre of the frame against the 7D mk II. The two don't compare.

And no mirrorless holds its ground for birding - EVF's at the moment are a huge barrier when it comes to tracking moving subjects.

As for DR with birding, who with "cheap" f5.6 or f6.3 lenses and no artificial lighting is able to get useable shutter speeds for birding at ISO 100? The moment ISO creeps up to 1600 or so, any DR advantage of Sony sensors is completely gone.

I completely agree with AlanF - the only elements which can be made smaller and lighter with a tele lens for a small imaging circle are the extreme rear elements, all of which are tiny compared to the front ones. The weight saving from making a lens with 70+ mm at the wide end for EF-S only would be ~1%. It's like shooting yourself in the foot when you're developing, manufacturing and marketing what amounts to very expensive glass. A cheap flimsy plastic barrel is an option to keep the weight down until you take into account such large and heavy elements so far from the mount.


----------



## nicksotgiu (Dec 27, 2015)

All in all with all these predictions I really hope Canon gets back in the game again, especially for DSLR video.
With all theses predictions at least some stellar lenses are on the way.
And some incredible full frame goodness too!

I can't wait!! :]


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2015)

dilbert said:


> I don't think the big question is if the 5D4 does 4K but will the 5D4 be competitive with Sony's A7 series in terms of IQ. Otherwise why is the 5D4 "late"? What have Canon be spending T&M on to make it "revolutionary"?



No, the big question is will the 5DIV be a better sales success that the Sony a7 series – and most likely the answer will be yes. Based on all the accumulated Internet reviewer wisdom, Canon IQ has been behind SoNikon for several years. Since Canon has remained the market leader for well over a decade, they're clearly delivering products that are attractive to the majority of camera buyers. 

What makes you think the 5DIV is 'late'?? The 5DIII is still a best-selling camera, and Canon previously stated that release cycles will be getting longer. 




dilbert said:


> I don't think



If you'd stopped right there you'd have made one of your rare correct statements.


----------



## tcmatthews (Dec 27, 2015)

Canon will produce cameras X where X = {x1,x2,...} we will complain that they are missing features Y where Y = {y1,y2,...}. Canon will also develop Camera z1 that will either surprise all of use or be universally condemned over the internet. A subset of all users U will buy a new cameras in X and love it. Another subset of U will complain how cameras in X do not meet their needs without ever trying one. 

When camera x1 where x1 is the first camera announced, is officially announced the forum will devolve into a 30 pages of ranting about DR.

I could reuse the above prediction for the last 3 years. 

Actual predictions 

1DX II will be released 
5D IV will be released
6D II maybe 2016 most likely 2017 it really depends on when they release the 5D IV
80D maybe Christmas 2016 but could be 2017 but regardless it must have 4k to keep competitive in the budget movie maker market that it competes in.

I would like to see

50 1.4 update 
50 or 55 f 2.0 IS macro
85f1.8 USM IS
135L IS
180L IS Macro
Full frame Rebel with body based on the T6s
Full frame camera with articulating screen.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 27, 2015)

Lol nice! :



100 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > As every year, Canon will not bring anything that excites me:
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 27, 2015)

RickWagoner said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



I am not saying Canon can't or won't make a 150-600 'competitor' to the low priced third parties if they feel the need, just that a 200-600 f5.6 L IS as rumoured isn't it. 

There is no reason Canon couldn't make a non L 200-600 at any price point they chose they needed to compete in, but it wouldn't be an L lens and it wouldn't be f5.6.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> As every year, Canon will not bring anything that excites me



Guess what? Canon still doesn't care what you think.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 27, 2015)

tcmatthews said:


> Canon will produce cameras X where X = {x1,x2,...} we will complain that they are missing features Y where Y = {y1,y2,...}. Canon will also develop Camera z1 that will either surprise all of use or be universally condemned over the internet. A subset of all users U will buy a new cameras in X and love it. Another subset of U will complain how cameras in X do not meet their needs without ever trying one.
> 
> When camera x1 where x1 is the first camera announced, is officially announced the forum will devolve into a 30 pages of ranting about DR.
> 
> ...



And, I suspect, the next three! ;D

I can't wait for the 5D MkIV to come out, preferably without 4K (for comedy value), I will pee myself laughing at all the comments that would elicit.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 27, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> As every year, Canon will not bring anything that excites me:



Apparently, neither have any of the other brands make anything that excites you enough to switch brands. You've been dissatisfied with Canon for so long, I'm amazed that you haven't simply sold all your Canon gear and moved on.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 27, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > As every year, Canon will not bring anything that excites me:
> ...



Well, then, how would that person get any attention?


----------



## rs (Dec 27, 2015)

dilbert said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Two things.

1. In typical use, end users would crop images taken by a 7D II and a D750 by a very similar use in post, which makes the percentage of the frame covered by AF points very relevant.

2. The 7D II has 65 cross point AF points. The D750 has 51 AF points, with 15 of them being cross type. These are all concentrated in the centre of the frame.

Red is cross type sensor. Grey is line sensor.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 27, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


I guess negative attention is still attention. AvTvM occasionally has useful things to say, but he seems to have that youthful misconception that using hyperbolic language has some real value. Loudly and confidently proclaiming something to be true does not make it so. He's been at his best when he's cited real data to support his beliefs.


----------



## F1since72 (Dec 27, 2015)

What I expect in 2016 with the new cameras is a bigger buffer for sequences. All Canons offer just about 3 sec at highest burst speed. Nikon offers 5 sec and Sony as well. For sequence-studies 3 sec is not enough. We had it in the film-EOS 1V at 10fps an a single roll of film already. Memory is cheap nowadays, so why not buffersizes of about 10 sec. Of course the writing speed of the CF-cards are limited but CF-Fast deliver higher speed as well as SD. And 2 slots offer even higher speed. At 24 or 28 MPx it must be possible to get longer sequences.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 27, 2015)

dilbert said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



For subjects framed the same, the AF point for a FF sensor would have to be in the same position relative to the edges of the frame. If that area is empty because the AF points spread remains the same in absolute terms, that's an issue.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


It is all a question of quality....

If you want a 200-600 F5.6 of similar quality to the 200-400 F4, you can expect to pay $10,000 for it. If you want one of the quality level of the Tamron 150-600 and want the Canon name on it, expect to pay $1500.

How much you pay for such a lens will depend on just where in the scale Canon places it..... but remember, the Tamron is a nice lens and can be bought under $1000... Make the lens 3X range instead of 4X range and you can make it sharper with similar materials... Add in some better glass and you could get a considerably better lens and still keep it to $2500 and you could even call it an "L" lens.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> As every year, Canon will not bring anything that excites me:



Canon never makes gear that excites me....

It's just solid, reliable, no surprises, keeps on doing a good job...... no excitement at all....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > As every year, Canon will not bring anything that excites me:
> ...



Oil-splattered sensors, lossy compression or unnecessarily bloated files, >30-day service turnaround if something breaks – now, _that's_ excitement!


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 27, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > RickWagoner said:
> ...



It is worth remembering that a 600mm f5.6 front element is 30% larger by area than a 600mm f6.3. 

As I said, if Canon choose to make a tele zoom to compete at the price point of the Tamron and Sigma 150-600's, it won't be an L and it won't be f5.6. Besides, there seem to be plenty of images and comparison examples that demonstrate the 100-400 MkII cropped is every bit the match for the third parties at 600, Canon could argue they already have the L f5.6 competitor in the 100-600 range.


----------



## rbr (Dec 27, 2015)

I don't really see the point of Canon coming out with a new 800mm f5.6 IS II so soon. The current lens has a lot more in common with the series II big whites than it does with the older models. When it first came out it was a couple of pounds lighter than the 600 f4 with the new streamlined profile and had the current 4 stop IS. They could shave a little bit of weight off the current model perhaps by eliminating the front protective glass element as they have done with the 600 f4 IS II, but it wouldn't be a radical amount. Adding the IS 3 mode could be nice, but probably not worth the cost of an upgrade to many current owners. I don't see Canon going to the trouble of upgrading the 800 until there is some serious new technology to add to it. I think it will still be a few more years, maybe 2018 or 19 before this lens is upgraded and will show what is to come with the series III big whites.


----------



## aclectasis (Dec 27, 2015)

HA! I would love to go back and read the predictions for 2015. Almost half of these predictions would have been on it, and never come around, while other camera manufacturers continued to release groundbreaking tech in their new products. Shine on Canon!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> As I said, if Canon choose to make a tele zoom to compete at the price point of the Tamron and Sigma 150-600's, it won't be an L and it won't be f5.6.



Awww, c'mon. People on this forum are asking so nicely, I'm sure Canon will answer with a 200-600/5.6L IS for under $1,000. Gotta compete with Tamron/Sigma.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > As I said, if Canon choose to make a tele zoom to compete at the price point of the Tamron and Sigma 150-600's, it won't be an L and it won't be f5.6.
> ...



They will do it.... and it will be a DO lens with a BR element....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



If they don't, all the birders will buy Sony MILCs with Tamron/Sigma lenses and Canon will be *******...


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


and frame-grab from their 8K video at 120FPS...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



It's already happening. My best friend's aunt's cousin's step mother's son's wife's friend knows a guy who saw a guy at a park with a Sony A7R II birding. It's coming! I can feel it!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Well, I ran across some suitable subjects on a pre-Christmas outing...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 27, 2015)

Excellent! Should track those better than our 1Dx's...


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Dec 27, 2015)

The 85mm 1.2 v3 will have way less CA and a faster motor AF haha, the 85mm 1.2 v2 is still wicked.


Lets see that patent for the Focusing screen become a reality that will really help low light shooting. Electronic view finder and max 32MP yes anti flicker is the norm now in high end bodies, gps, nfc wifi with the eyefi card or built in the body flip that coin, looks like these will be the bodies people should of waited for 8).


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



You forgot to mention the the problem Nikon has with its IS interacting with the shutter. For example, their 300mm f/4E PF is more blurred on an 810 at 1/30 - 1/320 s with the IS on than off, and the problem hasn't been cured by the recall.


----------



## Bennymiata (Dec 27, 2015)

AshtonNekolah said:


> The 85mm 1.2 v3 will have way less CA and a faster motor AF haha, the 85mm 1.2 v2 is still wicked.
> 
> 
> Lets see that patent for the Focusing screen become a reality that will really help low light shooting. Electronic view finder and max 32MP yes anti flicker is the norm now in high end bodies, gps, nfc wifi with the eyefi card or built in the body flip that coin, looks like these will be the bodies people should of waited for 8).



I so want to get the 85mm 1.2, and I tried one out at a b&m retailer the other day, but the focussing was so slow that it would be useless to me to use at events, so I'll wait for V3.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 27, 2015)

I was considering trying a Nikon with the 300mm f/4E PF for lightness and the 200-500mm for extra range, and read all the reviews, trawled the forums and handled the lens. That is when I came across the complaints about the IS problems. The 200-500mm is heavy, at 2.3 kg. It is reported to be only fair for AF speed, and it needs to be stopped down to f/8 or f/11 for optimal sharpness on FF.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 27, 2015)

Private, Neuro, BDunbar and Don, When you resort to childish sarcasm, you've already lost.

You may be correct, Canon may not choose to make a 200-600 f5.6 zoom, slap a red ring on it and sell it for $3,000. But, that certainly does not mean they are incapable of doing that. 

I'm on record expressing significant skepticism as to whether this lens will ever materialize. Craig has put it near the top of his list of expected products for 2016. So, it's fair to discuss where we think this product might fall if they do proceed. 

If they do make such a lens, I stand by my predictions: 

1) It will be more expensive than the Sigma 150-600 Sports zoom, which retails for about $2,000. How much more expensive, I don't know. I don't believe it is inconceivable that such a lens could be made and sold for $3,000, if Canon chooses to do so.

2) Canon knows that they can paint a red ring on anything and it will have a greater perceived value among consumers, justified or not. Therefore, to justify a premium over the competition, they need to put that red ring on it. (bearing in mind that the "luxury" designation is simply a marketing tool and signifies nothing.)

3) I do not believe Canon will make a lens that does not autofocus with the majority of its DSLRs. I also believe they will not resort to "fooling" their own autofocus systems into thinking an f6.3 is an f5.6. By the process of elimination, that means an f5.6. I seriously doubt that the size of the front element is a major worry for Canon engineers. It's just glass, not gold or diamonds. I admit I could be wrong about this and Canon could indeed make it an f6.3, I would just be surprised by that and I'm open to any rational argument that it could indeed be an f6.3 lens.

It is certainly possible that this could be one more $6,000-$12,000 piece of glass. If that's the case, it becomes irrelevant to me and, frankly to the vast majority of birders and hobbyists. 

However, I think an argument can certainly be made that Canon may want to compete against the third parties that are offering 150-600 mm zooms, especially since the quality of those lenses has been quite impressive. One of the other commenters that you made fun of, did make a very valid point, which might need to be better articulated. If you are mainly or exclusively interested in photographing birds, it's entirely reasonable that you might let your lens choices determine what camera body you want to buy -- after all the camera can be a smaller investment and easier to change if you are only going to pair it with one lens. 

That's a point that had not occurred to me and would certainly be a reason why Canon may choose to compete in the 500-600mm zoom range. An avid birder could well look at Nikon's 500mm zoom and conclude that they could buy a camera and the lens for less than the price of the new 100-400mm zoom. The old 100-400 zoom has been the standard for birders for years. It's not uncommon for me to see four or five other birders with the lens at the same location. In these challenging times, I doubt if Canon wants to lose that customer base to Nikon. 

Ultimately, the only way we will know who has guessed correctly is to just wait and see. Honestly, I'm comfortable with that because I'm not the one on this forum who is making sarcastic comments instead of discussing things in a mature and intelligent fashion.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 28, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Private, Neuro, BDunbar and Don, When you resort to childish sarcasm, you've already lost.



Not all of it's childish sarcasm, some of it is adult sarcasm, aimed at people who repeatedly act as if to speak for the entire universe of bird photographers. 

I will continue to repeat my question to the Canon bashers: if Sony/Nikon etc are so much better in all ways than Canon offerings, why have they not pulled market share from Canon? Apparently, Canon offers some aggregate of benefit to photographers that has kept a leading share of the market. Why is that? (I intend that as a sincere question.)

If Canon makes the 200-600L as described, and if it matches the quality of the 100-400II for a reasonable price, I will start saving my pennies.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 28, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Private, Neuro, BDunbar and Don, When you resort to childish sarcasm, you've already lost.
> ...



Because obviously Canon is brainwashing all of us idiots into buying into their system.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 28, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Private, Neuro, BDunbar and Don, When you resort to childish sarcasm, you've already lost.
> ...



No disagreement there. But the latest round struck me as particularly childish and without merit.



Orangutan said:


> I will continue to repeat my question to the Canon bashers: if Sony/Nikon etc are so much better in all ways than Canon offerings, why have they not pulled market share from Canon? Apparently, Canon offers some aggregate of benefit to photographers that has kept a leading share of the market. Why is that? (I intend that as a sincere question.)



I'm certainly not qualified to answer that question, since I absolutely agree with you. I am as tired of the broken record ramblings of the Canon bashers as anyone. I would simply hope that Canon users show a little bit of maturity and not slip to the level of Mr. "Mirrorslappers are Dying." 



Orangutan said:


> If Canon makes the 200-600L as described, and if it matches the quality of the 100-400II for a reasonable price, I will start saving my pennies.



Precisely. I am not expecting a $1,300 lens, but I see no reason why a $2,500-$3,000 lens is not possible or plausible and those who say otherwise seem to have nothing constructive to contribute to the conversation.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Private, Neuro, BDunbar and Don, When you resort to childish sarcasm, you've already lost.
> 
> You may be correct, Canon may not choose to make a 200-600 f5.6 zoom, slap a red ring on it and sell it for $3,000. But, that certainly does not mean they are incapable of doing that.



I hadn't realised I had resorted to childish sarcasm in this thread (though admit it isn't past me), but there is no winning or losing only being correct or incorrect, and being a sarcastic child doesn't preclude or include you in either. It isn't difficult to be a sarcastic child and be correct after all......

I still don't see your point when it flies in the face of all current evidence:-

EXIBIT A: The 300 f2.8 MkII has the same sized front element than a 200-600 f5.6 would need to have, it is smaller and simpler than a supposed 200-600 f5.6 L IS and costs $6,000.

EXHIBIT B: If you work out front element area to cost for the white lenses it seems double the diameter costs four times the money, the 70-300 f4-5.6 is $1,249 and has an entry pupil at 300 of 53mm, double that to get your 107mm front element and you are looking at $5,000, now whilst the 70-300L is a nice lens few would be crass enough to say it is in the same league IQ wise as the 300 f2.8 IS MkII. Put another way, the 70-300 L is a bargain L lens and if you scale that up to a 200-600 you still get a $5,000+ cost for similar IQ and build at which point the 100-400 MkII is looking even better.

EXHIBIT C: As I previously pointed out, Canon already made a 150-600 f5.6 L, it weighed a ton and cost a fortune, indeed you can still get them if you can handle manual focus and aperture and don't mind them being at least twenty years old. They still cost a lot more than your projection for the new version, in the region of $4,000 - $5,000, notice how that figure keeps coming up?

EXHIBIT D: The 100-400 f4-5.6 MkII. Many have argued that this lens already competes head on with the Tamron and Sigma, even people as well qualified, lens savvy and unemotional as Dustin Abbott, who sold his personal Tamron to replace it with the Canon after testing the Canon, and both Sigmas. Even this more modest lens from a building and cost perspective is a $2,300 lens. Various people have cropped the 100-400 MkII to the same size when used at 400 as the third parties used at 600 and have found the same as Dustin, the IQ from the cropped Canon is better.

Again, as I keep saying, I see no reason why Canon couldn't make a lens to compete with Tamron and Sigma for price in the 150/200-600 zoom range (the 100-400 MkII already does for the IQ), but if they do it will not be an L lens and it won't be f5.6, and both of those attributes have been stated in the rumour.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2015)

Given the choice of enjoying – and participating in – the humor, or sucking lemons...







I'll choose humor every time. But I certainly don't begrudge anyone who chooses to be a sourpuss. ;D


----------



## infared (Dec 28, 2015)

What is amusing here is the rampant fanboyism, and the "superior" (not) egos attached to it. It's really stupid.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2015)

infared said:


> What is amusing here is the rampant fanboyism, and the "superior" (not) egos attached to it. It's really stupid.



Ooh, can you point out that _"rampant fanboyism"_ from me? I'm sure in your mind I qualify but I can't see how anything I have said suggests I think Canon is better than any other company.

Also, if presenting readily available facts classes me as having a _""superior" (not) ego"_ then we are obviously not both writing and understanding English, but that wouldn't be the first time......... ;D


----------



## unfocused (Dec 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> ...Again, as I keep saying, I see no reason why Canon couldn't make a lens to compete with Tamron and Sigma for price in the 150/200-600 zoom range (the 100-400 MkII already does for the IQ), but if they do it will not be an L lens and it won't be f5.6, and both of those attributes have been stated in the rumour.



I'm not sure we are that far apart. 

It sounds like we are both very skeptical that this lens will materialize as predicted. 

You seem absolutely certain that Canon cannot (or perhaps will not) produce an affordable f5.6 200-600mm zoom because the front element would need to be 107mm (your number, correct?) I note that the Sigma sport is just 2mm smaller at 105mm and sells for $2,000 MSRP. I am not sure I understand why you feel so strongly about the size of the front element, especially since Sigma has produced two nearly identical lenses with the same zoom range and maximum aperture -- one using a 105mm filter and the other using a 95mm filter. This makes me suspect that the front element diameter might not be as rigid as you believe. Nor, do I understand why you feel this front element diameter is the deciding factor in the cost of a lens. Still, I'll happily yield to your technical knowledge on this as I am no lens designer.

On the other point, that it will not be an "L" lens, I don't understand your reasoning at all. It's not as though the "L" designation has any real world meaning. An "L" lens is simply whatever Canon chooses it to be. It does not need to be weathersealed. It does not need to be a constant aperture. It does not have to meet any objective standards for sharpness or anything else. It simply has to have a red ring around the front of the lens and if it is a telephoto, it must be painted white-ish. 

It seems to me that my logic on the "L" designation is much more solid -- Canon can charge more for a lens if they call it an "L" and since this is not going to be a cheap lens anyway, they will call it "L" and take advantage of the perceived value that comes with that designation.

Alternatively, I am certainly willing to believe that a 200-600 "L" f5.6 would not be slotted in as a competitor to the Sigma Sports Zoom or the Nikon 500 zoom. It is entirely possible that instead it would be offered as an alternative to the 200-400 f4 with 1.4 extender zoom and priced accordingly. I don't take that personally and don't feel as those Canon would somehow be slighting me if that occurred. In fact, from a purely selfish standpoint, it would save me a considerable amount of money and keep me content with the 100-400 II and the Sigma Contemporary 150-600 zooms. 

My wife will probably send Canon a thank you note for not producing an affordable 200-600 zoom.


To beat this dead horse a bit, I would say that it seems to me the best and cheapest option for Canon if they are truly concerned about the competition from the Sigma and Tamron lenses would be to add more f8 auto focus points to the 5DIV and the next generation of 7D (along with adding one or more to the 80D). The biggest problem with the 100-400mm zoom plus the 1.4 extender is that you are limited to one central auto focus point.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > What is amusing here is the rampant fanboyism, and the "superior" (not) egos attached to it. It's really stupid.
> ...



Yeah, I'm scratching my head over this comment as well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2015)

unfocused said:


> You seem absolutely certain that Canon cannot (or perhaps will not) produce an affordable f5.6 200-600mm zoom because the front element would need to be 107mm (your number, correct?) I note that the Sigma sport is just 2mm smaller at 105mm and sells for $2,000 MSRP. I am not sure I understand why you feel so strongly about the size of the front element, especially since Sigma has produced two nearly identical lenses with the same zoom range and maximum aperture -- one using a 105mm filter and the other using a 95mm filter. This makes me suspect that the front element diameter might not be as rigid as you believe.



The Sigma Sport has a larger filter thread, but that doesn't mean it has a much larger front element. 600mm/6.3 = 95.2mm. The C lens front element must be smaller than that, meaning more fudging rounding of the numbers. The vignetting is equivalent between the two. Looking at the lenses, the 'surround' in the front of the S is wider than that of the C. 600mm / 5.6 = 107mm.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 28, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Ooh, can you point out that _"*rampant fanboyism*"_ from me? I'm sure in your mind I qualify but I can't see how anything I have said suggests I think Canon is better than any other company.
> 
> Also, if presenting readily available facts classes me as having a _""superior" (not) ego"_ then we are obviously not both writing and understanding English, but that wouldn't be the first time......... ;D
> 
> ...



It's the failure to acknowledge the objective, self-evident truth impartially presented by the Canon bashers. If that accusation had any value at all, it would have been followed by a list of specific quotes to support it. 

I would love to see real competition from Nikon, Sony, et al, but so far they have failed to deliver. Simply incorporating a sensor with superior low-ISO characteristics has not been enough to take market share from Canon, nor have Sony's mirrorless offerings. I will be very pleased when those other companies sell products in numbers that put pressure on Canon, but so far it hasn't happened.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2015)

unfocused said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...Again, as I keep saying, I see no reason why Canon couldn't make a lens to compete with Tamron and Sigma for price in the 150/200-600 zoom range (the 100-400 MkII already does for the IQ), but if they do it will not be an L lens and it won't be f5.6, and both of those attributes have been stated in the rumour.
> ...



I am no lens designer, I am just looking at the current and historical price point of Canon lenses with a similar or scalable specs. The FD 150-600 f5.6 L lens was a very expensive lens at the time and even now isn't cheap, why should a current version be cheap when no data supports that hope.

The entry pupil of a lens, that is the apparent size of the aperture, is determined by the focal length divided by the aperture, the front element must be bigger than that as the apparent aperture can't be bigger than the tube it is contained in, ergo, a 600mm f5.6 = 600/5.6 = 107mm. That is the diameter of the actual clear glass, not the size of the front of the lens.

The Sigma's are 600mm f6.3 = 600/6.3 = 95mm, the C lens isn't a true 600 and it isn't a true f6.3, the S lens does a little better, but I'd bet it isn't a true 600mm lens either.

As for the "L" designation, Canon have previously made some claims for them though as you say, it truthfully is more a marketing term. But previously they have stated that L lenses must have some exotic glass and or ground aspheric elements, since the introduction of weatherproofing they are supposed to include _"the most rugged and high quality build and weathersealing"_ and they have to fit and work on every EOS camera ever made, I got this from one of the Canon Lensworks books but can't remember which one.

Sure they could slip in a low end L lens, but what marketing value would that have in the longer term? Canon have no problem selling various $8,000 - $12,000 lenses for EOS cameras, and many considerably more expensive lenses for video users, why would they turn that all around to make a complex lens for a niche market? To me that makes no business sense.

If Canon make a 150-600 f5.6 L lens it will cost in the $10,000 region. Why would they do that when they have the 200-400 f4? Video, the 200-400 has to slot in the TC to get it to 560 and f5.6, don't forget that 200-400 f4 is, effectively, a 280-560 f5.6 that costs nearly $10,000, how are they going to do that for 20% of the price?

I am quite sure that if they make a $2,500 150-600 it will be an f6.3 max and won't be an "L" lens.

But, apart from the physics, I could be wrong, it's just that nothing in the present or past support the notion of a 150-600 f5.6 L being anything other than a premium priced lens.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Private, Neuro, BDunbar and Don, When you resort to childish sarcasm, you've already lost.
> 
> You may be correct, Canon may not choose to make a 200-600 f5.6 zoom, slap a red ring on it and sell it for $3,000. But, that certainly does not mean they are incapable of doing that.
> 
> ...


My sarcasm is directed at the people who say it can't be done....

To make things perfectly clear, I will state things again.....

I think that the price range for a 200-600 zoom lens from Canon is between $1500 and $8,000. It all depends on what quality they decide to make it. If they decide to make it similar quality/materials to the Tamron 150-600, we get the low end. If they make it of similar quality to the 200-400 (without teleconverter) we are looking at the top end of the range.

If they decide to make it an "L" lens, that does not necessarily mean it has to be at the top of the range... you can still make an "L" lens and not use fluorite elements.... you might even see this lens as an L lens for under $3000. Keep in mind here that Canon's most expensive non-L lens is the TS-E 90mm at $1500, and you can get an L lens for as little as $650 for the 70-200 F4 non-IS...... just because a lens is "L" does not mean you paid many thousands of dollars for it.

My bet is that it will come out as L series lens, costing somewhere between $2500 and $3000, with significantly better IQ than the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon alternatives, and I would not be in the least surprised if it had a DO element and the BR layer in it. Remember, Canon is working on DO technology to save weight and cost...

Why would they do it? One simple reason.... it would dominate the market. No birder or wildlife photographer would be without one. It would sell like stink!


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> It's the failure to acknowledge the objective, self-evident truth impartially presented by the Canon bashers.



Can you link to specific comments in this thread that fail to acknowledge objective and self- evident truths, and why are you referring to these comments as being made by _"Canon bashers"_?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Remember, Canon is working on DO technology to save weight and cost...



I've seen plenty of evidence that DO technology reduces lens length. It doesn't seem to do much to reduce weight, and if anything it seems to increase cost.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I am no lens designer, I am just looking at the current and historical price point of Canon lenses with a similar or scalable specs. ...it's just that nothing in the present or past support the notion of a 150-600 f5.6 L being anything other than a premium priced lens.



Thanks for the explanation. I think it's very plausible and only time will tell if Canon is in agreement. In the meantime, it's entertaining and educational to talk about these things.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > It's the failure to acknowledge the objective, self-evident truth impartially presented by the Canon bashers.
> ...



Perhaps I forgot my <sarcasm> tag.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 28, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> ...My bet is that it will come out as L series lens, costing somewhere between $2500 and $3000, with significantly better IQ than the Tamron, Sigma, and Nikon alternatives, and I would not be in the least surprised if it had a DO element and the BR layer in it. Remember, Canon is working on DO technology to save weight and cost...
> 
> Why would they do it? One simple reason.... it would dominate the market. No birder or wildlife photographer would be without one. It would sell like stink!



That's my hope as well. Not terribly confident that it will happen, but it will be fun to see. 

It would certainly dominate the market. My wife and I went to Horicon Marsh this fall. We had the very good fortune of spotting a Whooping Crane on one of the ponds. She was using the 100-400 I. In the time we were there, about six other birders/photographers showed up, every single one of the them had the same lens. I think this is the market Canon wants to keep.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> My sarcasm is directed at the people who say it can't be done....
> 
> To make things perfectly clear, I will state things again.....
> 
> ...



I don't see how pointing out that Canon have never made anything close to a 150-600 f5.6 L lens with anything less than a mega price tag deserves sarcasm, indeed I haven't seen one example of a scalable product that points to anything but a big ticket item. If you take the rumours three specs, focal length, aperture and an L designation then nothing in the past or present points to anything less than a high price!

Don't get me wrong, I believe Canon could make a 150-600 with better IQ for less than the Sigmas and Tamron, but if they do it won't be an L and won't be f5.6 so isn't the lens the person who started the rumour is talking about.

You point out the 70-200 f4 L is only $650, don't forget compared to the 70-300 at the same price it costs 50% more when priced to focal length, and the 70-300 has IS. L lenses, even the budget ones, are premium lenses.

But all I am doing is pointing out common sense based on actual current and past lenses, so rather than keep arguing the levels of sarcasm I deserve give me one scalable example from Canon's past or present that contradicts my comment that a *150-600 f5.6 L* lens would come with a high price tag.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Sorry, doing too many thinks at once makes me forget the Aye's from the Nay's ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Remember, Canon is working on DO technology to save weight and cost...
> ...


It's a new technology in camera lenses, but has been around for almost 200 years. Molded plastic flat lenses are about 50 years old.... 

If they can solve the production problems, they end up with a lens element that is thinner, lighter, and easier to produce than glass elements. They have not hit similar quality to fluorite elements yet, but they are up to the point where they are better than regular optical glass. At some point we should see a lot more of DO.....


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> But all I am doing is pointing out common sense based on actual current and past lenses, so rather than keep arguing the levels of sarcasm I deserve give me one scalable example from Canon's past or present that contradicts my comment that a *150-600 f5.6 L* lens would come with a high price tag.


There has been a discontinuity. Both Sigma and Tamron have come out with $1000 150-600mm zoom lenses using low (or extra low) dispersion glass. Nobody expected to see lenses like that for that price. Nikon has a 200-500mm F5.6 lens. It only stands to reason that Canon will compete in this segment as well. 

The thing is, to compete in this segment, you need a relatively low cost lens. Yes, you could build it with fluorite elements for $8000, but that's an entirely different market segment. They need to keep it to about $2500 MAX to compete here..... and it could be done with UD glass and still be an "L" type build.

Regardless of if the lens is L or not L, it will be about the same physical size and will take similar electronics, similar switches, and similar machining of the shell. The big variable is what type of glass goes into the big element.... If it is regular glass it is not an L lens. If it is fluorite, it is an L lens. If it is UD glass it is an L lens...

Ultimately, this discussion comes down to a mater of opinion. Mine is that Canon could come out with a $2500 200-600mm F5.6 L lens using UD glass as the large element.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > But all I am doing is pointing out common sense based on actual current and past lenses, so rather than keep arguing the levels of sarcasm I deserve give me one scalable example from Canon's past or present that contradicts my comment that a *150-600 f5.6 L* lens would come with a high price tag.
> ...



That doesn't make sense to me, Sigma and Tamron both make lenses for Nikon, does that mean Canon should do the same to remain competitive? Or how about, the niche market segment is already covered with the lenses that don't make much money anyway, after all, how much profit are Sigma and Tamron making trying to knock each other out over this niche? Why would Canon enter the fray and not make much money as well? Or how about, Canon could make a case that they already have their 'competitor', the 100-400 MkII, as I keep saying tests show the IQ to be on a par or better than the third parties at 600 when the Canon is cropped and at 400.

I agree with what you say _"Ultimately, this discussion comes down to a mater of opinion. Mine is that Canon could come out with a $2500 200-600mm F5.6 L lens using UD glass as the large element."_ I don't believe they could (except at a huge loss) or would.

The differences between us is that I have given lots of solid examples of past and current lens pricing which support my beliefs and assertions, nobody that has your opinion has written anything fact based to support their assertions, just idle 'I believe they can' nonsensical musings.


----------



## Alangeli (Dec 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> ...
> Now maybe buying the 100-400 combo makes sense if you've got a 1DX , or 5Ds or 5DIII, where the camera is more expensive, but if you've bought a Rebel or 7D or 6D or 70D, then then Sigma/Tamron lenses are well in your price bracket and Canon's competitior ... well, it doesn't exist.
> ...



I disagree. The sensors of the Rebel or 7D or 6D or 70D cameras also deserve a great lens like the 100-400 II. I am using the 100-400 II with great joy with a 7D Mark II, which has an even better AF system than a 5D III. Everybody can see the better quality of the 100-400 II in comparison to the Sigma/Tamron offerings also with a medium level camera.


----------



## whothafunk (Dec 28, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Remember, Canon is working on *DO technology to save ... cost*...


HAHAHAHA. Nice troll, much fan. I would give you a proper reply, but neuro already beat me to it. Get your facts straight.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 28, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



I thought it sounded lighthearted and fun, especially by the standards of this forum.


----------



## fox40phil (Dec 28, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> As every year, Canon will not bring anything that excites me:
> 
> • 1DX II - marginally improved iteration, sensor tech still lagging, 4k, 8000 USD/Euro, mirrorslap, no thanks
> • 5D 4 - marginally improved iteration, sensor tech still lagging, 4000 USD/Euro, mirrorslap, not as good as D810, no thanks
> ...



/signed... 5D IV withouth 4k/UHD..no thanks!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> This problem is exemplified in the 70-300 space: Canon's 70-300 IS USM is cheap but is really not very good. The Tamron 70-300 VC Di is a bit better for a similar price. The 70-300L is better again than the Tamron but the price is now 3x-4x at ~$1200. For Canon to deliver a lens that trumps the Tamron offering they essentially need to deliver the IQ of the "L" lens for around half the price of the "L" lens.



The 70-300 space is an example, but not in the way you think. The Tamron 70-300 and the Canon 70-300L came out at the same time, over 5 years ago, with Canon having an optically superior but much more expensive lens. What was Canon's response over the past 5 years? Nothing. Did they update the 70-300 non-L to 'trump' the Tamron? No. The L lens' performance trumps the Tamron, and if people want that Canon will charge accordingly. 




dilbert said:


> Canon's problem is price.



It's not Canon's problem. The problem is people who wish for Canon to release an inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 lens, and are letting their wishes trump reality.


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


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



I hope I'm not intruding here but may I share a thought I have?

Is it a plausible theory to imagine that Canon may put out a product close to the cost price, simply as a way of locking in buyers to their system?

I can imagine that selling a $2k 150/200-600mm lens to hook in prospective buyers may have longer term positive gain?

Of course, I may be entirely wrong ;D


----------



## wsmith96 (Dec 28, 2015)

I'd be interested in the 6D II or 5D Mk IV. In reality, if the predictions come true, the 6D is all that I need for the photography I do. Kids sports are fast, but not 1DX fast. My 60D keeps up with them just fine. If the 6DII gets the old 7D's AF system, that's really all I'm lacking. I got a 6D during the refurb sale and I do find that the AF system is a tad slower than my 60D. I'm learning the camera now, so I'm sure there is a tweak somewhere to speed it up.

I'm also interested to see the price point on the 16-35 F2.8. I have an UWA for my crop camera, but I don't use it often. It is fun to have in the bag though. I don't have a FF equivalent right now and I was considering the 17-40 or the 16-35 F4, but if the cost isn't off the scale, having F2.8 would be nice.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 28, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> I hope I'm not intruding here but may I share a thought I have?
> 
> Is it a plausible theory to imagine that Canon may put out a product close to the cost price, simply as a way of locking in buyers to their system?
> 
> ...



The 100-400II is still listed at $2200. A 200-600L would be a big step up from that, and if it were non-L it might cannibalize the 100-400II. My guess (based on nothing) is that a 200-600L would need to cost 50% more at launch than the 100-400II costs at the same moment. That's probably around $3k, minimum. The 100-400L II will start dropping quickly after that, and the 200-600 might settle around $2500 after a year. In marketing terms, the 100-400II would drop to (nearly) compete on price with the Tamron/Sigma offerings, while the 200-600 offers the big step up in quality.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 28, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


There is the possibility of a manufacturer sells a product with zero profit, to win customers to be faithful to their camera system ... But it would happen in wildcard lenses such as the Canon 50mm F1.8 STM.


----------



## GP.Masserano (Dec 28, 2015)

It is time that the Canon would produce a 150-500 or 200-600 to compete with Sigma and Tamron in the band of telephoto lenses for nature (not too expensive, *NOT L*, *NOT 5,6* but *STM f6.3*).

The telephoto lenses very bright were indispensable years ago when in the camera you had a 100ISO from 36 frames, knowing that then you would have thrown in the dustbin 30 photos on 36... 
Now, with the new cameras and ISOAUTO you can use 800ISO without visible noise. 
In most situations, it is still necessary to charge 5 kilos of aluminum and glass ?????????


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2015)

whothafunk said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Remember, Canon is working on *DO technology to save ... cost*...
> ...


It's not a troll. outside of Canon, everywhere you see fresnel lenses used, it is to provide a cheap, easy to manufacture, low cost lens. Canon has figured out how to make them of relatively high quality. Like many new manufacturing techniques/products it is introduced at a premium price and as the ability to produce comes up to speed, one can expect price drops.

For a traditional lens, double the size and you bump up the cost by a lot more than that.... the lens blank becomes twice as wide and that means 4 times the area... That means a lot more material, and in the case of fluorite elements, a lot more time to grow the crystals... That lens of twice the diameter is also a lot thicker, and that means even more material is needed for that larger element. The grinding of the element now requires much more material removal and that takes even more time. We are probably looking at a cubic function for cost/size.

A DO element cost scales as a square function. Double the diameter and you get 4 times the material and 4 times the etching time.

Even more important are time and production. Exotic glass elements take a lot of time and you are limited in production quantities. This is obviously a factor in DO elements as it has the ability to speed up the production lines and as they say, time is money.....

With small elements, DO buys you little if not none for space savings and costs more. As you progress to larger elements you eventually hit the point where they make sense. The large element of a 600F5.6 would make sense. The unanswered question is "what is the state of the DO manufacturing process" and does it make economic sense yet? None of us know the answer.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 28, 2015)

wsmith96 said:


> I'd be interested in the 6D II or 5D Mk IV. In reality, if the predictions come true, the 6D is all that I need for the photography I do. Kids sports are fast, but not 1DX fast. My 60D keeps up with them just fine. If the 6DII gets the old 7D's AF system, that's really all I'm lacking. I got a 6D during the refurb sale and I do find that the AF system is a tad slower than my 60D. I'm learning the camera now, so I'm sure there is a tweak somewhere to speed it up.
> 
> I'm also interested to see the price point on the 16-35 F2.8. I have an UWA for my crop camera, but I don't use it often. It is fun to have in the bag though. I don't have a FF equivalent right now and I was considering the 17-40 or the 16-35 F4, but if the cost isn't off the scale, having F2.8 would be nice.



6D centre AF point is amazing and works even in extremely low light. The one to use.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> A 200-600L would be a big step up from that, and if it were non-L



Simple math and a little knowledge of lens design make it clear that a 600mm f/5.6 lens needs a front element approximately 107mm in diameter, which is the same size as that of the 300/2.8 lenses. That's true whether it's L or non-L, and translates to a substantial level of build quality to support that weight of glass. No matter what, a lens like that will not be anywhere close to the price range of the 3rd party 150-600 zooms. 

Nikon's solution was a 200-500mm f/5.6. A 500mm f/5.6 front element is 89mm in diameter, and building a lens to be cost-competitive with the 150-600 lenses is quite feasible, especially when you look at the compromises that were made. 

As for the possibility of a zoom that's 600mm f/6.3 at the long end, here's what Canon has to say:

[quote author=Canon DLC]
With a few notable exceptions — we’ll discuss them below — all EOS DSLRs produced to date require that the effective maximum aperture of a lens or lens + extender combination be f/5.6 or faster to permit autofocus. ...if the camera sees an effective maximum aperture that’s slower than f/5.6 — f/6.3, f/7.1, f/8, or slower — it simply cuts off AF.
[/quote]

So Canon would either have to admit they've been lying for years or spoof their own cameras into seeing f/5.6 instead of f/6.3 as done by reverse-engineered 3rd party lenses. Not bloody likely. 

Please, people...face facts – an inexpensive (<$3K) 200-600/5.6 just isn't going to happen, nor is an EF lens with a max aperture narrower than f/5.6.


----------



## docsmith (Dec 28, 2015)

I am having a hard time believing that Canon will refresh almost their entire lineup of bodies. Looking back, 2012 was close with the 1DX announced late 2011 and delivered in 2012, 1DC, 5DIII, 6D, EOS-M and a rebel. But no other year is close. 

Given the timelines I am guessing 1DX, 5DIII, and lower end entry level in 2016. 6DII could happen late, but my guess is 2017. 80D and 7ti in 2017. 

Then, the standard 3-4 lenses per year.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > A 200-600L would be a big step up from that, and if it were non-L
> ...



So Canon would either have to admit they've been lying for years or spoof their own cameras into seeing f/5.6 instead of f/6.3 as done by reverse-engineered 3rd party lenses. Not bloody likely. 

Please, people...face facts – an inexpensive (<$3K) 200-600/5.6 just isn't going to happen, nor is an EF lens with a max aperture narrower than f/5.6. 
[/quote]

They can't...........

Interesting that f5.6 is a stated maximum minimum aperture, I didn't know that, but it adds even more weight to my many examples, it also seems the perfect reason the 1200 f5.6 was a 5.6 and Nikon's competitor to the 1200mm f5.6 was the 1200-1700 f5.6-8.

It also seems that for 'budget' tele lenses from Canon a 500 f5.6 is the absolute max that could ever be hoped for with a very plausible 95mm filter thread, therefore it is impossible for the rumoured lens being discussed to be a budget lens, the focal length is too long, the aperture too wide, and the L designation.

But it is fun watching people with hope at Christmas desperately try to rationalise their desires despite the laws of physics and any and all other evidence to the contrary. ;D


----------



## whothafunk (Dec 28, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> 6D centre AF point is amazing and works even in extremely low light. The one to use.


Sorry, but if 6D's centre AF point is amazing, then what is 7D2 or 1DX? Even the 7D2's centre point focuses down to -3 EV. Apart from High ISO capability, 6D is ancient.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> But it is fun watching people with hope at Christmas desperately try to rationalise their desires despite the laws of physics and any and all other evidence to the contrary. ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Simple math and a little knowledge of lens design make it clear that a 600mm f/5.6 lens needs a front element approximately 107mm in diameter



Quite true..... but manufacturers are prone to rounding numbers off.... Let's say they make it a 570mm lens at F5.9. The marketing people round the numbers off to 600mm and F5.6, but in this case they use a 97mm element. If Canon does come out with an under $3000 200-600mm zoom, I would expect to see numbers like this. For a $10,000 big white you expect the numbers to be closer, but not for an "economy" lens....


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > But it is fun watching people with hope at Christmas desperately try to rationalise their desires despite the laws of physics and any and all other evidence to the contrary. ;D


Come on Neuro.....

Everyone knows that reindeer fly.... particularly after 6 or 7 rum and eggnogs.....


----------



## rbr (Dec 28, 2015)

Sigma and Tamron have been around for over 50 years and have long offered various inexpensive telephoto alternatives to Canon and Nikon. Nothing new is going on. They have never threatened Canon into making cheap telephotos before and they won't now. If you want a new lens that isn't L quality, just buy the Sigma and be done with it. There are also used Canon lenses out there. The 2x III on the original Canon 300 f2.8 IS, for example, is very capable if you need a decent 600 on a budget.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 28, 2015)

GP.Masserano said:


> It is time that the Canon would produce a 150-500 or 200-600 to compete with Sigma and Tamron in the band of telephoto lenses for nature (not too expensive, *NOT L*, *NOT 5,6* but *STM f6.3*).
> 
> The telephoto lenses very bright were indispensable years ago when in the camera you had a 100ISO from 36 frames, knowing that then you would have thrown in the dustbin 30 photos on 36...
> Now, with the new cameras and ISOAUTO you can use 800ISO without visible noise.
> In most situations, it is still necessary to charge 5 kilos of aluminum and glass ???



I find that ISO 800 is the minimum I'm using - at 700mm f/5.6 or 1000mm f/10. More often, ISO 1600-3200. If you live in sunnier climes, lower might do. Except at dawn and dusk. And in woodland. So actually yes, if you want the best shots, you still need those wider apertures and bigger, more expensive lenses. Not to say great shots aren't possible with cheaper kit. But to suggest the superteles are obsolete is pushing things a bit far.

Incidentally, you seem not to have read the previous discussions. Canon doesn't *need* to compete in this. More importantly, they show little sign of feeling they need to.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 28, 2015)

Reading all this has made me reconsider the new 100-400 II. Part of me desired the Sigma but if the Canon is better cropped in than the Sig at 600mm, it just makes more sense to go Canon. There in lies, perhaps, Canon's considerations in trying to produce and market another $6k - $10k great white at 200-600. 

Canon already makes a 200-560mm zoom. It's $10k. It's f4 from 200-400 and f5.6 from 400-560. I don't see why Canon would stick yet another (effectively) variable aperture lens covering the same range (there's almost zero difference from 560 to 600mm) in the lineup for only a few thousand less at THAT price range.

It seems to me Canon already has a competitor in the 100-400 max f5.6 department that crops very nicely to 600 (and it's not that much to crop from 400 to 600 either). It's $2200. There's your Sigma/Tamron competitor.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 28, 2015)

And if Don is a troll, then I'm the Pope.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 28, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



What you're saying has merit in general terms, but it seems Canon is approaching DO from the top down. The next DO lens that seems likely is the 600 f/4 DO. Judging by the photos of the mockup, it's a supertele with the features and build quality of the current 600 f/4. That will not be cheap, it may even be priced higher, as it's offering convenience of size and weight over the traditional lens.


----------



## wsmith96 (Dec 28, 2015)

whothafunk said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > 6D centre AF point is amazing and works even in extremely low light. The one to use.
> ...



Well, I don't have a camera that goes beyond the normal 9 point AF system so I don't know any better at the moment  Also, I hope that the 6DII incorporates the anti-flicker technology. I really noticed it during the last dive meet I shot. About a third of my pictures had off lighting due to the flicker of the lights.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 28, 2015)

You can bet every new Canon FF DSLR will have AntiFlicker. Probably the upper APSC too like the 80D. Do the T6 have it? Cant remember.

Even without it, just shoot in RAW mode and WB it in post.



wsmith96 said:


> whothafunk said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Dec 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> But it is fun watching people with hope at Christmas desperately try to rationalize their desires despite the laws of physics and any and all other evidence to the contrary. ;D



Honestly guys, seriously? Why does it always have to devolve into this.

I'm certainly not trying to rationalize any desire, nor do I see a lot of other people doing so in this discussion (okay, there are some, but let's just dismiss the under $2,000 delusional dreamers).

What I'm trying to do is figure out the logic behind Craig's placing a 200-600 mm lens in the No. 2 position in his predictions. I've never hesitated to disagree and call out Canon Rumors Guy when he ventures into areas where he shouldn't or where he is conflicted (grey market sales for example), but from years of reading and following his posts I know he is generally pretty good at getting predictions right. 

Of course, it would be helpful if he would just tell us what his sources are telling him: is this another big white to supplement the 200-400 1.4 or is it a lens meant for ordinary mortals? 

I'm trying to puzzle out if it could be something that someone other than the 1 percent-ers could afford. To me it is all (or at least mostly) academic. While you've raised some valid points, none of them definitively rule out the possibility. 

I think you all agree that the "L" designation doesn't automatically confer any traits that rule out such a lens, so we seem to be debating maximum aperture and front element size. Those are certainly good arguments, but I don't see anything in them that should justify the absolute certainty with which you are stating your opinions.

In the spirit of the holidays however, I will give you a much better argument that you can use: If Sigma or Tamron could have made an f5.6 zoom at an affordable price, why didn't they? Clearly there had to have been an economic reason to use the bizarre and bogus f6.3 aperture. The Sigma Sport seems to have every other trait that a Canon version might have: durable construction, weather sealing, etc. But, they apparently couldn't make it for $2,000 with an f5.6 aperture. Does that fraction of a stop cost $500 more? $1,000 more? Or, as you claim, more like $4000 more?

I guess we may never know. But, I see no reason to resort to snark.


----------



## H. Jones (Dec 28, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> You can bet every new Canon FF DSLR will have AntiFlicker. Probably the upper APSC too like the 80D. Do the T6 have it? Cant remember.
> 
> Even without it, just shoot in RAW mode and WB it in post.



I sure hope so. One of the biggest reasons I know I'm going to preorder the 5D Mark IV is probably this. 

I do shoot raw and WB in post, but it's extremely frustrating when half the photograph is more purple and half the photograph is more green. You're going to end up compromising on one side or the other when you get 'the shot' and it's at the worst part of the lighting flicker. At events, it's not a big deal, shoot 1/100 or 1/125 and the flicker is gone, but when you shoot indoor sports, it's crazy frustrating.

And when I have a deadline of 10:30 and the game is over at 10, I don't have time to go and try to tune each and every photograph. 

I just wish the 1DX II and the 5D Mark IV were coming sooner rather than later!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 28, 2015)

H. Jones said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > You can bet every new Canon FF DSLR will have AntiFlicker. Probably the upper APSC too like the 80D. Do the T6 have it? Cant remember.
> ...



Yep. Ohio State wants photos every 10-12 minutes during the game. So basically I'm hooking my 1Dx up to my laptop court/field-side, sorting, and sending. Of course you shoot all JPG in that case and just crop. I'd like Wifi in the 1Dx II and anti-flickr, if I have the nerve to even keep shooting sports 

Because of cropping, especially at ISO 3200 and above, more MP's would be very welcome. Of course, filling the frame and strobing negates that need other than for convenience.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2015)

H. Jones said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > You can bet every new Canon FF DSLR will have AntiFlicker. Probably the upper APSC too like the 80D. Do the T6 have it? Cant remember.
> ...


I shoot musicians in a poorly lit pub with old florescent lighting. The flicker is terrible. When the 7D2 came out with anti-flicker my keeper rate doubled. Editing became a lot easier as one could apply one WB setting to the entire night as opposed to each shot individually. When you need it, it is a fantastic feature to have.


----------



## pierlux (Dec 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...The problem is people who wish for Canon to release an *inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 lens*, and are letting their wishes trump reality.



That's exactly what I'm wishing for in 2016: an inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 L IS *prime*, possibly costing 3000-3500 US$.

Back in May, we discussed this rumor which pointed towards a prime supertelephoto slower than f/4
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26507.0 
I was hoping for more rumors about this prime since I see no way a 150-600 or 200-600 Canon zoom can be affordable even at f/6.3, let alone at f/5.6. The possibility of such a prime lens is preventing me from buying the Sigma or Tamron offerings, yet I didn't hear no further speculation on this 600mm prime since the rumors on the supertelephoto zoom have kicked in. I believe I'm not alone in hoping a non-DO, affordable 600mm Canon prime actually materializes.

And, unfocused, I'm also having some difficulty trying to figure out why Craig listed a 200-600 mm lens in the No. 2 position in his predictions... maybe it's really a 70-300 non-L on steroids?

p.s. (and O.T.) Actually, what primarily prevented me from purchasing the 150-600 Sigma is that I dropped those 2000 euros on a mountain bike. So, back on saving...


----------



## scyrene (Dec 28, 2015)

pierlux said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ...The problem is people who wish for Canon to release an *inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 lens*, and are letting their wishes trump reality.
> ...



But as others have said elsewhere, the 300 2.8 has the same entrance pupil size as a 600 5.6. And that lens is just over $6000 at B&H Photo, despite being smaller than the wished-for lens.


----------



## rbr (Dec 28, 2015)

pierlux said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ...The problem is people who wish for Canon to release an *inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 lens*, and are letting their wishes trump reality.
> ...



That lens already exists right now. It's called a used 300 f2.8 IS (version I) with a 2xIII attached.


----------



## tomsop (Dec 28, 2015)

The 6D was announced on September 17, 2012 so I would predict roughly the same timeframe for the 6d mark 2 in 2016. 

I think it would be a mistake not to announce the Canon EOSm4 after CES but the 4 anniversaryfor the original M runs in July 2016. The M3 was a disaster and it was announced in feb of 2015 so hopefully they will get it right in February 2016. If you go to DP review.com and look at the Canon cameras they provide a grid of what models are released each year and it seems to me that models are updated every 3 1/2 to 4 years so the one DX is way overdue. The five the cameras are released every 3.5 to 4 years so we will probably see something in September 2016 for the 5dmark4. Hope you enjoyed my amateurish predictions.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2015)

scyrene said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Build a 600 F5.6 prime to the same quality as the rest of the big whites and it will cost somewhere around $6500. Compared to the $12,000 of the 600 F4, it is inexpensive.... but the vast majority of consumers will still regard it as insanely expensive.

Swap out that big fluorite lens element for a UD glass element and what happens to the price? You could easily hit that $3000 to $3500 range that Pierlux is talking about. 

If canon is going to try to build an INEXPENSIVE lens, they are not going to use their most expensive materials. You can have an L lens without a fluorite element... there are several L lenses that use UD glass... I have two of them in my camera bag!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Simple math and a little knowledge of lens design make it clear that a 600mm f/5.6 lens needs a front element approximately 107mm in diameter
> ...



There's rounding, then there's lying. 570mm f/5.9 is closer to the latter than the former.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Please, people...face facts – an inexpensive (<$3K) 200-600/5.6 just isn't going to happen, nor is an EF lens with a max aperture narrower than f/5.6.
> ...



Evidently. :'(


----------



## pierlux (Dec 28, 2015)

scyrene said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



On the other hand, comparing the old (for the sake of equality) 300mm f/2.8 to the 300mm f/4 (marketed in 1999 and 1997, respectively), their price in yen was 690,000 and 198,000, respectively, which is roughly a 3.5 fold difference in price for a 1-stop difference. So, I'm simply doing the same math in the case of the existing 600mm f/4 L IS II and an hypothetical 600mm f/5.6 L IS.

I suppose there's more than the dimension of the entrance pupil to establish the cost of a lens, it's more a matter of weight I suppose. The front element of a 600mm f/5.6, although probably being approximately similar in diameter to that of the 300mm f/2.8, would be much more flat and light and therefore easier and cheaper to manufacture. The same, possibly, for the remaining lens elements.

Many glass elements are handcrafted, especially those critical, unevenly curved aspherical ones. That's why a lens such as the 11-24 f/4 cocts so much. The less curvature is required, the less work is needed to achieve satisfying optical performance.

In addition, there's the old 400mm f/5.6... OK, it's old, and it has no IS, but its price is minimal and has a 77mm filter diameter, so again all the math based on the size of the front element goes.

I still stand by my assumption, that a 600mm f/5.6 prime could be priced probably north of 3000 US $, but not more than 3500 US $.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 28, 2015)

pierlux said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > pierlux said:
> ...



Well I hope you're right!


----------



## pierlux (Dec 28, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Well I hope you're right!



Fingers crossed... I'd prefer a 600 L prime over a 200-600 non-L. In any case, it seems it's going to be an exciting 2016 for us Canon shooters!


----------



## dolina (Dec 28, 2015)

I wonder if canon will offer any USB-C product outside of cables.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 28, 2015)

As amazing as the 300 f2.8 is, I really wonder how much better (if perhaps any in real world measurements) a dedicated 600 f5.6 prime would be vs that 300 f2.8 with a 2xIII. If they are anywhere close to the same, I'd take the 300 with 2x.

I'd be much more interested at this point in seeing a brand new 400mm f5.6 L II.



pierlux said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Well I hope you're right!
> ...


----------



## rbr (Dec 28, 2015)

The last manufacturer to make a 600 f5.6 was Nikon. It was a manual focusing lens. Right now I'm looking at a price list from 1995. The new prices of Nikon manual focusing lenses at the time were :

500 f4 - $4350
600 f5.6 - $4895
600 f4 - $7200
800 f5.6 - $6250

That should give you an idea of how a 600 f5.6 would fit into a price line up.


----------



## rbr (Dec 28, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> As amazing as the 300 f2.8 is, I really wonder how much better (if perhaps any in real world measurements) a dedicated 600 f5.6 prime would be vs that 300 f2.8 with a 2xIII. If they are anywhere close to the same, I'd take the 300 with 2x.
> 
> I'd be much more interested at this point in seeing a brand new 400mm f5.6 L II.
> 
> ...



The 300 f2.8 L IS II with the 2xIII is excellent :
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=739&Camera=963&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=978&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0


----------



## unfocused (Dec 28, 2015)

You guys have convinced me of two things:

1) I'm really, really happy I hit the buy button when the Sigma Contemporary went on sale for $700 just after Thanksgiving; and 

2) I'm really, really, really happy I hit the "buy" button when the 100-400 II came up on Canon's refurbished website during the 15% off sale.

I was a little worried that if the 200-600 f5.6 actually materializes I might have buyer's remorse. Looks like that won't be a problem.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 28, 2015)

pierlux said:


> I still stand by my assumption, that a 600mm f/5.6 prime could be priced probably north of 3000 US $, but not more than 3500 US $.



I admire your optimism. Let me remind you: *107mm*. Even with some 'creative' rounding, it won't take 105mm filters. That means $$$ 112mm filters, or a design incorporating a drop-in holder. Sounding more expensive by the minute. Also, the rumored lens is a zoom...while there's a very slim (anorexic!) chance of a 600/5.6 non-L prime coming in at $3500, there's pretty much zero chance of a 200-600/5.6 zoom at that price. 

Me dear ol' Da summed it up – wish in one hand, sh!t in the other, and see which fills up first.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



There was also a statement from Tamron saying that they were surprised at the demand....


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> rbr said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma and Tamron have been around for over 50 years and have long offered various inexpensive telephoto alternatives to Canon and Nikon. Nothing new is going on. They have never threatened Canon into making cheap telephotos before and they won't now. If you want a new lens that isn't L quality, just buy the Sigma and be done with it. There are also used Canon lenses out there. The 2x III on the original Canon 300 f2.8 IS, for example, is very capable if you need a decent 600 on a budget.
> ...


I'd add Tokina to the list. They have an 11-16mm F2.8 lens for crop cameras that is very well received.


----------



## pierlux (Dec 28, 2015)

rbr said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > ...what I'm wishing for in 2016: an inexpensive 600mm f/5.6 L IS *prime*,
> ...





PureClassA said:


> As amazing as the 300 f2.8 is, I really wonder how much better (if perhaps any in real world measurements) a dedicated 600 f5.6 prime would be vs that 300 f2.8 with a 2xIII. If they are anywhere close to the same, I'd take the 300 with 2x.
> 
> I'd be much more interested at this point in seeing a brand new 400mm f5.6 L II.



Good point! Excellent, I'd say.

Except that a version 1 300mm 2.8 + 2xIII combo would not exhibit comparable IQ to a brand new 600mm f/5.6 prime, given the enhancement in IQ Canon have accustomed us to expect with their recent releases. Plus, a 600mm f/5.6 + 1.4xIII combo would still be a usable 840mm on most recent Canon bodies. And it would not be a 15 y old used lens.

No, the real question here lies in the cost, I said $ 3500 and provided plausible evidence for this, but one could object that the 800mm f/5.6 costs 4 times that much, so how could it be possible? Probably it's also a matter of units that Canon foresee to sell, I mean, I know a few in this forum own the 600 f/4, but don't recall none who owns a 800mm. And how many 600mm f/5.6 would be sold compared to the f/4? I think 4:1-5:1 is a realistic ratio. Or, maybe, and even higher ratio, comparable to the 5D:1D owners ratio, roughly, which would help keep the price low. That said, I want to stress that such a lens is what I *wish* in 2016, not what I *expect*. After all, at this point the zoom hypothesis appears to be more realistic that the prime. It seems that a wannabe birder on a thin budget has no choice other than Sigma or Tamron for an affordable supertele. Or Canon 400 and crop in post... :'(

Sure, a 400mm f/5.6 L IS II with BR would be most welcome, anyway. As for the coatings, I can't see Canon letting BR out of any of their L lenses by now.


----------



## pierlux (Dec 28, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> pierlux said:
> 
> 
> > I still stand by my assumption, that a 600mm f/5.6 prime could be priced probably north of 3000 US $, but not more than 3500 US $.
> ...


Indeed! But I'm optimistic as far as sensor tech is concerned, not so for the 600 prime. And thinking that it was a CR2 back in May... well, let's hope it's horse sh!t, at least it has some value as a fertilizer...


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 28, 2015)

I'd tend to agree with you guys and that assessment, but I would be very interested to see sales figures in EF mount for The Tammny and Sig offers vs the Canon 100-400L. I know they are different focal ranges but I would have to suspect that they are both used in many of the same purposes (sports, wildlife, and birding). I guess if you REALLY needed the extra reach from 400-600 (without using an extender and falling to f8) then you look at the 3rd party glass, although I've seen how soft they are at the 500-600 end, which to SOME folks will render that end less favorable. 

Otherwise, for those using f8 capable AF points (like on a 7D2) you can 1.4 extend the 10--400 Canon L II and voila. I'm not saying it's all perfectly equal. Obviously that extra stop of light can be a savior. I'm just wondering out loud here how many tele-zoom buyers at this range are buying the Canon 100-400 (versions 1 AND 2) vs the Tammy/Sig (especially now that version 1 has had a nice price drop. 

There is still something to be considered for reliability of Canon AF especially when it comes to birding. I have to imagine more shooters would feel better with a dead-on accurately achieved AF on a flying finch they might have to crop in a bit in post to get 600mm ... vs a native 600mm shot that is soft by comparison and whose AF didn't quite nail it.

I'll be really curious to see if Craig's pick here pans out. I just can't make sense of how Canon fits such a lens into their line up price wise, when it seems like they already have an answer they just released a few months ago.



dilbert said:


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


----------



## rbr (Dec 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> rbr said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma and Tamron have been around for over 50 years and have long offered various inexpensive telephoto alternatives to Canon and Nikon. Nothing new is going on. They have never threatened Canon into making cheap telephotos before and they won't now. If you want a new lens that isn't L quality, just buy the Sigma and be done with it. There are also used Canon lenses out there. The 2x III on the original Canon 300 f2.8 IS, for example, is very capable if you need a decent 600 on a budget.
> ...



How old are you? Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma have been tapping that market since they were founded fifty years ago. They have been selling cheap telephotos at a fraction of the price that Canon and Nikon lenses. That's what they have long been known for. Only recently has Sigma been offering high quality "Art" lenses. Look at the test results. There is nothing to suggest that these new telezooms that have come out recently challenge Canon's quality or market share any more than the last generation's 100-500 zooms did or the $100 Tokina 400 f5.6 I owned in the early 80's did.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 28, 2015)

dilbert said:


> In the past Sigma and Tamron were never really a threat for Canon because the cheaper price meant a drop in IQ.
> 
> That has changed.
> 
> ...



Yeah but Dilbert, Sigma isn't making those long tele to ART level quality. I'm not saying they suck. They just aren't ARTs. Now I can tell you owning two ARTs myself, I love them. But the moment Canon makes the 50L 1.2 replacement, my 35 and 50 Sigs are sold (provided of course Canon's new 50 performs like the 35). Will the Canon be any sharper then the Sig? Probably not. Will it be about equal. Probably so. Will the Canon AF more accurately & consistently and achieve that richer Canon bokeh that I just can't produce with my ARTs (although it's not too bad)? YUP! I think for the same reason (with the AF issue anyway) people will still prefer to use native Canon glass, especially when you have to rely on AF to get your shot.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 28, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> I'd add Tokina to the list. They have an 11-16mm F2.8 lens for crop cameras that is very well received.



Couldn't agree more. That lens was obscenely good and delivered accurate AF every time (although it wasn't terribly quick). Optically it was amazing, especially for $600. Only reason I sold it was cuz I stopped using crop and bought a 16-35 f4 instead.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 28, 2015)

I am always a bit worried when Dilbert is the reasonable one. 



dilbert said:


> ...it appears that Sigma/Tamron have found an untapped market for a long lens and Canon doesn't have anything to compete in that space with Sigma/Tamron and is losing money/sales to them...if Canon wants a part of that sales pie then Canon needs to "do something."



You are asking something that no one here can answer: Is Canon losing money/sales due to the low cost Sigma and Tamron lenses? And, do they care?

The popularity of these lenses certainly indicates they are selling very well. Whether Canon sees that as a threat or not, only Canon can answer.

But, we need to recognize that Canon and Nikon are both operating in a vastly different environment than they were just a few years ago. They squandered the point and shoot market, which represented the bulk of their camera business and they are now relying on the enthusiast market to keep their camera and lens divisions profitable (along with diversifying wherever they can). 

Canon USA has gotten aggressive with grey market retailers. A sign that they are concerned about preserving their margins.

And, to top it off, the DLSR market has plateaued. People are content with their cameras and not rushing to replace them, plus the huge technological advancements of the early 2000s are behind us (For God's sake, people on this forum spend countless hours debating trivia like dynamic range because there isn't anything important to focus on)

These developments might suggest a heightened interest in competing with third-party manufacturers to protect their claims to the enthusiast base. Obviously Nikon is worried about Sigma and Tamron, or they wouldn't have released their 500mm zoom. These two companies usually behave in tandem, so it is certainly plausible that Canon could feel the need to react.

So, as they say: Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.



dilbert said:


> ...There are a bunch of folks on here for whom money seems to be no obstacle when it comes to purchasing camera equipment and while that is fine for them, they don't represent a majority of camera owners or purchasers.



And, it is those people who cannot afford the big whites that constitute the bread and butter of the Canon and Nikon customer base. Both companies have made public statements acknowledging that these are people they are looking to to keep their camera divisions profitable.



rbr said:


> The 2x III on the original Canon 300 f2.8 IS, for example, is very capable if you need a decent 600 on a budget.



I am probably at the upper end in what most people spend on camera equipment. But when someone suggests that a 300 f2.8 (even used) is an "affordable" alternative, I can only laugh.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2015)

unfocused said:


> You are asking something that no one here can answer: Is Canon losing money/sales due to the low cost Sigma and Tamron lenses? And, do they care?
> 
> The popularity of these lenses certainly indicates they are selling very well. Whether Canon sees that as a threat or not, only Canon can answer.
> 
> Obviously Nikon is worried about Sigma and Tamron, or they wouldn't have released their 500mm zoom. These two companies usually behave in tandem, so it is certainly plausible that Canon could feel the need to react.



It's certainly reasonable that Canon may choose to release a (relatively) low cost (non-L) supertele lens. However, in the context of this discussion, to suggest that the lens at will be 600mm and f/5.6 is not only unreasonable, it's ridiculous.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I am always a bit worried when Dilbert is the reasonable one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree 100% and would like to add:

A few short years ago if you suggested that Sigma was going to put out lenses that competed favourably with a Canon L lens, you would have been laughed at, yet here we are with the ART series. Tokina was the cheapest and crappiest of the crappy, yet they have an 11-16F2.8 lens that beats the stuffing out of the Canon 10-22 lens. If you read the comments above you will hear people telling you that the new 100-400 L version II is as good at resolving distant detail as the Tamron 150-600..... think about that.... A $2500 Canon lens is as good as a Tamron $1000 lens!!!!

What we are seeing is a major discontinuity in the lens market. Things have changed! As to how (or even if) Canon is going to react, none of us knows. 

To Quote Dilbert,


dilbert said:


> ...There are a bunch of folks on here for whom money seems to be no obstacle when it comes to purchasing camera equipment and while that is fine for them, they don't represent a majority of camera owners or purchasers.



The vast bulk of Canon's DSLR sales are NOT $2000+ bodies and the vast bulk of their lens sales are not $2000+ "L" lenses. It is the little stuff that keeps the lights shining on the factory floor and the third party lens makers are making some big inroads here. It is NOT business as usual.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> The vast bulk of Canon's DSLR sales are NOT $2000+ bodies and the vast bulk of their lens sales are not $2000+ "L" lenses. It is the little stuff that keeps the lights shining on the factory floor and the third party lens makers are making some big inroads here. It is NOT business as usual.



With respect, I think your views are being skewed by spending time on CR. The market has contracted, but it's still business as usual. The 'little stuff' that keeps the factory lights shining isn't a $2000 lens...and nor is it a $1000 lens. It's the entry-level (xxxD/xxxxD) dSLR kit with 1-2 lenses included in the box. For the vast bulk of dSLR buyers, the thought of spending $1000 on a lens like the Tamron 150-600 would be laughable, nauseating, or the first step on the path to divorce.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > The vast bulk of Canon's DSLR sales are NOT $2000+ bodies and the vast bulk of their lens sales are not $2000+ "L" lenses. It is the little stuff that keeps the lights shining on the factory floor and the third party lens makers are making some big inroads here. It is NOT business as usual.
> ...


That's what I was saying, maybe not as elegantly, but it's the little stuff that the vast bulk of people buy....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I don't see 3rd party lens vendors making big inroads into the low-end 'bread-n-butter' market. That's been their strategy for decades, and it seems to have been a subsistence living for them. It's only recently that they've started aiming for higher quality lenses like Sigma's Art line – and those lenses are priced well above the low end market.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Probably correct, but I have seen an awful lot of 18-270 lenses on rebels and Nikon crops.....


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 29, 2015)

I dont think Canon necessarily wants to try to Compete in the $1000-2000 market for this particular focal range. I think they are perfectly content sitting on the 100-400 L II at $2300 and I bet those are selling very, very well. Also agree there seems no feasible way to produce a quality 5.6 200-600 either at the prices some here are desiring. There a huge difference from 5.6 to 6.3 in glass. Nikon makes an 80-400 (no competition in quality to Canon 100-400) and they now make a 200-500mm variable aperture... For CROP sensor. It sells for $1400. But with crop it takes way, way less glass to create. So, does Canon make a crop zoom for that range too? Perhaps! How well would a 200-600 EF-S lens sell for birders who probably use CROP bodies for the most part anyway? How great would THAT sell with a 7D2?! Probably like hotcakes. Canon producing a lens for that makes way more sense. 




neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > You are asking something that no one here can answer: Is Canon losing money/sales due to the low cost Sigma and Tamron lenses? And, do they care?
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 29, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> If you read the comments above you will hear people telling you that the new 100-400 L version II is as good at resolving distant detail as the Tamron 150-600..... think about that.... A $2500 Canon lens is as good as a Tamron $1000 lens!!!!



No, that is not what is being said. What is being said is the Canon lens is so much better than the third party lens that even at a 50% focal length disadvantage the Canon still delivers similar IQ when cropped to the same fov. 

Put another way, the Canon lens has at least 50% better IQ when relating to focal length, the Canon lens is a true f5.6 and will always AF on any and every EOS camera ever made (including those not yet made), the AF is faster and more accurate than the third party lenses, the IS is better than the third parties, the build quality and engineering in the Canon lens is substantially better, and the Canon lens works very well with a 1.4TC on many EOS cameras. Now I agree that for some people all those things are not worth an extra $1,500, but for many, and it would seem there are many, it is.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 29, 2015)

Exactly. If Canon can out resolve a subject at 400mm compared to a Tammy/Sig at 600mm (and all the extra pixels striking the subject at that tighter FOV) then that speaks volumes for Canon engineering. Tammy/Sig have to make products to fill price voids that 1st party manufacturers will/can NOT. Otherwise, no one buys third party. But with that third party pricing comes SOME degree of sacrifice. That degree is measured differently by each photographer. 



privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > If you read the comments above you will hear people telling you that the new 100-400 L version II is as good at resolving distant detail as the Tamron 150-600..... think about that.... A $2500 Canon lens is as good as a Tamron $1000 lens!!!!
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Nikon makes an 80-400 (no competition in quality to Canon 100-400) and they now make a 200-500mm variable aperture... For CROP sensor. It sells for $1400. But with crop it takes way, way less glass to create.



Errrmmm...WTF? Nikon's new 200-500mm lens is a constant f/5.6 and an FX (full frame) lens. Also, in that focal range a crop lens (DX / EF-S) would take pretty much the same amount of glass as a FF lens.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 29, 2015)

Apologies. I misread the specs 



neuroanatomist said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon makes an 80-400 (no competition in quality to Canon 100-400) and they now make a 200-500mm variable aperture... For CROP sensor. It sells for $1400. But with crop it takes way, way less glass to create.
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 29, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Would I buy a 50/1.4 USM today? Nope - it is a horrible performer on higher resolution DSLRs, even when compared to Sigma's non-Art 50/1.4.
> 
> .........the Sigma 150-600s on Black Friday this year sold out.



Clearly you don't own one, at f5.6 it out resolves the 100 L Macro. For under $300 it has to be one of the best 'normal' lenses out there.

As for getting sold out, do you know how many were available? I saw many headline 'offers' that weren't, Adorama got in trouble for listing a tripod but only having two actually for sale, B&H got in trouble for offering 'free' lenses in a Hassleblad kit but reneged on it after shipping the bodies.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > .........the Sigma 150-600s on Black Friday this year sold out.
> ...



I believe he is referring to the Sigma Contemporaries that Authorized Sigma dealer Buy Dig offered for sale through e-Bay shortly after Black Friday. Their listing indicates that 383 have been sold – that's a lot of glass from one dealer. BTW, they also offered the Tamron at the same price (as did Amazon). I don't think anyone should argue that these lenses are not selling very well.


----------



## Luds34 (Dec 29, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



+1

While some people on here are finally seeing the 3rd party players finally as competitors because they are producing some nice glass, the reality is they have been competing by stealing entry level buyers for years. The pros on this forum are going to by pro gear. And the rest of us "enthusiasts" buy some pretty decent equipment as well. In either case, neither of us are representative of the average camera buyer. In fact, I find it interesting that the likes of Sigma and Tamron have in very recent years decided that the much smaller enthusiast/pro market, with it's lower volumes make strategic sense to them. That is saying something that they are producing 4 figure lenses. But back to the Rebels (and Nikon equivalent) of the world... the number of Tamron zooms alone I've seen over the past few years mounted to these cameras is pretty astounding. A Rebel + 18-270 super zoom is the stereotypical soccer mom kit.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Tamron have a 70-300 Vi DC that is in various places more expensive than Canon's 70-300 IS USM yet you would have to be a fool to buy the Canon and not the Tamron.



I've never seen the Tamron at a higher price than the Canon. Currently $450 for Tamron/$650 for Canon. But yes, you'd have to be either crazy or very ill-informed to choose the Canon over the Tamron since you'd be paying more for a much worse lens. On the other hand, if you shoot crop you could get the EF-S STM 55-250 for less money and it is as sharp or sharper than the Tamron.

Which, now that I think of it, proves that Canon can make low cost quality lenses to compete with third party manufacturers *if* they want to.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I believe he is referring to the Sigma Contemporaries that Authorized Sigma dealer Buy Dig offered for sale through e-Bay shortly after Black Friday. Their listing indicates that 383 have been sold – that's a lot of glass from one dealer.



Wow! Tens of millions of cameras out there, and a dealer sells 400 3rd party lenses. Canon must be really shocked and terrified for their corporate fate. 



Or not.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Which, now that I think of it, proves that Canon can make low cost quality lenses to compete with third party manufacturers *if* they want to.



Two words for you.... Nifty Fifty 

For $100 can not be beat! And it even scores higher on DXO than the 600F4


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2015)

I feel badly that this general discussion has been hijacked by the great 200-600 zoom debate, but I am enjoying it. Lots of good points on both sides, but nothing definitive.

It will be fun to compare what all the armchair experts (myself included) are saying when and if Canon ultimately releases something. I may have to tally up all the pros and cons (beats working).


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 29, 2015)

unfocused said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


That listing number is normally for a repeat fixed price item, not that specific offer. If I relist a same product I can choose to use an old listing for the same or a different price, doing that adds to the counter of number previously sold, or I can start a new listing. We don't know which was utelised, so we don't know how many one company actually had on the shelf for that offer.

I am not saying they are not selling well, particularly when compared to production, but we don't have a clue as to actual retail figures, same as the 100-400 MkII. Personally I know of one Canon two Tamron's and no Sigma's in my small camera club.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I feel badly that this general discussion has been hijacked by the great 200-600 zoom debate, but I am enjoying it. Lots of good points on both sides, but nothing definitive.
> 
> It will be fun to compare what all the armchair experts (myself included) are saying when and if Canon ultimately releases something. I may have to tally up all the pros and cons (beats working).



They either release something, or they don't....

If they don't release something the debate continues....

If they release an inexpensive 200-600, one side gets to make fun of the other side....

If they release an expensive 200-600, the other side gets to poke fun.....

If they release an expensive one AND a low cost one, pandemonium erupts


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I believe he is referring to the Sigma Contemporaries that Authorized Sigma dealer Buy Dig offered for sale through e-Bay shortly after Black Friday. Their listing indicates that 383 have been sold – that's a lot of glass from one dealer.
> ...



Neuro, when you make comments like that, you only look foolish. 

You know full well that the vast majority of DSLR buyers never purchase more than one lens. 

It comes down to whether you think Canon is smart or not. I think they are very smart and I think they track these things very closely. Whether or not they act on them is a business decision only they can make, but they'd be idiots not to have noticed the buzz that these three lenses have created and I don't think Canon is run by idiots.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> In fact, I find it interesting that the likes of Sigma and Tamron have in very recent years decided that the much smaller enthusiast/pro market, with it's lower volumes make strategic sense to them. That is saying something that they are producing 4 figure lenses.



Perhaps it says that they weren't finding sales of superzooms to soccer moms as profitable as they needed, and were forced to attempt expansion into other market segments?


----------



## rbr (Dec 29, 2015)

I am sure that Mercedes is quaking in its boots by the fact that you can buy a new Ford Fiesta for about a third of the price of their cheapest sedan. Mercedes is totally missing out on all those car sales under $15K. Think of all the money they're losing. They have a business to run. How will they survive?


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



That's true. We don't know how many of those lenses sold at the Black Friday weekend price and how many sold at the higher MSRP, but regardless, I have to think that nearly 400 lenses from one dealer is pretty impressive.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 29, 2015)

I was specifically referring to the 150-600. I didn't say no one one bought the Tammy/Sig. I said no one (market sales speaking, to be clear) would buy a 3rd party glass if Canon made something comparable in the same price range. If the 70-300 is the same price and raw IQ between 3rd party and Canon, anyone would be be a fool to buy 3rd party from a warranty and AF standpoint. There is no debate on that. As there is no comparable product at 200-600 from Canon, the argument is moot. For now. That being said, I would personally choose the Canon 100-400 L II over the Tammy Sig if wildlife was my game because of the AF and IS and weather sealing and service. That's me. 



dilbert said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. If Canon can out resolve a subject at 400mm compared to a Tammy/Sig at 600mm (and all the extra pixels striking the subject at that tighter FOV) then that speaks volumes for Canon engineering. Tammy/Sig have to make products to fill price voids that 1st party manufacturers will/can NOT. Otherwise, no one buys third party. But with that third party pricing comes SOME degree of sacrifice. That degree is measured differently by each photographer.
> ...


----------



## brad-man (Dec 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, I find it interesting that the likes of Sigma and Tamron have in very recent years decided that the much smaller enthusiast/pro market, with it's lower volumes make strategic sense to them. That is saying something that they are producing 4 figure lenses.
> ...



Interesting spin. When Canon expands their market, it's due to their clever business acumen. When Sigma/Tamron do the same, it's out of desperation :


----------



## RickWagoner (Dec 29, 2015)

rs said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Where one lacks the other makes up. There is way more to bird shooting than bif, in fact though most birders would just love to shoot bif all day long it is a rarity in the world of bird photography. Most bird shots are going to be passerines (smaller perching birds) as they're the most common in the world and usually the most colorful easiest to get closest to. The problem with shooting these birds is they're always under cover or under foliage making the lighting situation not ideal. The 7d2 has some nice noise reduction built in but all that it really is is just a program being applied to the photo as anyone can do this later even with canon dpp software and with this active in camera you will eat battery life out. At the end of the day all you have is a slightly better 70D iso performance in the 7d2 from the sensor itself. This is when and where the D750 being full frame comes to shine, esp with shooting one of the 150-600mm lens at f/8, 10,000 iso shots are no issue for this camera. This allows you to keep your shutter speed up compared to the 7d2 making your shots and your fps more usable. 10fps is useless when your shutter speed is dialed so low that you're lucky to get the first shot sharp let alone the 9 after, keeping the shutter speed up you can actually use all 6.5 fps in these commonly low light perching bird moments. Also one thing every birder has done in the field is snap a pic of the SLR screen to share the bird they caught with friends, D750 has nfc and wifi so no more of that. It may seem silly and small but it is something every birder does. 

For the 100-400II and 7d2 bif you talked about..I agree this is a super fast set up, and for people who have the money to have a second body this is a perfect rig for a shoulder setup for bif when you have a tripod setup there for long distance shots. You see birders like this on the locks of the Mississippi for Eagles. But not a lot of people have that kind of money for two setups, two very costly setups. For people who can afford a one setup the camera needs change and the niche greatness of the 7d2 at $1400 seams silly compared to a D750 or worse yet a 70D. For a one all around SLR the 7d2 is just to niche, the 70D will take better portraits and landscape sadly (i compared both many times over) and of course the D750 is another level for those two types of photography. This was when the 7d2 was at the price it was before and i hope it don't go back up from the $1k you can buy it today. 

I agree with you on mirrorless for birding but not because of the EVF (which i have not invested enough experience to agree or disagree with you) but for the size of mirrorless. Once you put a long super tele lens on a tiny body your rig is unbalanced in the hand making handhold bird photography harder than if you had a heavier and larger body. Lots of 70D and tamron 150-600 hand hold birders use a battery grip just to give themselves a better balance towards the back of the rig making it easier to shoot. One of the super advantages mirrorless has is it can be done in tiny lightweight bodies and that just makes no sense when using a big lens. If someone wanted a smaller easier setup for birds than a superzoom would be their choice, of course you won't be able to crop, have anything of a buffer, slower focus, etc but it is an option for people who don't want to lug around 7lbs of gear.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Dec 29, 2015)

In my Camera club it is 4x Sigmas OS C, 2x Sigmas OS Sport, 1x Canon 100-400 MK ii, 3x Canon 100-400 mk ii and 1x Tamron, 2x Nikkor 80-400... (not counting primes and 200-400 lenses)
And in our camera store Sigmas are selling approx 2:1 vs the new 100-400 Canon.

I own Canon 500 f4 IS and the old 100-400 and after testing Canon 100-400 ii, Sigma 150-600 C and 150-600 S lenses I'm seriously thinking about selling the old 100-400 Canon and getting Sigma 150-600 Contemporary to use as my lighter lens.

Anyway, that's just the situation here... but I would say that they aren't really having troubles selling the new Sigma lenses.



privatebydesign said:


> I am not saying they are not selling well, particularly when compared to production, but we don't have a clue as to actual retail figures, same as the 100-400 MkII. Personally I know of one Canon two Tamron's and no Sigma's in my small camera club.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2015)

brad-man said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Luds34 said:
> ...



Well, given that Canon is the dSLR market leader, has been so for pushing a dozen years, and has nearly every part of the market covered with suitable products, suggesting they might try to expand their market out of desperation would be pretty silly, wouldn't it? 

Tokina 'merged into their mother corporation' (Kenko) a few years ago, a polite way of saying it wasn't a merger of equals and likely a sign of trouble. Hard to say how Sigma is doing, they're family owned and privately held. Canon remains profitable.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 29, 2015)

I own and have owned several Tamron and Sigma lenses. They make great products. But at no point have they ever been as fast, consistent, and reliable in Auto Focusing as native Canon glass. Period. Some have been pretty good. Some have been downright bad. I dont have that problem with Canon glass. It's a simple of matter of Canon not sharing its proprietary algorithms for AF with 3rd party lens makers. No reason they should either. And even trying to reverse engineer them in a Sigma or Tamron lab doesn't work as well as what Canon can do. I've also sent a couple lenses back to Sigma for adjustments because some require more Micro Adjustment in camera than the camera can even manage (greater than -/+ 20). It took me a few weeks to get my stuff back. Canon returns my gear from service within a matter of days. This isn't blowing smoke. It's simple measurable fact.

And the point is, given all of this, if Canon makes a lens with the same focal range, aperture, and IQ as a 3rd party, why would I buy the 3rd party? I wouldn't. Few would.



dilbert said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I was specifically referring to the 150-600. I didn't say no one one bought the Tammy/Sig. I said no one (market sales speaking, to be clear) would buy a 3rd party glass if Canon made something comparable in the same price range. If the 70-300 is the same price and raw IQ between 3rd party and Canon, anyone would be be a fool to buy 3rd party from a warranty and AF standpoint. There is no debate on that.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2015)

RickWagoner said:


> Canon will lose the birders if they don't compete with the 150-600s, only thing that has kept birders with Canon is the old 100-400 and 400 5.6 back in the day.



Sure, right. Having bodies with excellent AF, fast frame rates and large buffers doesn't matter. Having a range of lenses from a relatively affordable 400/5.6 to the best supertele and TC lineup in the market is irrelevant. Canon just can't compete, of course that's why they're the market leader. 




RickWagoner said:


> Now Nikon and even Sony bodies can be used with great for the price glass. This opens up a new world of dr for birders amongst other things.



Yes, clearly low ISO DR is the very important for birding. Low ISO is frequently used because there's no need for high shutter speeds, birds don't perch in shadowed thickets, and dawn/dusk are terrible times to shoot birds. It's all full sun shooting for most birders so low ISO DR is really critical. Almost as critical as it is for every photographer, that's why Canon has lost most of their market share to Nikon and Sony and their better low ISO DR. 

Oh, wait..... :




RickWagoner said:


> Also one thing every birder has done in the field is snap a pic of the SLR screen to share the bird they caught with friends, D750 has nfc and wifi so no more of that. It may seem silly and small but it is something every birder does.



Every birder? I never have. I've never seen anyone doing so while birding in popular local spots over the years. But hey, if you and a few if your friends want to post immediately to Facebook, feel free. Most birders know better than to fiddle around with their cameras and miss the snowy owl lifting from her perch, the eagle grab the fish from the river, or the peregrine dive on the field mouse. But I know some people are addicted to social media, so WiFi and NFC must be great for them...


----------



## MrToes (Dec 29, 2015)

*A SENSOR with less shadow noise and more DR???*


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2015)

MrToes said:


> *A SENSOR with less shadow noise and more DR???*



Please! That's so last month. We're arguing about the size of the front elements on lenses. Try to keep up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2015)

MrToes said:


> *A SENSOR with less shadow noise and more DR???*



Canon dSLR sensors have had less low ISO DR since 2009, and yet Canon is the clear market leader and has sold way more dSLRs than all the other manufacturers, every year from 2003 until now. But I'm sure if you keep on posting the same comment over and over, in many threads and multiple times in the same thread, Canon will just have to listen! Great strategy!! ;D


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2015)

RickWagoner said:


> You see birders like this on the locks of the Mississippi for Eagles. But not a lot of people have that kind of money for two setups, two very costly setups.



I am just curious, where on the Mississippi you shoot. Around here (Illinois) I haven't found a good spot where you can get close enough with a 400mm lens. Any recommendations? I'm willing to travel.



RickWagoner said:


> For a one all around SLR the 7d2 is just to niche, the 70D will take better portraits and landscape sadly (i compared both many times over)



I'm trying to make sense of this. What is it about the 70D that you feel makes for better portraits and landscape?



neuroanatomist said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > Also one thing every birder has done in the field is snap a pic of the SLR screen to share the bird they caught with friends...It may seem silly and small but it is something every birder does.
> ...



I'm just going to take a stab in the dark here, but generally bitter sarcasm does not foster a great deal of camaraderie.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 29, 2015)

unfocused said:


> MrToes said:
> 
> 
> > *A SENSOR with less shadow noise and more DR???*
> ...



Only people who lack knowledge of the equation, ø=f/a, where ø= front element diameter in mm, f= focal length in mm and a= aperture in f stops (so that is none of us now), and those in denial 'argue' about front element size. For everybody else it is an entirely accepted law of optical physics.

As for the sensors, we can't argue that yet as everybody here agrees that Sony and Nikon have sensors with lower noise and more DR at low iso, all we can argue about is how useful that difference is and how much other aspects of a system make that difference important or not. 

As a generalist I don't want to carry three camera systems so I choose the one that makes the best compromises for what I want to do, so far that has been Canon and I can't see that changing if the biggest 'advantage' SoNikon have over Canon is that low iso DR and noise difference.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2015)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RickWagoner said:
> ...



I'll also take a stab in the dark that sweeping generalizations aren't going to sit well with everybody...generally. Claiming a particular feature is a benefit to 'everybody' or his close cousin 'the entire world' just comes off as silly and uninformed.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


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


I've done it.....
Spotted a strange looking bird..... took a picture of it with the DSLR, displayed the image on the rear screen, snapped a picture of it, sent it off to my friend, and asked "do you know what this bird is"....


----------



## AlanF (Dec 29, 2015)

RickWagoner said:


> ...Also one thing every birder has done in the field is snap a pic of the SLR screen to share the bird they caught with friends, D750 has nfc and wifi so no more of that. It may seem silly and small but it is something every birder does.
> 
> ....... and the niche greatness of the 7d2 at $1400 seams silly compared to a D750 or worse yet a 70D. For a one all around SLR the 7d2 is just to niche, the 70D will take better portraits and landscape ........



Not every; I am another birder who has never, yes never, "shared a photo" in the field.

I sold my 70D when the 7DII came out. Apart from the superior frame rate and much better AF of the 7DII, it has has single-point _spot_ AF, with a significantly smaller spot than the single-point AF of the 70D. If you are trying to focus on a small passerine in the packed branches of a tree or a small passerine against a distant but bold background, the spot AF makes all the difference to the AF locking on to the bird and not the background. The 7DII is a better camera than the 70D for birding.


----------



## Alastair Norcross (Dec 29, 2015)

RickWagoner said:


> For a one all around SLR the 7d2 is just to niche, the 70D will take better portraits and landscape sadly (i compared both many times over)
> This is just plain nonsense. How, exactly, will a 70D take better portraits and landscapes than a 7DII? The sensors are pretty much the same, with the 7DII having a slight edge at high ISO. If you put the same lens on the cameras, you won't be able to tell the difference in the results, except, maybe, at really high ISO, where the 7DII will be slightly better. The only difference that might, occasionally, affects your results is the better AF system of the 7DII, especially the wider spread. This actually makes it slightly easier to get good portrait results, because it's more likely that there will be a focus point where you want it, without having to recompose. Also, the lack of spot focus on the 70D can make it more difficult to get really sharp focus on an eye, when you're shooting with very shallow DOF. So, in almost all cases, the two cameras will give identical results for portraits and landscapes, and where there is a difference, the advantage is with the 7DII.
> 
> I have no idea how to make my post not show up as part of the quote I'm replying to. Sorry.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 29, 2015)

Well the 7D2 has a slightly better sensor and a better AF system. Logically, it doesn't take as good of landscape and portrait shots as the 70D. You know, the same exact logic in Monty Python and The Holy Grail how they arrived at the fact that if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood and therefore a witch. You know.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 29, 2015)

I'm sure the 70D is much better for taking pictures of very small rocks that float.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2015)

AlanF said:


> Not every; I am another birder who has never, yes never, "shared a photo" in the field.


At the moment, we are having a major snowstorm, everything is shut down, police telling people to stay off the roads, etc....so I am off wandering through the local woods with my 7D and Tamron 150-600, so I thought I would share a picture 

It's amazing how connected this world is now..... I can surf the web and post pictures out in the woods during a snowstorm..... Ooohhhhh... Pleated woodpecker just flew past! I wonder what is going to happen to future DSLRs for a decent WiFi interface for file transfers and remote control?


----------



## nvsravank (Dec 29, 2015)

Alastair Norcross said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > For a one all around SLR the 7d2 is just to niche, the 70D will take better portraits and landscape sadly (i compared both many times over)
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2015)

Alastair Norcross said:


> I have no idea how to make my post not show up as part of the quote I'm replying to. Sorry.



Some simple HTML will do it. 

When you reply, it automatically puts the name of the quote author, a link to the topic and message and a date within an HTML tag that is enclosed within a pair of brackets "[" and "]" and then uses an end closing HTML tag to end the quote and start your comment. That will be an opening bracket "[" followed by a "/" the word "quote" and a closing bracket "]"

Basically, all your post was missing was the ending HTML tag [ / quote ] which needed to be added at the end of RickWaggoner's quote. It looks like, instead, it got moved to the end of your comment, which makes it appear as though your comment is part of RickWaggoner's quote.

It gets a bit more complicated if you start pulling multiple quotes from posts, but basically, just remember that every opening tag [ quote ] needs to be paired with a closing tag [ / quote ]

Note, I added spaces and quotation marks in order to keep the editor from turning my code into quotes. You need to skip the spaces and quotation marks.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 29, 2015)

Alastair Norcross said:


> I have no idea how to make my post not show up as part of the quote I'm replying to. Sorry.



Alastair, just make sure you leave the quote between the two quote commands as I have done in this screen shot.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Not every; I am another birder who has never, yes never, "shared a photo" in the field.
> ...



Pileated woodpecker! My wife would be so jealous. Although that one looks like it is wearing a female cardinal disguise.


----------



## Luds34 (Dec 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Luds34 said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, I find it interesting that the likes of Sigma and Tamron have in very recent years decided that the much smaller enthusiast/pro market, with it's lower volumes make strategic sense to them. That is saying something that they are producing 4 figure lenses.
> ...



possibly... but I'd argue doubtful considering these companies have been around for years selling product on the low end of the market.

Maybe they moved into the higher end market to expand/grow the business?

Realistically, the low end product of their business was stable and supported them to pursue the high end market, to take that risk. I mean, after all, how many times can the engineering team redesign the 17-50 crop zoom or 90mm macro lens?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 29, 2015)

There's an old rule in economics that first you capture the mass market and then you take over the high end market. The Swiss did it with watches - the Brits made the best in the world (apart from Breguet) in the 19th C and used the Swiss as cheap labour. The Swiss still dominate the market because those with money are lured by top quality and others by the cheap Swatch etc in the mass market. The Japanese did it with just about everything else. Canon, like the Swiss, keeps going with top quality at the high end and by being competitive in the mass market. I have bought my wife a pair of Swarovski binoculars at a ridiculous price, but they are so damn good and you get a lifetime's free service that they are just worth it. The optically excellent Hawke's I bought her 3 years ago are already becoming sloppy.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 29, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Luds34 said:
> ...



This is happening across the entire market and all manufacturers including Canon.

The point and shoot market has collapsed. (I would argue that Canon, Nikon and Sony all share more than a little blame for failing to comprehend the importance of connectivity in the internet age, but that's a discussion for another day.)

The entry-level DSLR market has stagnated (The cheapest DLSRs today are so good that few customers feel compelled to replace them. Note the ongoing popularity of the five year old T3i. In addition, cell phone cameras have improved to the point where customers that were previously good prospects for entry-level DSLRs are instead just upgrading their camera phones)

The professional market is contracting. This is most evident in photojournalism where the consolidation of media and cost cutting have been devastating to staff photographers. But, it is true in other professional markets as well. Wedding and event photographers are subject to heavy competition from new entrants, creating a lot of churn in the market but not much growth. 

That leaves only the enthusiast market for growth. And, within the enthusiast market the competition is for the advanced amateurs who have lots of discretionary income to spend on their hobbies. (The majority of people on this forum -- which also greatly skews the perceptions of anyone reading this forum)

So, it's hardly surprising that Sigma, Tamron and Tokina want a piece of that enthusiast market and are upgrading their product lines accordingly. 

Ultimately, that's what a lot of the debate over the past dozen or so pages has been about: Does Canon feel the need to be more aggressive in their pursuit of this highly lucrative market as they face new challenges from third party manufacturers? Some people say "no." Some people say "yes." I'm a "maybe," leaning toward "yes."

Obviously it's in our best interests as consumers if the answer is "yes."


----------



## scyrene (Dec 29, 2015)

RickWagoner said:


> Where one lacks the other makes up. There is way more to bird shooting than bif, in fact though most birders would just love to shoot bif all day long it is a rarity in the world of bird photography. Most bird shots are going to be passerines (smaller perching birds) as they're the most common in the world and usually the most colorful easiest to get closest to. The problem with shooting these birds is they're always under cover or under foliage making the lighting situation not ideal.



Um... what? I'd say passerines are especially hard to get close to. They are also, on average, much smaller than other groups - raptors, owls, waterfowl, gulls, waders, and many are quite drab, especially from a distance. And considering they make up approximately 50% of bird species, they are underrepresented in bird photography, I would say. People love eagles and hawks, and ducks and gulls are more obvious and commonly less skittish.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > Also one thing every birder has done in the field is snap a pic of the SLR screen to share the bird they caught with friends, D750 has nfc and wifi so no more of that. It may seem silly and small but it is something every birder does.
> ...



Well it's an established practice from what I've seen of the British birding community on Twitter - especially with rarities. It's a 'back of camera shot' or BOC - common enough to have an understood acronym. Not done it myself. Usually it seems to be when someone has got the shots they want, but hasn't yet processed or uploaded - especially if time is critical (getting the word out of a new rare sighting) or if they are away from their computer. But this is done by photographing the screen with a phone and uploading the phone pic - the camera needn't have any connectivity itself.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 29, 2015)

They are twitchers who have migrated to Twitter.


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 29, 2015)

While Don was texting a picture of this:



Don Haines said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Not every; I am another birder who has never, yes never, "shared a photo" in the field.
> ...



He Missed the shot of THIS:


----------



## Luds34 (Dec 29, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Ultimately, that's what a lot of the debate over the past dozen or so pages has been about: Does Canon feel the need to be more aggressive in their pursuit of this highly lucrative market as they face new challenges from third party manufacturers? Some people say "no." Some people say "yes." I'm a "maybe," leaning toward "yes."



I think I too would lean towards "yes" that Canon should be more aggressive in pursuing this market. And this isn't just lens design and the Sigma/Tamron 150-600 debate that went on for pages. I think more importantly they need to have a competitive mirrorless option. This "in between" M line is not terribly attractive or competitive to any enthusiast consumer. Either be competitive, or stay out of that market segment. Instead they've chosen the worst path, investing time, energy, money, and resources into a line that just isn't that good.

Furthermore I get Canon is doing well market wise, financially in regards to it's competition. However, that does not mean their strategy is necessarily sound (For the record I'm not arguing either way). Market dominance and momentum alone would keep Canon doing well for a good few years even with quite poor execution. We all here know the switching costs. And Canon execs know this. So I know they are not sitting complacent on market share numbers alone.

It comes down to what is considered competitive is highly subjective. The mythical 200-600 rumor that was debated, I heard some say this would be one of the big great whites and cost north of $6k. While others who felt it could be a nice L lens in the $2.5k to $3k range. Or even a more consumer base lens near the same price as the Tamron and Sigma C. 

My humble 2 cents is that I see no need for this lens. One, again highly subjective, but I'd argue the 100-400 II already competes with the 150-600 lenses, especially with the 1.4x teleconverter. Sure the lens is more expensive, but Canon enjoys that luxury as their product is better. Premium product equals premium price. As for this lens being an expensive, super tele? There is not much of a market there and Canon already has that covered by the most awesome (I will never own) 200-400 f/4L. 

One can debate the same with the Sigma 35 Art vs the Canon 35mm L. Canon has the better product so it commands the better price.

But coming full circle to me agreeing that Canon could/should be more competitive... I'd argue they might be trying to command too premium of a price and could do better by bringing their prices more in line, aka knock $200 off of their new 35 and 100-400. But once again, they are pretty smart so I'm sure someone has run the numbers and determined that the lower margins wouldn't make up for the increased sales or something.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> While Don was texting a picture of this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was holding my phone at the time, tried to take a picture, but it would not lock on a white unicorn in a snowstorm......... and it missed the shot of bigfoot too......... stupid [email protected]#$%@[email protected] apple camera!


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2015)

OK, time to be serious again....

What would I really like to see in Canon DSLRs? A good touchscreen interface tightly coupled with a WiFi interface and a decent phone/tablet/ipad app that would allow you to do everything on your mobile device that you can do on the built-in touchscreen interface PLUS control the various buttons and knobs.

That would be fantastic for remote shooting. I can do it on my GoPro..... I can do it on my P/S camera.... why not my expensive DSLR?


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 29, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



What apertures, compared to what? Like I said, at f5.6 compared to the 100L Macro the 50 is very good and that isn't just my copies.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3


----------



## PureClassA (Dec 29, 2015)

Simple. I never said what you said I said. What I said was that WERE Canon to make a comparable lens to a third party in IQ, focal length, aperture, and PRICE.... There would be little reason to purchase third party. Yes, I own Sigmas and formerly Tamrons (and other sigmas) as there are NO comparable Canon options in their same price range. Currently I own a Sigma 50 and 35 ART. The similar grade Canon L options are considerably more expensive. The new Canon 35L II is comparable to the Sigma ART as will be the new 50L II when it comes out. Were Canon to produce these new lenses in the same price range as the Sigmas, there would be little to no reason to buy the Sigmas because the trade off between price and AF performance would be moot. I bought the Sigmas because they perform excellently in IQ but I knowingly tradeoff (in lower price) with a lag behind Canon in AF performance accuracy. You follow now? 



dilbert said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 29, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Warranty means that in 3 years when I need to get my Sigma/Tamron lens serviced I send it off to them and they do it for free. Canon's 1 year warranty means that at the 3 year mark there is no free servicing of that lens.



It also means that after three years they can wash their hands of the lens, and their customer. Just ask all the people who were left with Sigma paperweights when their EOS AF protocols broke, what did Sigma do then? They washed their hands of the problem after rechipping the lenses they decided they wanted to and left everybody else with unusable lenses. I personally know one guy who lost the ability to use all seven of his lenses on his new camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > And even trying to reverse engineer them in a Sigma or Tamron lab doesn't work as well as what Canon can do. I've also sent a couple lenses back to Sigma for adjustments because some require more Micro Adjustment in camera than the camera can even manage (greater than -/+ 20). It took me a few weeks to get my stuff back. Canon returns my gear from service within a matter of days. This isn't blowing smoke. It's simple measurable fact.
> ...



What's more you've totally missed the point of what service turnaround means. 

A free warranty service or a paid post-warranty service that means a lens is gone for weeks is unacceptable for many customers. 




PureClassA said:


> Simple. I never said what you said I said.
> 
> You follow now?



You can lead a horse to water, but that won't improve the horse's reading comprehension skills.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Funnily enough, I didn't, but I am happy to, none of your zooms cost $300 and weigh next to nothing though!

I doubt if you print much now either, just look at your images on your 24-27 inch screen. 

I am very happy with my 50 f1.4, the focus is fast, consistent and very accurate, sharpness is good 1.4-2 and better as you close down. Mine is over ten years old and has never had an issue despite the fact that is has lived alongside various L lenses that have all broken. Best $300 lens I ever bought, indeed the only other sub $1,000 lens I give a damn about is the 15mm f2.8 fisheye which is a superb lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



If the chip can take the firmware, if the chip can't and the lens needs a new one, as happened, then you are screwed just like all those early digital users were............


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 30, 2015)

dilbert said:


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



Why would I want to do that? You have stated yours is defective and I know mine isn't.........

Actually I was looking at CPW tonight and thinking that 50 1.2 L for $1099 looks interesting enough to try, but then I realised it is just me thinking the grass is always greener and it might give me an edge, but I know from having used various 1.2's over the years it isn't that different, certainly content will trump the differences pretty much every time.


----------



## whothafunk (Dec 30, 2015)

One thing I'm really puzzled about is.. has it ever happened, or maybe, does it even make sense for Canon to release 4 (non consumer/non basic) bodies in a single year? I don't believe it will happen, especially with the 6D2. Even though 2016 is time for 80D to appear, it just doesn't feel right for Canon to roll out almost everything they ought to just because it's "time".


----------



## Luds34 (Dec 30, 2015)

whothafunk said:


> One thing I'm really puzzled about is.. has it ever happened, or maybe, does it even make sense for Canon to release 4 (non consumer/non basic) bodies in a single year? I don't believe it will happen, especially with the 6D2. Even though 2016 is time for 80D to appear, it just doesn't feel right for Canon to roll out almost everything they ought to just because it's "time".



Market dynamics and competition can be a strong driving force. And the closer you get to the consumer end of the spectrum often quicker, marketing driven, release a shiny new object, product cycles occur. Anyone remember the revolutionary leap the T5i was over the T4i?

With the 6D, it is getting a little long in the tooth. And on paper, it's 11 point autofocus system is just laughable today (outside points nearly worthless). If you look at the competition and all the cameras that have been released since that time, it is really a different landscape.


----------



## RickWagoner (Dec 30, 2015)

unfocused said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > You see birders like this on the locks of the Mississippi for Eagles. But not a lot of people have that kind of money for two setups, two very costly setups.
> ...




on the locks when the Eagles come down in January and February. The army corps of Engineers keep counts updates so you know what you're to expect. Join a birder illinois Facebook page and they will point you to the best lock for action. I hit a few of the locks last year and 14 was fun as the Eagles perch right above your car in the parking lot. Lots of great flying shots can be had easily and there was a few people throwing fish out to the Eagles there. Lock 15 had less people and more Eagles and even though you were not as close to them you had awesome chances of Eagles fighting in air shots. Word on the streets is the experienced people stay away from Lock 14 because too many people there, I am sure there are much better spots along the Mississippi as when the Eagles are there they're all over the place! They're as common as house sparrows outside our home now to give you an idea of the numbers along the Mississippi.


----------



## RickWagoner (Dec 30, 2015)

AlanF said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > ...Also one thing every birder has done in the field is snap a pic of the SLR screen to share the bird they caught with friends, D750 has nfc and wifi so no more of that. It may seem silly and small but it is something every birder does.
> ...



i am not saying the 70D is a better camera for birding. I am saying when the 7d2 came out at its price it was paced by from people going D750 for slightly more or people buying the 70D at a much lower price for people on the budget getting the very same sensor performance in regards to real iso. Some birders like spot af, some don't care for it. I would use it myself if the camera had it but if it did not i would not lose sleep. 70D was dumbed down for beginners as we know on purpose.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 30, 2015)

RickWagoner said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > RickWagoner said:
> ...


The 7D2 is the better camera, but the 70D is certainly better "bang for the buck"..... and as a 7D2 owner, I wish I had the ability to remote control the camera from my phone....


----------



## gsealy (Dec 30, 2015)

Have no idea the worth of this one --

It was stated on a YT video that the 1Dx II will have 4K up to 60 FPS, 4:2:2, 10 Bit with internal storage to the two CFast 2 cards. It will also have clean HDMI out for external recording. There was not any info on the AF, although DPAF or the latest version of it would be great.


----------



## RickWagoner (Dec 30, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I don't think there is such a thing as a better camera personally, they're just tools, different but both great tools. To someone who is a beginner and into video and would use the flippy screen and touch to focus they would say the 70D is better. Also the pairing with the kit 55-250stm is an amazing optic for the price (though to today you can buy a refurb for 150$ by itself but back then you had to do a 70d kit). I have tried the 7d2 multiple times and i own a 70D myself. Back then when i bought the 7d2 was a very different price as it is now and that was a huge factor. I would not say no to a 7d2 in my bag at the price it is now so to me it is a great camera (a beast of a crop body) but then again i think the 7d1 and even 60D are great shooters. It puzzles me why the price of the 7d2 is $1k today? Wonder if Canon has something up its sleeve or they're not selling as well as they hoped? WIFI control opens up a new world of using the camera you never would of thought before. One day this past spring I seen a Titmouse building a nest just off the trail, they would come in with a branch then leave to get another one and repeat. I had a 40 pancake in my pocket so i put that on the 70D, turned on wifi, placed the camera close to the nest spot when the birds were gone, and stood back 20 feet and shot them coming in with the twigs from my phone control. None of the pictures turned out great (my fault) but it was so much fun and on the spot idea just by having wifi control i never would of done without. I know a birder who put a D750 on a remote control toy car and drove it up to some geese for close up shots using wifi phone control. He was an older gentleman telling me this story with a smile on his face like a kid...haha


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 30, 2015)

RickWagoner said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > RickWagoner said:
> ...


I think that in general, the 7D2 is better, but you are right about it missing some very nice features that the 70D has, like tilt/swivel screen, WiFi, video zoom mode, etc.... ultimately, it comes down to the right tool for your job at a price you can afford..... I have had great success with my P/S in front of the bird feeder using WiFi to capture images.... I can't understand how they could have decided to leave that out on the 7D2.....


----------



## unfocused (Dec 30, 2015)

RickWagoner said:


> ...on the locks when the Eagles come down in January and February...I hit a few of the locks last year and 14 was fun as the Eagles perch right above your car in the parking lot. Lots of great flying shots can be had easily and there was a few people throwing fish out to the Eagles there. Lock 15 had less people and more Eagles and even though you were not as close to them you had awesome chances of Eagles fighting in air shots.



Thanks! We've been to the Lock and Dam at Starved Rock (on the Illinois River). Hundreds of eagles, but unfortunately the access is not great. They perch in the trees on an island maintained by the Audubon Society and then fish in the locks, but the viewing areas are really too far away for photography (or at least I've never been able to find a good access point). Same with the Alton locks -- we've been down there to see the Trumpeter Swans (may do that again this week). But for eagles the locks are not very accessible (again, as near as I could tell). Looking for somewhere we can get closer. We will have to try the Quad Cities area.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 31, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Given the choice of enjoying – and participating in – the humor, or sucking lemons...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I like lemons and it's high time this lemon bashing stopped! 

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 31, 2015)

RickWagoner said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > RickWagoner said:
> ...



I think most birders use binoculars and probably many of them don't do that much photography (just a guess). To say bird photographers don't need/use spot focus a lot is indeed a very challenging statement based on my three years of DSLR photography shooting mostly birds (not an expert, for sure). Of my say 30 000 shots maybe a handful have *not* been spot focus and even then they probably were spot focus with expansion for BIF. 

Thankfully, we live in countries of the world where you can say pretty well anything you please, but people do read and reflect on the veracity of the content. 

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 31, 2015)

Jack Douglas said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...


I think most birders use spotting scopes.... I have seen some amazing pictures taken by phones through a spotting scope.... it's like having a 2000mm lens on your iPhone


----------



## Tugela (Jan 3, 2016)

All cameras with a Digic 7 processor will have the capability of shooting 4K video. So, if all of these cameras are projected to include a Digic 7, then all of them will shoot 4K.


----------



## Tugela (Jan 3, 2016)

unfocused said:


> RickWagoner said:
> 
> 
> > ...on the locks when the Eagles come down in January and February...I hit a few of the locks last year and 14 was fun as the Eagles perch right above your car in the parking lot. Lots of great flying shots can be had easily and there was a few people throwing fish out to the Eagles there. Lock 15 had less people and more Eagles and even though you were not as close to them you had awesome chances of Eagles fighting in air shots.
> ...



Use a superzoom, such as the Nikon P900. That has an equivalent focal length of 2000mm.


----------



## rs (Jan 3, 2016)

Tugela said:


> All cameras with a Digic 7 processor will have the capability of shooting 4K video. So, if all of these cameras are projected to include a Digic 7, then all of them will shoot 4K.



It's more than just processing power. The storage/card slots need to be up to speed, not to mention the sensor read out speed and heat dissipation capability. And thats without even mentioning the marketing department.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2016)

Tugela said:


> All cameras with a Digic 7 processor will have the capability of shooting 4K video. So, if all of these cameras are projected to include a Digic 7, then all of them will shoot 4K.



Dual Digic 5+ gives the capability to shoot 4K video, so by your logic cameras with Dual Digic 5+ or the faster Dual Digic 6 should shoot 4K. The fact that only one of the five cameras with those processors actually _does_ shoot 4K indicated that your logic is flawed.


----------



## Tugela (Jan 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > All cameras with a Digic 7 processor will have the capability of shooting 4K video. So, if all of these cameras are projected to include a Digic 7, then all of them will shoot 4K.
> ...



The Digic 7 is the stills equivalent of the Digic DV5, in other words it will have a 4K encoder BUILT INTO the processor. The XC10 can shoot 4K without having thermal issues, so the same will apply to every other camera that uses the Digic 7/DV5 processor family.

Digic 5 processors DO NOT have a hardware encoder for 4K, it is done in software only. Neither does Digic 6. Digic 6 (and the corresponding Digic DV4) introduced 60p HD, and that is what it's hardware encoder does. If any camera containing those processors does 4K, it is done in firmware, not hardware, and that is why you needed multiple processors to handle the load and large bodies to fit into the thermal envelope.

If you look at the entire history of Digic processors, where a particular video format is implemented in hardware for that particular processor, the format is available for all cameras that have the processor.

But hey, let us completely ignore Canon's entire history with Digic, and pretend that something else will happen.

If these cameras have Digic 7, they will be able to shoot 4K as well. Perhaps not great 4K, but they will be able to do it.


----------



## Tugela (Jan 4, 2016)

rs said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > All cameras with a Digic 7 processor will have the capability of shooting 4K video. So, if all of these cameras are projected to include a Digic 7, then all of them will shoot 4K.
> ...



SDXC UHSII cards are pretty fast. Any camera with a modern slot interface will have no issues with the data rates involved.

The XC10 can do 4K, is roughly the size of your typical DSLR, and it has a single processor. So, obviously Canon have already solved the read out speed and thermal envelope issues.


----------



## Sabaki (Jan 4, 2016)

I would love to see a modernized, RT macro flash system that features reduced weight and ease of diffusion without the need to engineer one's own solution.

I'm thinking something new with the flash heads. I'm sure it can be done


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2016)

Tugela said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



But hey, let us completely ignore Canon's entire history of excluding (for marketing reasons) features of which products are technically capable. If you'd stopped at 'any camera with Digic 7 will be capable of shooting 4K' that makes sense. But to say they all _will shoot 4K_ is not necessarily true. 

Why isn't the 430EX III-RT an optical master?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Price pure & simply


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2016)

jeffa4444 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Why isn't the 430EX III-RT an optical master?
> ...



Erm...huh? Not sure what you're saying - are you suggesting that adding optical master capability to the 430EX III-RT would add to the cost?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 4, 2016)

Tugela said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...


Even a GoPro can do 4K video.....

The problem with processing video in a DSLR comes down to the type of processing used. You can use a general purpose CPU, or you can use dedicated hardware. Using dedicated hardware takes a lot less power and generates a lot less heat in the camera. A GoPro has dedicated hardware.... a DSLR uses a general purpose CPU. This gives the DSLR a lot more flexibility, but at the expense of speed and power...

Of course, nothing stops Canon from doing both..... Take a 1DX with dual processors and either add a third processor or change one to a video codec and you have a battery-efficient 4K monster.....


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > All cameras with a Digic 7 processor will have the capability of shooting 4K video. So, if all of these cameras are projected to include a Digic 7, then all of them will shoot 4K.
> ...



No. It just highlight Canons unwillingness and inability - as in so many other areas and dimensions. 
(Although I don't care for any sort of video capture at all and only want a really decent Canon stills camera without mirror).


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 4, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



There is also the possibility that the problem is heat....


----------



## Tugela (Jan 4, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I will bow to your wisdom, but first, satisfy my curiosity. Can you name any Canon camera that has failed to deliver on at least the native capability of the hardware encoder in the processor?


----------



## PureClassA (Jan 4, 2016)

I think Canon could easily hit a homerun simply allowing DSLR 1080p RAW output via HDMI to an external recorder. The hardware can obviously do it, given MagicLantern's success. I don't know what the limitation is between sending it to a CF card (like now via ML) vs sending it HDMI. Someone smarter than I could probably elaborate more. But it seems the camera is capable of slinging the data (5D2 5D3 etc...).

Doing this still keeps a sacred Canon distance between, say, a 5D3 shooting video at 1080p, and a Cinema series with all the true cinema bells and whistles and then 4k in upper models. Even if they didn't have 4k on a 5D4 and just allowed for 1080p RAW output via HDMI would be great.


----------



## Tugela (Jan 4, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



DSLR processors are not general purpose CPUs, they have dedicated hardware built in to handle video. This is particularly true of the ones Canon uses. That is the reason why firmware upgrades generally can't change the encoding done by the processor in consumer models. If you want to do anything more than what the hardware encoder has been designed for, you have to do it in software, and for that you need extra processors.

The processor is designed specifically for the task. For that reason the overall capabilities of a camera (from the point of view of video) using a particular generation of processor will be the same for all cameras that use that processor, unless they have additional computational capabilities added. We already know that the Digic 7/DV5 family has the capability to do basic 4K video, so the hardware encoders are present without question.

If a Canon camera has a Digic 7 processor in it, it will shoot 4K 30p video, provided that a modern storage interface has been included. Higher frame rates in 4K and higher resolutions, however, will not happen without extra hardware in the design.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 4, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> (Although I don't care for any sort of video capture at all and only want a really decent Canon stills camera without mirror).



No way, really? We had no idea.


----------



## Tugela (Jan 4, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> I think Canon could easily hit a homerun simply allowing DSLR 1080p RAW output via HDMI to an external recorder. The hardware can obviously do it, given MagicLantern's success. I don't know what the limitation is between sending it to a CF card (like now via ML) vs sending it HDMI. Someone smarter than I could probably elaborate more. But it seems the camera is capable of slinging the data (5D2 5D3 etc...).
> 
> Doing this still keeps a sacred Canon distance between, say, a 5D3 shooting video at 1080p, and a Cinema series with all the true cinema bells and whistles and then 4k in upper models. Even if they didn't have 4k on a 5D4 and just allowed for 1080p RAW output via HDMI would be great.



Uncompressed output is the least demanding method of encoding. Any camera is capable of doing that, provided that there is a mechanism to read the data stream (such as clean HDMI).


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 4, 2016)

Tugela said:


> DSLR processors are not general purpose CPUs, they have dedicated hardware built in to handle video. This is particularly true of the ones Canon uses. That is the reason why firmware upgrades generally can't change the encoding done by the processor in consumer models. If you want to do anything more than what the hardware encoder has been designed for, you have to do it in software, and for that you need extra processors.
> 
> The processor is designed specifically for the task. For that reason the overall capabilities of a camera (from the point of view of video) using a particular generation of processor will be the same for all cameras that use that processor, unless they have additional computational capabilities added. We already know that the Digic 7/DV5 family has the capability to do basic 4K video, so the hardware encoders are present without question.
> 
> If a Canon camera has a Digic 7 processor in it, it will shoot 4K 30p video, provided that a modern storage interface has been included. Higher frame rates in 4K and higher resolutions, however, will not happen without extra hardware in the design.


I did not know that. I thought they were a RISC design...., but what you say makes sense.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2016)

Tugela said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



If you like...

Canon stated that the Digic 4 processor encodes 1080p @ 30 fps. The 5DII, T2i/550D, and 60D (among others) all have Digic 4, and all shoot 1080p @ 30 fps. The T1i/500D, which launched just a few months after the 'video revolutionary' 5DII, has Digic 4 and shoots 1080p, but is limited to 20 fps (it shoots 720p @ 30 fps). The 50D, which launched just a few months _before_ the 5DII, has Digic 4 and doesn't shoot video at all...or at least it didn't until 2013 when Magic Lantern hacked it to shoot 1080p (albeit at only 24 fps for short clips due to limitations in the buffer). 

So that's two Canon dSLRs that fail to deliver the native capability of the hardware encoder in the processor. But you asked about 'Canon cameras' so I'll add that Digic 4 was also used in a bunch of PowerShots, such as the G10 that launched around the time of the 5DII and manages only 480p @ 30 fps but also the SX1 IS that launched around the time of the T1i and _does_ shoot 1080p @ 30 fps.


----------



## scottgoh (Jan 5, 2016)

love a 5D4 and a 1dX2


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 5, 2016)

So far I was under the impression that Canon uses different (hatdware) versions of same numbered DIGIC processors. E.g. a Powershot Digic 4 was not equal to a DSLR Digic 4 in capability/functionality. That may also explain the differences between different Canon cameras outlined by Neuro in his earlier post. Since we are talking Canon, it may however also be a combination of both hardware "differentiation" and firmware crippling that brings about those differences between various Canon cameras equipped with same number Digic processors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> So far I was under the impression that Canon uses different (hatdware) versions of same numbered DIGIC processors. E.g. a Powershot Digic 4 was not equal to a DSLR Digic 4 in capability/functionality. That may also explain the differences between different Canon cameras outlined by Neuro in his earlier post. Since we are talking Canon, it may however also be a combination of both hardware "differentiation" and firmware crippling that brings about those differences between various Canon cameras equipped with same number Digic processors.



I suspect that economies of scale make it rather unlikely there are several different versions of a Digic processor. Firmware-based deactivation of certain features is certainly a possibility. 

Either way, it supports the contention that the statement, "If it has Digic 7 it will shoot 4K," is likely false, whether that's through firmware 'crippling' of a single chip called Digic 7 or different hardware chips all called Digic 7. 

Also, note that I pointed out dSLRs with Digic 4 that both could and could not shoot the stated capability of 1080p @ 30 fps, and I also pointed out different PowerShot models with Digic 4 where one could and the other could not. So for the different hardware with the same Digic designation, there would have to be more 'flavors' than just dSLR vs. PowerShot for a given Digic chip, but rather several varieties for each. Finally, the ML hack of the 50D suggests that the capability is there but turned off in firmware, as does the outlier of the T1i being limited to 20 fps at 1080p.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 6, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > So far I was under the impression that Canon uses different (hatdware) versions of same numbered DIGIC processors. E.g. a Powershot Digic 4 was not equal to a DSLR Digic 4 in capability/functionality. That may also explain the differences between different Canon cameras outlined by Neuro in his earlier post. Since we are talking Canon, it may however also be a combination of both hardware "differentiation" and firmware crippling that brings about those differences between various Canon cameras equipped with same number Digic processors.
> ...



You also may alo find it's a case of different packaging of chips.

i.e. the DSLR Digic4 is in a 300pin 11x11mm package, while the Point and shoot chip is in a 100pin 7x7mm.

So you may get a smaller form factor for the smaller camera, but you also lose certain interfaces... a fast parallel interface on the DSLR is replaced by a slower serial interface, or the parallel interface is halved in width and now takes two cycles per operation. This doesn't just affect the size of the Digic chip, but can also impact the size of anything it's connected to and the amount of PCB area needed for routing.

This sort of thing is quite common on many commercial ICs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Thanks, good point. Still supports the idea that saying any Digic 7 camera will shoot 4K is incorrect.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 6, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



agreed


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 6, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks, good point. Still supports the idea that saying any Digic 7 camera will shoot 4K is incorrect.



In the literal sense: Yes. I know, it s of utmost importance for you to "be right". ;D
In the real world: No. 
Canon could - or should be able to - implement 4k in any camera with a Digic 7 processor. Different limitations might apply - eg. max. fps rate ddepending on interface speed/storage media used, or maximum duration of 4k capture depending on cooling possibilities/heat sinks in a specific camera body etc. 
But generally 4k capture should technically be possible in any Digic 7 Canon camera. They just don't unlock/implement it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Canon could - or should be able to - implement 4k in any camera with a Digic 7 processor.* Different limitations might apply - eg. max. fps rate*



In that case, the 5DS shoots 8.5K @ 5FPS


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, good point. Still supports the idea that saying any Digic 7 camera will shoot 4K is incorrect.
> ...



Which is exactly what I stated several posts back...



neuroanatomist said:


> But hey, let us completely ignore Canon's entire history of excluding (for marketing reasons) features of which products are technically capable. If you'd stopped at 'any camera with Digic 7 will be capable of shooting 4K' that makes sense. But to say they all _will shoot 4K_ is not necessarily true.


----------



## rfdesigner (Jan 6, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks, good point. Still supports the idea that saying any Digic 7 camera will shoot 4K is incorrect.
> ...



ok, lets look at this from the other side of the argument

let's say you develop something amazing the crown jewels of your company, like 4k. You can sell it in bodies for a price that covers your development, but they'll end up costing a lot as the development was very expensive.

now you also develop a cheap and nasty processor for your lesser products. This you can sell for far less money as the development was much more limited.

Now lets say both those chunks of circuitry are placed on the same chip to save fabrication costs and take advantage of reuse of similar supporting circuits. Do you give away your crown jewels in the cheap and nasty camera?


----------

