# More Mentions of a Canon Mirrorless Announcement Ahead of Photokina [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 9, 2018)

> There are some conflicting reports out there about Canon’s announcement plans ahead of Photokina. We were told back in July that we’d be seeing some announcements the first week of September, and there have also been reports of announcements the second week of the month as well. It’s possible two rounds of announcements are coming.
> We’ve been told by a few people around the globe that Canon subsidiaries have training planned for select employees before Photokina. The trade show begins September 26, 2018. Training sessions are usually held for new cameras and not lenses.
> 
> Two of the sources seem to be assuming that a new Canon mirrorless is going to be announced ahead of the trade show.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## art sanchez (Aug 9, 2018)

Would you have some more info about the new video camera body? Is it a Cinema Eos camera?


----------



## ffxx (Aug 9, 2018)

art sanchez said:


> Would you have some more info about the new video camera body? Is it a Cinema Eos camera?


If this is true and the cinema eos camera come as something like an upgrade from c100 mkII (xc20 with interchangeable lens perhaps? Or a C150? C100 mkIII?) I would buy in a blink of a eye. Only 3 things are crucial for me: 4:2:2 10 bit or better with a great codec (prores/dnx would be the dream), ND filters, and DPAF.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 9, 2018)

Oh no.

All the mirrorless hype will be monopolized by Nikon. 
Canon is *******.
Nikon will run away with the market and Canon will never catch up.

I am going to short shares of CAJ and make a fortune


----------



## art sanchez (Aug 9, 2018)

Exactly, I also think that a C100 III replacement must come! I



ffxx said:


> If this is true and the cinema eos camera come as something like an upgrade from c100 mkII (xc20 with interchangeable lens perhaps? Or a C150? C100 mkIII?) I would buy in a blink of a eye. Only 3 things are crucial for me: 4:2:2 10 bit or better with a great codec (prores/dnx would be the dream), ND filters, and DPAF.


----------



## Braintoggle33 (Aug 9, 2018)

Just give me a 7D III so I can go out into the wilderness and you won't from me for two years


----------



## ffxx (Aug 9, 2018)

art sanchez said:


> Exactly, I also think that a C100 III replacement must come! I



Everyone from independent moviemakers to small production companies would sell GH5/s to buy something similar/better from Canon, even if it's more expensive, I know that for sure.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 9, 2018)

I hope Canon does wait like they did with the EOS system, let others take a lead as Sony has then blow all away as the EOS system did putting everyone behind by 30 years and are just now catching up (Don't get your panties in a wad about sensors, the real world differences are imperceptible). I don't mind if they are a bit late but come out with something incredible like they did with the EOS system. Of course they can disappoint like they have lately.


----------



## Swp (Aug 9, 2018)

Nothing about the/a new 135mm?


----------



## Braintoggle33 (Aug 9, 2018)

Architect1776 said:


> I hope Canon does wait like they did with the EOS system, let others take a lead as Sony has then blow all away as the EOS system did putting everyone behind by 30 years and are just now catching up (Don't get your panties in a wad about sensors, the real world differences are imperceptible). I don't mind if they are a bit late but come out with something incredible like they did with the EOS system. Of course they can disappoint like they have lately.



I agree, Canon is a sleeping giant and when they move they move. I don't mind the wait at all. My existing canon bodies do everything I ask with ease. It takes time to do things right and I think Canon is getting ready to deliver the next wave


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 9, 2018)

It will be curious to see what Canon does here. 

There's alot of Nikon noise, maybe the decided that they didn't want to compete head on with the NIkon announcement plans and pushed things back 4 months.

The new Photokina is in May I think? Possibly too late but it's not as if there's not CP+,etc to launch something in the Jan - Feb timeframe like they always seem to do.

No M5 Mark II is sad


----------



## hmatthes (Aug 9, 2018)

While waiting for Canon's FF Mirrorless, the Fuji GFX gets better looking by the day...


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 9, 2018)

Canon is sitting at a global 49% ILC share right now. Let Nikon unleash its new platform (and possibly Sony to drop a counter announcement as well, perhaps an A7S III?) and we'll see what happens.

Canon will suck the air out of the internet when they drop their FF mirrorless offering(s) -- perhaps they want to wait until after Photokina to get everyone's attention rather than lose eyeballs to Nikon and Sony's announcement shenanigans.

That said, I would have thought the EF-M prime would come alongside an M5 II / M6 II. Curious what they'll ask (price-wise) for such a lens: $399? $499?

- A


----------



## Canoneer (Aug 9, 2018)

For me, there's really only one thing that will sell me on a mirrorless camera (from Canon or anyone else) - the EVF. I prefer DSLRs because I have a crystal clear, lag-free view of my composition. I'll wait until I start seeing mirrorless cameras with Sony's new 5 million-dot 240FPS EVF (ECX339A OLED) and a decent magnifier. Hopefully Canon uses something similar.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Canon will suck the air out of the internet when they drop their FF mirrorless offering(s) -- perhaps they want to wait until after Photokina to get everyone's attention rather than lose eyeballs to Nikon and Sony's announcement shenanigans.



Ha.....I hope you are right.

But, if history is any indicator, Canon will release a FF mirrorless that will be a massive internet disappointment, a spec sheet failure, and something that will be roasted like a luau pig in many a youtube video.

oh...and it will be used to take many wonderful pictures and outsell the Nikon/Sony offerings combined.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 9, 2018)

BTW....NO BODY is interested in the 400 f/2.8 III??? 

It is possible that we are going to see the fresh coat of paint treatment. New coatings, which will likely help some. 

But, I am hopeful this is more. I can see it being a bit sharper with TCs, but mostly, a decrease in the weight. It will be interesting to see as it likely will tell us the future of the Big Whites.


----------



## sdz (Aug 9, 2018)

art sanchez said:


> Exactly, I also think that a C100 III replacement must come! I


I recall reading that Canon will _not _provide an upgrade for the C100 II. This was just a rumor.

The obvious upgrade for the C100 II is 4K. But Canon may want to keep the C100 at 2K to preserve the difference between it and the C200.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 9, 2018)

ffxx said:


> If this is true and the cinema eos camera come as something like an upgrade from c100 mkII (xc20 with interchangeable lens perhaps? Or a C150? C100 mkIII?) I would buy in a blink of a eye. Only 3 things are crucial for me: 4:2:2 10 bit or better with a great codec (prores/dnx would be the dream), ND filters, and DPAF.



I'd be happy with a decent 4K option and a touchscreen for DPAF subject tracking added to the C100 mk III.
Bonus for : IBIS, 4:2:2 color, high frame rates, variable ND filter (would be a first for Canon)


----------



## syder (Aug 9, 2018)

ffxx said:


> If this is true and the cinema eos camera come as something like an upgrade from c100 mkII (xc20 with interchangeable lens perhaps? Or a C150? C100 mkIII?) I would buy in a blink of a eye. Only 3 things are crucial for me: 4:2:2 10 bit or better with a great codec (prores/dnx would be the dream), ND filters, and DPAF.



Frankly, there is little chance of this. What you want is a C300 mkii. It does exactly what you say want, you just don't want to pay for one.

If there is a C100mkiii it would most likely be a C200 without RAW/CFAST. A 4K cinema camera with ND filters (hopefully up to the 10 stops found on the C200), xlrs, face detect DPAF with touchscreen, 1080p120, CLOG 1-3, EF mount and which uses the 8 bit internal codecs found on the C200 possibly with 10 bit out over hdmi (probably not sdi). 

With the C200 priced at US$7500 this would likely sell for about $5500 and would be a great entry level 4k cinema camera. If you really need 10 bit for all the tv spots you shoot buy a C300, you can afford it. If you only occasionally need that buy a C200 and shoot RAW on the few occasions you need it. The internal 8 bit codecs on the C200 are more than fine for about 98% of web-based stuff.


----------



## amorse (Aug 9, 2018)

Nikon sure is trying to hold attention for as long as possible without saying much aren't they? I can understand why Canon wouldn't want to release much while the competition is effectively spamming their teasers. 

If Nikon's objective is to ensure people know that they have something coming and to keep potential buyers from buying something else now, Canon doesn't really need to do the same. Maybe the rumours will flow a bit more freely once Nikon makes a full and proper announcement. 

I don't really expect to be in the market for a full frame mirrorless camera, but I still find myself caught up in the rumour mill: it's a testament to how much hype is getting applied to the topic (or how easily swayed I am). At this point I'm not sure it's possible to release a camera that won't disappoint a vocal few.


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 9, 2018)

ffxx said:


> Everyone from independent moviemakers to small production companies would sell GH5/s to buy something similar/better from Canon, even if it's more expensive, I know that for sure.



This is absolutely true. But a smaller form factor and better video specs are required. 4K 60p in 8-bit and 4K 30p in 10-bit minimum, plus 240fps FHD and Clog with S35mm sensor. Plus it better take great photos and be a true hybrid cam.


----------



## t.linn (Aug 9, 2018)

Architect1776 said:


> Don't get your panties in a wad about sensors, the real world differences are imperceptible.



LOL. Just keep telling yourself that.


----------



## Yasko (Aug 9, 2018)

t.linn said:


> LOL. Just keep telling yourself that.


 Imperceptible like good dynamic range and overheating problems... just to give two troll cents.
But it‘s true, e. g. the 6D mk II is a great camera despite its _shitty_ sensor and leak of some stars and whistles.


----------



## Frage (Aug 9, 2018)

A Canon seller told at my working place, they are puting all their energy on the APS-C EOS-M line.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Aug 10, 2018)

Is it just me, or has the whole FF mirrorless rumor mill been more confusing than explaining to my wife about the need for a 400 2.8?


----------



## art sanchez (Aug 10, 2018)

hahahaha 



eosuser1234 said:


> Is it just me, or has the whole FF mirrorless rumor mill been more confusing than explaining to my wife about the need for a 400 2.8?


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 10, 2018)

Frage said:


> A Canon seller told at my working place, they are puting all their energy on the APS-C EOS-M line.



You wouldn't think so from the lens lineup


----------



## ffxx (Aug 10, 2018)

syder said:


> Frankly, there is little chance of this. What you want is a C300 mkii. It does exactly what you say want, you just don't want to pay for one.
> 
> If there is a C100mkiii it would most likely be a C200 without RAW/CFAST. A 4K cinema camera with ND filters (hopefully up to the 10 stops found on the C200), xlrs, face detect DPAF with touchscreen, 1080p120, CLOG 1-3, EF mount and which uses the 8 bit internal codecs found on the C200 possibly with 10 bit out over hdmi (probably not sdi).
> 
> With the C200 priced at US$7500 this would likely sell for about $5500 and would be a great entry level 4k cinema camera. If you really need 10 bit for all the tv spots you shoot buy a C300, you can afford it. If you only occasionally need that buy a C200 and shoot RAW on the few occasions you need it. The internal 8 bit codecs on the C200 are more than fine for about 98% of web-based stuff.


I agree mostly because _we are in Canon world, otherwise this could happen (I can see a GH6 having 90% of these). _


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Aug 10, 2018)

Announced for Photokina 2018 and released for Photokina 2019 which moves forward to May. Looks to be 6-9 months behind Nikon. They better announce something spectacular if they aren't actually going to release until sometime next year.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 10, 2018)

Frage said:


> A Canon seller told at my working place, they are puting all their energy on the APS-C EOS-M line.



After using the M50 over 5 weeks I see that Canon has at least put some energy into the EOS M line: It is a very useful tool which does not go into the way during taking photos. While a 24x36mm digital sensor for the Canon F-1 new was all I dreamed of to have a "perfect" camera I see a chance for these fully virtual EVF equipped systems to be a photographic tool.

But I am shure Canon needs at least one FF mirrorless body and I would not be surprised if they make some 6D-like mirrorless option first thinking of a scaled M50. They need to keep the "FF mirrorless is sexy"-crowd in their system.
In the high end sector EOS 1Dx ii and EOS 5D iv are very capable bodies and for those using a 2.8 400 it is not so important to shave off some millimeters or some 100g from the body.

And about the title: I would modify it
* "More Mentions of a Canon Mirrorless Announcement Ahead of which Photokina*"

I would never use this years photokina to make a great anouncement which is superseeded next photokina in May 2019.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 10, 2018)

Frage said:


> A Canon seller told at my working place, they are puting all their energy on the APS-C EOS-M line.



My wife's cousin told me...


----------



## Yasko (Aug 10, 2018)

> For now, I think all the mirrorless hype will be monopolized by Nikon and I don’t expect to hear too much in our immediate future about Canon’s mirrorless plans.



Still post a news about it. Yeah, I know, its canonrumors, but still: Clickbait on intention.


----------



## sportskjutaren (Aug 10, 2018)

docsmith said:


> BTW....NO BODY is interested in the 400 f/2.8 III???
> ...


I´m for sure interested in that.
Plan to get a new 400/2,8 in a pretty close time range.
Please, please, please give us a 400/2,8 with a built in TC. 
And I will for sure buy it as soon as I can.


----------



## Refurb7 (Aug 11, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Oh no.
> 
> All the mirrorless hype will be monopolized by Nikon.
> Canon is *******.
> ...


You are joking right? No one can possibly be that pessimistic.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 11, 2018)

Refurb7 said:


> You are joking right? No one can possibly be that pessimistic.


Hardly ******* but it is a risky strategy by Canon to be slow to the mirrorless full frame market.
It's only anecdotal and not reflective of the market as a whole but a friend of mine works in a camera shop and he's finding alot of Canon and Nikon users trading in to switch to Sony Mirrorless. They are starting to get overstocked in 2nd hand gear. The A7R III has alot of interest in my circles which is serious amateur as opposed to professional. 
Part of it is looking for something new and better and no solid word from Canon on a new full frame mirrorless doesn't help. If I were them I'd seriously hint at something while they are getting organised on actual dates. That's what Nikon are doing with the teasing trailers.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 11, 2018)

Who cares? What does it matter if Sony becomes the number 1 seller of FF cameras? Or Nikon? Why does it matter to anyone? Do they only want a camera if it is made by no. 1?

With that type of thinking, I guess I should toss out my Olympus E-M1, since Olympus is not the market leader.

Each person should buy the camera they want from the company they want. My guess is that those folks who are so impatient that they can't wait even a year or two to buy their next camera aren't a big share of the market and are just as likely to switch brands 3 or 4 years from now.



Hector1970 said:


> Hardly ******* but it is a risky strategy by Canon to be slow to the mirrorless full frame market.
> It's only anecdotal and not reflective of the market as a whole but a friend of mine works in a camera shop and he's finding alot of Canon and Nikon users trading in to switch to Sony Mirrorless. They are starting to get overstocked in 2nd hand gear. The A7R III has alot of interest in my circles which is serious amateur as opposed to professional.
> Part of it is looking for something new and better and no solid word from Canon on a new full frame mirrorless doesn't help. If I were them I'd seriously hint at something while they are getting organised on actual dates. That's what Nikon are doing with the teasing trailers.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 11, 2018)

Refurb7 said:


> You are joking right? No one can possibly be that pessimistic.


He's joking.


----------



## PerKr (Aug 11, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> Hardly ******* but it is a risky strategy by Canon to be slow to the mirrorless full frame market.
> It's only anecdotal and not reflective of the market as a whole but a friend of mine works in a camera shop and he's finding alot of Canon and Nikon users trading in to switch to Sony Mirrorless. They are starting to get overstocked in 2nd hand gear. The A7R III has alot of interest in my circles which is serious amateur as opposed to professional.
> Part of it is looking for something new and better and no solid word from Canon on a new full frame mirrorless doesn't help. If I were them I'd seriously hint at something while they are getting organised on actual dates. That's what Nikon are doing with the teasing trailers.



Expect those same people to stand in line for the Nikon and then the Canon FF mirrorless... Being first is nice but usually results in not having the best solution, such as using an APS-C mount for a FF sensor and needing 3 iterations to get to where they should have been from the get go...

And you are right, it's just anecdotal.


----------



## HankMD (Aug 11, 2018)

eosuser1234 said:


> Is it just me, or has the whole FF mirrorless rumor mill been more confusing than explaining to my wife about the need for a 400 2.8?


Let her know Nikon's coming out with a DO-type 500 f/5.6, and the 400 should cost a lot less. 

https://www.canonrumors.com/industr...lopment-of-af-s-nikkor-500mm-f-5-6e-pf-ed-vr/


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 11, 2018)

PerKr said:


> Expect those same people to stand in line for the Nikon and then the Canon FF mirrorless... Being first is nice but usually results in not having the best solution, such as using an APS-C mount for a FF sensor and needing 3 iterations to get to where they should have been from the get go...
> 
> And you are right, it's just anecdotal.


Time will tell. New customers are very important to the long term health of a company. They often buy what they see as popular. Which is why Canon put so much effort into TV sports. A large chunk of FF buyers are serious amateurs. They do influence the beginner purchasers . You don’t want too many of them to move to Sony as what starts with a trickle can grow. People here seem to take comfort in Canons APS-C sales on MILC but very few are jumping for joy with them as a camera. It is currently still a strong brand based on its legacy and strong line up of lens. It needs to keep that feeling among consumers.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 11, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> Hardly ******* but it is a risky strategy by Canon to be slow to the mirrorless full frame market.
> It's only anecdotal and not reflective of the market as a whole but a friend of mine works in a camera shop and he's finding alot of Canon and Nikon users trading in to switch to Sony Mirrorless. They are starting to get overstocked in 2nd hand gear. The A7R III has alot of interest in my circles which is serious amateur as opposed to professional.


But are they interested in it because it _lacks_ something (i.e. a mirror)? Or are they interested in something else?

If Canon just dropped the mirrorbox from the 5D4, added an EVF and started selling it as a "mirrorless" camera, would they buy it?



Hector1970 said:


> Part of it is looking for something new and better and no solid word from Canon


But isn't it a normal strategy for Canon? No solid word about "something new and better" until it is ready to hit the market. So far, it worked well. What changed?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 11, 2018)

Kit. said:


> But are they interested in it because it _lacks_ something (i.e. a mirror)? Or are they interested in something else?
> If Canon just dropped the mirrorbox from the 5D4, added an EVF and started selling it as a "mirrorless" camera, would they buy it?



I want better DR, no AA filter and more megapixels. 36-40 would be fine, 50 would be too many. Most importantly I want Canon to continue to support the EF mount.

However the best dream camera would be a EF-compatible *medium format *camera from Canon. Imagine that the rumored EF-X mount is actually a medium format mount. EF-X lenses will work as medium format lenses covering the whole sensor (say 50Mp), EF lenses will produce slightly cropped images (say 36Mp) and EF-S lenses will only use 22Mp. Actually some EF lenses may work ok at the full size.

That'd be a killer camera, I wonder if the upcoming Nikon mirrorless uses a similar concept.


----------



## BillB (Aug 11, 2018)

Kit. said:


> But are they interested in it because it _lacks_ something (i.e. a mirror)? Or are they interested in something else?
> 
> If Canon just dropped the mirrorbox from the 5D4, added an EVF and started selling it as a "mirrorless" camera, would they buy it?
> 
> ...



What has changed is that Nikon and Canon are signaling that they agree than mirrorless is the future for fullframe. For the last five years or so, much of the internet buzz has been pro Sony and pro mirrorless. Sony still has the only fullframe mirrorless models on the market. Maybe Nikon and Canon have put themselves in the awkward position of increasing the demand for fullframe mirrorless while leaving Sony as the only one able to meet that demand.


----------



## syder (Aug 11, 2018)

ffxx said:


> I agree mostly because _we are in Canon world, otherwise this could happen (I can see a GH6 having 90% of these). _



Except the GH line is 4/3 not S35, no NDs, no XLRs, no DPAF, totally different ergonomically etc.

It does what it does (indie filmmaking, music videos, no budget work, being a very small b camera) very well, but it absolutely is not competitive with the canon, sony or panasonic cinema cameras.

At work we have sets of C100s (mk i) and GH4s based in different places and most people are regularly astonished by how much better the material out of the C100s is 95% of the time. That tends to be a result of both technical (e.g. low light performance) and quality of life (e.g. not having to deal with screw on ND filters at events) improvements. Obviously the GH4 is better for slo mo or if you are finishing in 4k, but for regular speed material finished in 1080p the older, lower specced Canon is a better tool most of the time.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 11, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> It's only anecdotal and not reflective of the market as a whole but a friend of mine works in a camera shop and he's finding alot of Canon and Nikon users trading in to switch to Sony Mirrorless. They are starting to get overstocked in 2nd hand gear. The A7R III has alot of interest in my circles which is serious amateur as opposed to professional.



And that IMO is where Sony is playing a risky strategy - they rely heavily on people switching from CaNikon. Even if CaNikon first iteration of FF mirrorless is below Sony tech-wise, they will still slow the rate of switching, and in 2 or 3 iterations later that will slow even more. Unless Sony develops a strong new-user customer base in the next 3 years they will be in real trouble because their customer source will dry up. And although mirrorless advocates say the only reason CaNikon is still leading is because of their customer loyalty, it has taken decades to build that loyalty and Sony has barely started regards new users.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 11, 2018)

BillB said:


> What has changed is that Nikon and Canon are signaling that they agree than mirrorless is the future for fullframe.


But at least Canon isn't.

And I still remember when every major camera manufacturer was signaling that "APS is the future for _film_". Haven't happened yet, and I'm obviously not holding my breath. You can still buy 135 (fullframe) format film, but not APS.

Then there was time when every manufacturer but Canon was signalling that "APS is the future for _digital_, there is _no_ future for fullframe". Then the first digital ILC I bought was a fullframe Canon.

So, probably, Canon still doesn't need to get rid of stuff that works just fine.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 11, 2018)

If precedent holds, we will see a significant, sanctioned, rumor or announcement within 48 hits of a solid Nikon announcement. If the canon specs are to be inferior (slightly likely), it will be very general.

If canon release timing isn’t explicit in this rumor/announcement, it will indicate far future release.

If Nikon goes d850 all-out, the entire Nikon universe will start to look reasonable again, especially as third party glass options have radically improved.

I doubt this will happen, but the best thing that could happen for canon shooters is that Canon goes to #2 market share status. Astronomically low odds, unfortunately, and I say this as a canon fan.





amorse said:


> Nikon sure is trying to hold attention for as long as possible without saying much aren't they? I can understand why Canon wouldn't want to release much while the competition is effectively spamming their teasers.
> 
> If Nikon's objective is to ensure people know that they have something coming and to keep potential buyers from buying something else now, Canon doesn't really need to do the same. Maybe the rumours will flow a bit more freely once Nikon makes a full and proper announcement.
> 
> I don't really expect to be in the market for a full frame mirrorless camera, but I still find myself caught up in the rumour mill: it's a testament to how much hype is getting applied to the topic (or how easily swayed I am). At this point I'm not sure it's possible to release a camera that won't disappoint a vocal few.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Aug 11, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


I really hope it’s impressive and rivals the A7RIII and D850 in specs and pricing. Canon have an excellent opportunity to reshape the past three years of bad press.

It’s not all bad but the 6DII, 5DIV pricing and video features and the M50 have not been as welcomed as Canon or many of their users had hoped.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 12, 2018)

Braintoggle33 said:


> I agree, Canon is a sleeping giant and when they move they move. I don't mind the wait at all. My existing canon bodies do everything I ask with ease. It takes time to do things right and I think Canon is getting ready to deliver the next wave


My sentiments exactly. Canon can't afford to make a major failure with a big movement it plans to take its company. So I don't think they are taking this task lightly. Figuring out the form factor, tech, price point, lens mount, etc....all of that takes times. Meanwhile, Sony has released multiple iterations of cameras that didn't have the best reputation for reliability and usability. They're finally in a very sweet spot and the technology has fully matured. I look forward to seeing what Canon has to offer. I make my living with this gear...I can't afford to jump ship and make a mistake or reinvest in a new system that may or may not work for me.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 12, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> I really hope it’s impressive and rivals the A7RIII and D850 in specs and pricing. Canon have an excellent opportunity to reshape the past three years of bad press.
> 
> It’s not all bad but the 6DII, 5DIV pricing and video features and the M50 have not been as welcomed as Canon or many of their users had hoped.



What bad press? There is no credible press with regard to photographic equipment any more, and it has been a lot longer than three years since there was.

All we have now are the Tony Northrup and the Fro Knows Photos types that post whatever gets them the most clicks, regardless of accuracy or their bias. Either that or DPR, who's editorial policy is apparently driven by whatever things have the highest profit margin for DPR's owner, amazon.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 12, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> I really hope it’s impressive and rivals the A7RIII and D850 in specs and pricing. Canon have an excellent opportunity to reshape the past three years of bad press.
> 
> It’s not all bad but the 6DII, 5DIV pricing and video features and the M50 have not been as welcomed as Canon or many of their users had hoped.



For those interested in performance and quality rather than impressive specs, this is not accurate. A select few forum dwellers hoped for more - actual photographers who have bought the 6D II, 5DIV and M50 hvave been very satisfied and find that their cameras are excellent. Despite the fact that actual buyers have repeatedly praised these cameras, those few that were disappointed continually exaggerate the disappointment level. People on this forum who have used and tested the Sony FF compared to the 6D II have found the Canon superior in most ways and wwouldn't trade. As has been pointed out over and over again, the Sony cameras UNDERperform compared to the specs. Of course, those that love and promote Sony will never believe that the Sonys - despite their superior sensor tech, are not necessarily superior or even close to equal to their Canon counterparts.


----------



## Johan Villanueva (Aug 12, 2018)

A 32MM F/1.4 STM would be stellar for the DSLR Market, I really want a 35mm f/1.8G competitor


----------



## fullstop (Aug 12, 2018)

Canon seems to wait until Nikon MILC system is fully revealed. Last time Nikon ran a great teaser campaign, the camera itself was totally underwhelming and flopped (Nikon Df). Don't think Nikon will repeat that mistake, but let's see "the full mo(u)nty" ...


----------



## The Fat Fish (Aug 12, 2018)

dak723 said:


> For those interested in performance and quality rather than impressive specs, this is not accurate. A select few forum dwellers hoped for more - actual photographers who have bought the 6D II, 5DIV and M50 hvave been very satisfied and find that their cameras are excellent. Despite the fact that actual buyers have repeatedly praised these cameras, those few that were disappointed continually exaggerate the disappointment level. People on this forum who have used and tested the Sony FF compared to the 6D II have found the Canon superior in most ways and wwouldn't trade. As has been pointed out over and over again, the Sony cameras UNDERperform compared to the specs. Of course, those that love and promote Sony will never believe that the Sonys - despite their superior sensor tech, are not necessarily superior or even close to equal to their Canon counterparts.


And with everyone who’s disappointed there are those like yourself who will defend the cameras. I’ve had plenty of use with the 5DIV (good camera, terrible video/pricing) and the 6DII (I have very little good to say about it). I must admit I have never used the M50 but based on the 2.56x crop 4K I know it’s not for me.

You of course like these cameras but surely you can appreciate the frustration surrounding them? Imagine saving $2000 for a $2000 specd upgrade to your original 6D to them be greeted with a $1200 specd camera priced at $2000 that is not a noticeable 5 year improvement and in some ways is slightly worse. Can you still take excellent photos with it? Yes. Is it a camera worthy of 2017 and it’s release price? No. Since the release the camera has dropped nearly $800 but that does not help those who wanted a $2000 6D upgrade. By 2018 spec standards the 5DIV would fill the void but it’s remained at an absurd $3300 which is D850/A7RIII money. That’s the area the 5DSR Mk II should be occupying.

As for your dislike of the mentioned YouTubers, that is the press of today.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 12, 2018)

If youtubers are "the press of today", then illiteracy has been raised to the new intelligence standard.
Sorry for you, The Times, the Figaro, The Guardian...


----------



## sdz (Aug 12, 2018)

dak723 said:


> For those interested in performance and quality rather than impressive specs, this is not accurate. A select few forum dwellers hoped for more - actual photographers who have bought the 6D II, 5DIV and M50 hvave been very satisfied and find that their cameras are excellent.



Do any currently available FF cameras take crap photos?

I ask because it seems to me that we argue about the quality of the seats available in luxury class, that we debate the relative merits of cameras that are, as a class, good enough. They are more than capable, although the various camera systems have their individual strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## dak723 (Aug 12, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> You of course like these cameras but surely you can appreciate the frustration surrounding them? Imagine saving $2000 for a $2000 specd upgrade to your original 6D to them be greeted with a $1200 specd camera priced at $2000 that is not a noticeable 5 year improvement and in some ways is slightly worse



If you have used the camera, than I can not argue with your opinion.

However, I have to wonder why virtually everyone else on the forum who has used the 6D II finds it better than the 6D in almost every way.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Aug 12, 2018)

dak723 said:


> If you have used the camera, than I can not argue with your opinion.
> 
> However, I have to wonder why virtually everyone else on the forum who has used the 6D II finds it better than the 6D in almost every way.


I don't doubt it's better, I question by how much for it's 5 year later release date and $2000 price. The two step backs are dynamic range (only a small amount but still a step back after 5 years) and the lack of ALL-I video.

The benefits on paper over the original would be 6 extra megapixels, improved AF system with DPAF and a flappy screen... That's it.

In reality I find the inclusion of DPAF less useful as it works best in video and I could never see me using the 6DII for video. There's no 4K and soft 1080p which isn't ideal. It may however work for vloggers.

With this said obviously different users value different features more than others but it looks to me like all 5 years has gained you is 6mp and some improved AF at the expense of dynamic range.


----------



## MrAndre (Aug 12, 2018)

I do not get people defending canon here. If you are in the market looking for a FF camera, Canon is the last brand that comes to mind. No camera they are offering is up to par with their peers. They are lagging behind about 3-5 years, which is huge. In the last five years DR has improved by up to 5 stops, autofocus like eye-AF and no black out while continious shooting have come along. Dont get me started on Canons take on 4K video. For the same money of the 5D Mark4 you can get a Sony A7III with a lens, which exceed the 5D in every way possible besides resolution.

I love Canon, but I am close to jumping ship. Every time I get back from a portrait session with my original 6D and I see a focus miss, because of recomposing, I am thinking: With Eye-AF that might have been a keeper. And every portrait photographer knows, how awful it feels to sort out a picture with perfect expression, because of missed focus! Just like every landscape photographer knows the pain of not enough DR in a critical moment.

Its no joke that you see every youtuber on the planet switching to sony. If your camera breaks today, what would you buy? Sony has earned the trust of a lot of people to give you the newest and most advanced technology in every iteration. Nikon at least tries to keep up. But Canon lost a lot of trust. They released cameras which they crippled on purpose so you have to spend more money. Why would you want to stay with a company like that?


----------



## deleteme (Aug 12, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> I do not get people defending canon here. If you are in the market looking for a FF camera, Canon is the last brand that comes to mind. No camera they are offering is up to par with their peers. They are lagging behind about 3-5 years, which is huge. In the last five years DR has improved by up to 5 stops, autofocus like eye-AF and no black out while continious shooting have come along. Dont get me started on Canons take on 4K video. For the same money of the 5D Mark4 you can get a Sony A7III with a lens, which exceed the 5D in every way possible besides resolution.
> 
> I love Canon, but I am close to jumping ship. Every time I get back from a portrait session with my original 6D and I see a focus miss, because of recomposing, I am thinking: With Eye-AF that might have been a keeper. And every portrait photographer knows, how awful it feels to sort out a picture with perfect expression, because of missed focus! Just like every landscape photographer knows the pain of not enough DR in a critical moment.
> 
> Its no joke that you see every youtuber on the planet switching to sony. If your camera breaks today, what would you buy? Sony has earned the trust of a lot of people to give you the newest and most advanced technology in every iteration. Nikon at least tries to keep up. But Canon lost a lot of trust. They released cameras which they crippled on purpose so you have to spend more money. Why would you want to stay with a company like that?



So... magical improvements by the competition that convince you that your photography would be better if only....

As a working pro that has been using pro cameras (and amateur cameras) on a daily basis since the 70's, I can unequivocally state that what we are seeing here is the endless turning of the marketing wheel.
Yes, changes are coming if not already here. Yes, some of these changes are very welcome and many will help make good photos more easily.
However, as the dust settles the reality of the changes will become apparent. What we think of as "must-haves" will reveal themselves to be "eh, OK". Aspects that many thought critical will be seen to have counterbalancing drawbacks. Other features will be found to be optimistically hyped.

I can further attest to the fact that no camera EVER made me a better photographer. Practice, failure and more practice made me better. Not best, better.

What WILL remain is our need to actually master cameras irrespective of their putatively magical properties.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 12, 2018)

Thanks Fatfish and Mr Andre for your contributions. I'm sure there will be people with thousands of posts quick to dismiss your opinions. I think you explain quite well your concerns about Canon. The comment "I love Canon, but I am close to jumping ship" for me is relevant. Having tried the A7R III I was quite impressed how much Sony had moved on. Eye focus was excellent and Silent shutter too has many uses for me. I'd like my next camera to be a Canon. Of course full frame mirrorless is a big step for them but its not like last week that they started working on it. They've made mirrorless cameras for years but while they sell well they are not best in class at APS-C level. If the new Canon full frame mirrorless is an average camera then my next move has a high chance of moving to Sony which would disappoint me but that's progress. I was quite happy with Nokia at the time. It had a great battery life and very reliable but couldn't connect in a user friendly way to the internet or run decent useful apps. It started as a trickle but reached a tipping point.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 12, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> I do not get people defending canon here. If you are in the market looking for a FF camera, Canon is the last brand that comes to mind. No camera they are offering is up to par with their peers.


Personally, I'd be looking at 5DIV.



MrAndre said:


> They are lagging behind about 3-5 years, which is huge. In the last five years DR has improved by up to 5 stops,


You should be somewhat creative in defining and measuring that "DR".

Besides, on ISO values where DR is important to me, it hasn't really improved by more than 1 stop in the last 10 years.



MrAndre said:


> autofocus like eye-AF and no black out while continious shooting have come along.


You may have it on Canon if you want it. Or you may opt out and use an OVF. Up to you.



MrAndre said:


> Dont get me started on Canons take on 4K video.


When I'm interested in using a photo camera for taking videos, I have a P&S and a smartphone.



MrAndre said:


> For the same money of the 5D Mark4 you can get a Sony A7III with a lens, which exceed the 5D in every way possible besides resolution.


Thanks, but I'm afraid that 100-400 with A7 would be very uncomfortable to handhold, and something tells me that Sony's 100-400 it is not as cheap as you describe it.



MrAndre said:


> I love Canon, but I am close to jumping ship. Every time I get back from a portrait session with my original 6D and I see a focus miss, because of recomposing, I am thinking: With Eye-AF that might have been a keeper. And every portrait photographer knows, how awful it feels to sort out a picture with perfect expression, because of missed focus! Just like every landscape photographer knows the pain of not enough DR in a critical moment.
> 
> Its no joke that you see every youtuber on the planet switching to sony.


Oh, maybe it is different for us who during the film era did not have instant feedback and were forced to actually understand what we are shooting.



MrAndre said:


> If your camera breaks today, what would you buy? Sony has earned the trust of a lot of people


Oh, about that "trust": if my camera breaks today, I may still be able to fix it for a reasonable price, and even if I cannot, I can buy something that is still compatible with my almost 20 years old 550EX. If my Sony laptop breaks today...



MrAndre said:


> to give you the newest and most advanced technology in every iteration.


I don't need that, thank you very much. I need something that works.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 12, 2018)

Most camera users - including FF camera owners - never use 100-400 or long white teles. It is a very niche use case in the overall market. Importance of large body to use large lenses is totally exaggerated in this forum. If Canon brings one (1) big, heavy, tough, fully-sealed, high fps sports & wildlife mirrorfree body ... "Canon 1M" ... that niche is totally taken care of. Slim new EF-X mount is also fine, because size/weight of a little EF/EF-X adapter is irrelevant with large camera and even larger lenses.

Vast majority of all users and use cases are perfectly well served by mirrorfree cameras sized between Sony A7 (1st gen) and A9 / upcoming Nikon MILC.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 12, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> I do not get people defending canon here. If you are in the market looking for a FF camera, Canon is the last brand that comes to mind. No camera they are offering is up to par with their peers. They are lagging behind about 3-5 years, which is huge. In the last five years DR has improved by up to 5 stops, autofocus like eye-AF and no black out while continious shooting have come along. Dont get me started on Canons take on 4K video. For the same money of the 5D Mark4 you can get a Sony A7III with a lens, which exceed the 5D in every way possible besides resolution.
> 
> I love Canon, but I am close to jumping ship. Every time I get back from a portrait session with my original 6D and I see a focus miss, because of recomposing, I am thinking: With Eye-AF that might have been a keeper. And every portrait photographer knows, how awful it feels to sort out a picture with perfect expression, because of missed focus! Just like every landscape photographer knows the pain of not enough DR in a critical moment.
> 
> Its no joke that you see every youtuber on the planet switching to sony. If your camera breaks today, what would you buy? Sony has earned the trust of a lot of people to give you the newest and most advanced technology in every iteration. Nikon at least tries to keep up. But Canon lost a lot of trust. They released cameras which they crippled on purpose so you have to spend more money. Why would you want to stay with a company like that?



You seem to have forgotten the 1D X Mark II. Nothing else anyone has on the market touches it (along with the Nikon D5 which, other than lens compatibility of some older F-mount lenses and the inconsistencies of still using mechanical aperture control with the vast majority of compatible F-mount lenses is the more or less equal of the 1D X II), when it comes to reliability, durability, and compatibility with every EF lens Canon has ever made.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 12, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Most camera users - including FF camera owners - never use 100-400 or long white teles.


Oh, really? For me, it looks like half of the forum uses 100-400.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 12, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Most camera users - including FF camera owners - never use 100-400 or long white teles. It is a very niche use case in the overall market. Importance of large body to use large lenses is totally exaggerated in this forum. If Canon brings one (1) big, heavy, tough, fully-sealed, high fps sports & wildlife mirrorfree body ... "Canon 1M" ... that niche is totally taken care of. Slim new EF-X mount is also fine, because size/weight of a little EF/EF-X adapter is irrelevant with large camera and even larger lenses.
> 
> Vast majority of all users and use cases are perfectly well served by mirrorfree cameras sized between Sony A7 (1st gen) and A9 / upcoming Nikon MILC.



If you think the α9 comes anywhere close to the 1D X Mark II (or the D5) for continuous AF tracking between every frame at high frame rates, much less for shooting in less than ideal environmental conditions, you've obviously never shot sports/action with both cameras. And while it is true that most camera users do not own/use big whites, a good majority of working pros do. Those are the photographers who _need_ something that always works more than they need to be able to pull up the details on the underside of a leaf in the dark shadows of the corner of an image that was underexposed by five stops because the camera holder that took the shot didn't know how to properly expose it.

A lot of well-heeled amateurs use big whites, 100-400s, 120-300s, and 200-400s as well. The 70-200/2.8 is becoming near-ubiquitous for even Uncle Bobs and MWCs. I also see more than a few 100-400s and 150-600s in the hands of enthusiasts that are not what one would consider independently wealthy. How many such shooters you see depends on where and what you are shooting.

It may be true that some here overestimate the percentage of the overall market concerned with the type of shooting that requires such large and heavy tools, but by the same token you seem to be underestimating them. You also seem to be underestimating just how much of the market you describe - those concerned only with angles of view that benefit from shorter flange distances and smaller lenses - will be gone for ILCs of any kind as phone based computational photography takes over that segment for all but a very niche consumer who desires a dedicated camera.


----------



## Treyarnon (Aug 12, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Most camera users - including FF camera owners - never use 100-400 or long white teles. It is a very niche use case in the overall market. Importance of large body to use large lenses is totally exaggerated in this forum. If Canon brings one (1) big, heavy, tough, fully-sealed, high fps sports & wildlife mirrorfree body ... "Canon 1M" ... that niche is totally taken care of. Slim new EF-X mount is also fine, because size/weight of a little EF/EF-X adapter is irrelevant with large camera and even larger lenses.
> 
> Vast majority of all users and use cases are perfectly well served by mirrorfree cameras sized between Sony A7 (1st gen) and A9 / upcoming Nikon MILC.



Full frame cameras ARE niche. There is a perfectly rational argument for saying that "the vast majority of users are perfectly well severed by APSC sensors" - A few of us choose to spend more money to buy slightly better cameras - but we are a niche part of the camera industry. 

Also, its not just the weight/balance with big lenses that is an issue with ergonomics - being able to comfortably hand hold a camera for hours at a time is a big deal, as is the things like being able to operate all of the dials and buttons without taking the gloves off when working in sub zero temperatures. 

Sony make some great cameras - but they still have not made a camera "for me" just yet.


----------



## Quackator (Aug 12, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> Its no joke that you see every youtuber on the planet switching to sony.



That happened for a simple reason: Sony marketing money.
However, what some here call "press of today" (ignoring
the much better fitting "presstitutes of today") are already 
switching ship. The rats are leaving. 

One lists the caveats you should know before buying the A7III,
another admits that he made a mistake when rating the
6D MkII as under par, others suddenly name the M50 as
best bang for the buck.

All of them try to make it not too obvious, but they are all getting 
ready to be hustled by the marketing branches team red and yellow.

DSLRs make approx 60% of the market, DSLM make 40%.
Sony has less than 30% of the mirrorless market, which makes 
it's total share only 12%. 

Canon today has 50+ % of the global market - without even 
offering a single full frame mirrorless.

It ain't over before the fat lady sings - but I already hear her humming.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 12, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Oh, really? For me, it looks like half of the forum uses 100-400.



as i said, Somehow this forum seems to be populated by large numbers of BIF shooters and [big] white tele users. In that respect not representative for the majority camera users, not even of FF camera users.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 12, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> By 2018 spec standards the 5DIV would fill the void but it’s remained at an absurd $3300 which is D850/A7RIII money. That’s the area the 5DSR Mk II should be occupying.



The price of any goods is what people will pay and what people will think it is worth. The 5DIV has maintained its price because people are still buying it and think it is worth the money - I note that the A7R3 has just had a permanent 10% price drop in the UK - what does that say about what the market thinks of the Sony? 

It seems that are some forum dwellers out of touch with the majority of the world.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 12, 2018)

fullstop said:


> as i said, Somehow this forum seems to be populated by large numbers of BIF shooters and [big] white tele users.


Actually, 100-400 is neither. It's just a reasonable FF amateur telezoom with some interesting macro abilities.



fullstop said:


> In that respect not representative for the majority camera users,


The majority of camera users use Apple, Samsung, Huawei or Xiaomi.

The majority of Sony camera users use Xperia.



fullstop said:


> not even of FF camera users.


I think you are wrong here.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Aug 12, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> The price of any goods is what people will pay and what people will think it is worth. The 5DIV has maintained its price because people are still buying it and think it is worth the money - I note that the A7R3 has just had a permanent 10% price drop in the UK - what does that say about what the market thinks of the Sony?
> 
> It seems that are some forum dwellers out of touch with the majority of the world.



Based on second hand prices they clearly don’t value the 5DIV that highly. Canon make a huge amount due to a high markup rather than selling in quantity with the 5DIV.

Also the A7RIII price drop is a result of Sony’s own A7III eating into the sales.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 12, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> Based on second hand prices they clearly don’t value the 5DIV that highly. Canon make a huge amount due to a high markup rather than selling in quantity with the 5DIV.
> 
> Also the A7RIII price drop is a result of Sony’s own A7III eating into the sales.



What has the second hand price got to do with my comment? I responded to your comments about new prices so don't go changing the the argument when someone points out the fallacy in your first one.

As for your explanation of Sony's price drop, Sony now are in the same market position as Canon with a Sub-2000 and and a sub-3000 model. And as I see it they cannot sustain sales of the higher priced model. Looks like someone at Sony made a boo-boo especially when Sony are supposed to be technologically superior in both areas. So why can Canon maintain their price but Sony can't?
I am not denying that Sony have their distinct advantages but it comes down (again!) to whether those differences really matter to most people most of the time.


----------



## BillB (Aug 12, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> Based on second hand prices they clearly don’t value the 5DIV that highly. Canon make a huge amount due to a high markup rather than selling in quantity with the 5DIV.
> 
> Also the A7RIII price drop is a result of Sony’s own A7III eating into the sales.



And where did you find the information about 5DIV margins and the impact of the A7III on A7RIII sales?


----------



## Kit. (Aug 12, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> Based on second hand prices they clearly don’t value the 5DIV that highly.


Where?

B&H has none. Adorama seems to claim to have one, but cannot find it. Calumet has none. On Amazon, "like new" 5DIV cost about the same as "like new" A7RIII.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 13, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> I love Canon, but I am close to jumping ship. Every time I get back from a portrait session with my *original 6D* and I see a focus miss, because of recomposing, I am thinking: With Eye-AF that might have been a keeper.



The 6D was a rehash of the 5D II, a body released 10 years ago and released to provide a cheap entry level body to full frame. You compare 10 year old technology to determine that Canon is 3 to 5 years behind?


----------



## dak723 (Aug 13, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> I do not get people defending canon here. If you are in the market looking for a FF camera, Canon is the last brand that comes to mind. No camera they are offering is up to par with their peers. They are lagging behind about 3-5 years, which is huge. In the last five years DR has improved by up to 5 stops, autofocus like eye-AF and no black out while continious shooting have come along. Dont get me started on Canons take on 4K video. For the same money of the 5D Mark4 you can get a Sony A7III with a lens, which exceed the 5D in every way possible besides resolution.
> 
> I love Canon, but I am close to jumping ship. Every time I get back from a portrait session with my original 6D and I see a focus miss, because of recomposing, I am thinking: With Eye-AF that might have been a keeper. And every portrait photographer knows, how awful it feels to sort out a picture with perfect expression, because of missed focus! Just like every landscape photographer knows the pain of not enough DR in a critical moment.
> 
> Its no joke that you see every youtuber on the planet switching to sony. If your camera breaks today, what would you buy? Sony has earned the trust of a lot of people to give you the newest and most advanced technology in every iteration. Nikon at least tries to keep up. But Canon lost a lot of trust. They released cameras which they crippled on purpose so you have to spend more money. Why would you want to stay with a company like that?



Here is why people defend Canon here. Because folks like you who intentionally misinform and try to pass off baloney as fact.

Lagging way behind. Not according to facts unless you count 1 stop difference at base ISO and little or no difference thereafter. "DR improved 5 stops in the last 5 years..." Not even close. DR hasn't improved 5 stops in the last *15 years* between the original Canon Rebel (crop) and the latest FF. Here's the DR chart from photons to photos :


----------



## ken (Aug 13, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> I do not get people defending canon here. If you are in the market looking for a FF camera, Canon is the last brand that comes to mind. No camera they are offering is up to par with their peers. They are lagging behind about 3-5 years, which is huge. In the last five years DR has improved by up to 5 stops, autofocus like eye-AF and no black out while continious shooting have come along. Dont get me started on Canons take on 4K video. For the same money of the 5D Mark4 you can get a Sony A7III with a lens, which exceed the 5D in every way possible besides resolution.
> 
> I love Canon, but I am close to jumping ship. Every time I get back from a portrait session with my original 6D and I see a focus miss, because of recomposing, I am thinking: With Eye-AF that might have been a keeper. And every portrait photographer knows, how awful it feels to sort out a picture with perfect expression, because of missed focus! Just like every landscape photographer knows the pain of not enough DR in a critical moment.
> 
> Its no joke that you see every youtuber on the planet switching to sony. If your camera breaks today, what would you buy? Sony has earned the trust of a lot of people to give you the newest and most advanced technology in every iteration. Nikon at least tries to keep up. But Canon lost a lot of trust. They released cameras which they crippled on purpose so you have to spend more money. Why would you want to stay with a company like that?



I shoot with the original 6D as well. I've had very few problems with portrait sessions, but it did take a while to get reliable at focus+recompose (as there's only one usable focus point). It's a good skill to have. I have had a few circumstances where it just seemed to REFUSE to autofocus (well-lit, close but not super close to subject, using a rented 24-70 f2.8 ii), but I just manually focused and moved on. (I never experienced that with my 70-200 f2.8 ii.) Anyway, I'm waiting to see what Canon does in FF mirrorlesss. Other than "it's getting old", I've really enjoyed the Canon gear I have. I'm skeptical of Sony, I don't enjoy my Sony a6000 much at all. We use it when we just can't carry a big camera, but it makes me sad to use it. That camera was so over-hyped. I consider the a6000 autofocus barely usable but the reviews when it came out claimed it was the best... fastest... ever. I will rent any Sony camera first if I ever consider purchasing one again. I pretty much do that with all camera gear now.

"Its no joke that you see every youtuber on the planet switching to sony." - If I made my living via ads vlogging about camera gear, I'd be using whatever camera was newest on the market too. It's new and people are searching on that term to lean about it, and that's where the money is. I don't blame them. But don't be shocked (or saddened) when they flood back to Nikon or Canon as those mirrorless offerings come out. They'll be the new hot thing, and keywords sell ads. But I think you're making a huge mistake thinking this is the general consumer market migrating to Sony. It's youtube vloggers. Sure, they're influencing some people, but they'll change like the weather. It's just whatever brand is "hot" at the moment.

I'm not sure how many Sony items you've ever purchased, but they have (historically at least) provided terrible (totally absent?) customer service. Stereo receivers, laptops, you name it. I hope they're getting their act together with professional camera services, but I have my doubts. Fool me 8 times, shame on you...


----------



## eosuser1234 (Aug 13, 2018)

In business, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting difference results is the weakspot that Canon seems to need to address.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 13, 2018)

eosuser1234 said:


> In business, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting difference results is the weakspot that Canon seems to need to address.


What makes you think they’re expecting different results?


----------



## Quackator (Aug 13, 2018)

eosuser1234 said:


> In business, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting difference results is the weakspot that Canon seems to need to address.



They have provided matured, very solid features and specs time and again,
combined that with best in class support and they have gained more than 
half of world's market share over that.

What makes you think from a business side that they need to change that or
that they expect this to change?


----------



## MrAndre (Aug 13, 2018)

Okay, I get that big lenses are a reason for Canon. I respect that. But what about photographers who do not need big lenses like portrait, wedding, event, architecture and landscape photographers? Maybe Canon is the most reliable camera manufacturer with the best repair sites, but I think that does excuse them for not innovating on the technological site.

I am not saying that their cameras are bad at all. I love them and I love the ecosystem, but I am frustrated, because there is no camera with the spec list I want and which I would see fit for 2018 by Canon. If I did not care about Canon, I would not be writing here. I would just buy from another manufacturer and be done with it. You can critizise me and tell me that I should be able to manage with Canon gear. But no camera Canon is offering is something I could buy without feeling betrayed because I spend a lot of money for lackluster technology.

I know that no camera will make me a better photographer, but they can make it a lot easier to at least prevent technical failure. Tell me autofocus for instance does not help you take better pictures? Of course you could manage with manual, but the keeper rate would go to shit! In some situations, like time sensitive landscapes dynamic range can make or break the image.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Aug 13, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> Okay, I get that big lenses are a reason for Canon. I respect that. But what about photographers who do not need big lenses like portrait, wedding, event, architecture and landscape photographers? Maybe Canon is the most reliable camera manufacturer with the best repair sites, but I think that does excuse them for not innovating on the technological site.
> 
> I am not saying that their cameras are bad at all. I love them and I love the ecosystem, but I am frustrated, because there is no camera with the spec list I want and which I would see fit for 2018 by Canon. If I did not care about Canon, I would not be writing here. I would just buy from another manufacturer and be done with it. You can critizise me and tell me that I should be able to manage with Canon gear. But no camera Canon is offering is something I could buy without feeling betrayed because I spend a lot of money for lackluster technology.
> 
> I know that no camera will make me a better photographer, but they can make it a lot easier to at least prevent technical failure. Tell me autofocus does not help you take better pictures? Of course you could manage with manual, but the keeper rate would go to shit! In some situations, like time sensitive landscapes, it can make or break the image.



Shooting a landscape does not require autofocus at all let alone the latest and greatest eye autofocus. So no camera is going to help you there. And as a wildlife photographer where AF is actually critical i would go with an off sensor canon system over an on sensor mirrorless system every day of the week. As for technical failure. Sony has a far better record of 'failing' than any canon. Sony's are a spec sheet. That's all. They have a better sensor but in reality they simply do not iutperform a reliable camera unless you are shooting in perfect conditions. As soon as conditions deteriorate just a little(which is the case in 90 percent of situations) then a canon dslr(or nikon for that matter) win hands down.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 13, 2018)

eosuser1234 said:


> In business, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting difference results is the weakspot that Canon seems to need to address.


Seems to me they do the same things over and over and get the same result - that same result being they keep staying at #1. Not a bad outcome if you ask me.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 13, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> Okay, I get that big lenses are a reason for Canon. I respect that. But what about photographers who do not need big lenses like portrait, wedding, event, architecture and landscape photographers?


Poor souls, how did they even manage to stay in business before the current latest and greatest (according to the specs) Sony body arrived?

Or maybe they stay in business because they don't waste money on "latest and greatest" gear each time it happens to be selling?



MrAndre said:


> Maybe Canon is the most reliable camera manufacturer with the best repair sites, but I think that does excuse them for not innovating on the technological site.


What makes you think they are "not innovating on the technological site"?



MrAndre said:


> I am not saying that their cameras are bad at all. I love them and I love the ecosystem, but I am frustrated, because there is no camera with the spec list I want and which I would see fit for 2018 by Canon.


So, you are frustrated because Canon puts less marketing BS into the specs?



MrAndre said:


> I could buy without feeling betrayed because I spend a lot of money for lackluster technology.
> 
> I know that no camera will make me a better photographer, but they can make it a lot easier to at least prevent technical failure. Tell me autofocus does not help you take better pictures?


Have you actually compared autofocus on the latest Canon and Sony FF bodies?

Have you actually compared their face tracking abilities, for example? Or are you just assuming that if Sony's has a catchier name, it must be superior?


----------



## MrAndre (Aug 13, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Have you actually compared autofocus on the latest Canon and Sony FF bodies?
> 
> Have you actually compared their face tracking abilities, for example? Or are you just assuming that if Sony's has a catchier name, it must be superior?




I wish Canon had a facetracking feature that could be used while looking through the viewfinder. AFAIK that is not possible with any Canon FF camera, right? Focus peaking while looking through the viewfinder is also something I would love to have. Tell me that is not useful?

Your statements boil down to: All technological advancements in other cameras are just marketing. That is a very cheap shot, which is why I do not consider your oppinion valid at all. Differentiate at the very least.



Aussie shooter said:


> Shooting a landscape does not require autofocus at all let alone the latest and greatest eye autofocus. So no camera is going to help you there. And as a wildlife photographer where AF is actually critical i would go with an off sensor canon system over an on sensor mirrorless system every day of the week. As for technical failure. Sony has a far better record of 'failing' than any canon. Sony's are a spec sheet. That's all. They have a better sensor but in reality they simply do not iutperform a reliable camera unless you are shooting in perfect conditions. As soon as conditions deteriorate just a little(which is the case in 90 percent of situations) then a canon dslr(or nikon for that matter) win hands down.



That is what I get for hasty writing. Of course you are right, AF is not important for most landscape shooting. To clarify: the AF was just to be an example. The landscape part was more about new technological features, like DR. I quite often had situations where one exposure DR would not cut it, but multiple exposures was no possibility because the scene changed too quickly. Crashing waves with a sunset in the back are a nightmare for multiexposure HDR. Gradient filters were also not possible, because of uneven horizen. So here is a case where a camera with higher dynamic range will take the image, but the one without will not. Most of the time I still got the picture, but only with great amounts of effort in post production, but it will never be as perfect as one exposure.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Aug 13, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> I wish Canon had a facetracking feature that could be used while looking through the viewfinder. AFAIK that is not possible with any Canon FF camera, right? Focus peaking while looking through the viewfinder is also something I would love to have. Tell me that is not useful?
> 
> Your statements boil down to: All technological advancements in other cameras are just marketing. That is a very cheap shot, which is why I do not consider your oppinion valid at all. Differentiate at the very least.
> 
> ...



I'll argue against that point to. More dynamic range is always better but the 1 stop at base ISO is not going to make a big difference in those really contrast situations. Maybe if a sensor has 25 stops it would matter but there no way that one stop of dynamic range makes up for the lack of reliabilty and consistency that a better 'quality' camera can give you. Otherwise a soft grad is the only option. No. A dslr cannot have face tracking while looking through the viewfinder but as I said in less than ideal conditions i am hearing that sony face tracking is not that reliable anyway. Focua peaking would not help me. I use autofocus. Don't get me wrong. I would love canon to match Sonys DR. But what else are they lacking? Really. What are canon lacking that will really cause you to miss a shot compared to a sony?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 13, 2018)

eosuser1234 said:


> In business, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting difference results is the weakspot that Canon seems to need to address.



When you sell as many ILCs as every other camera maker on the planet - combined - you don't want different results. The status quo is rather acceptable.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 13, 2018)

fullstop said:


> as i said, Somehow this forum seems to be populated by large numbers of BIF shooters and [big] white tele users. In that respect not representative for the majority camera users, not even of FF camera users.



I know more APS-C shooter that use 100-400s, 150-600s (Sigma/Tamron), a few 120-300s (Sigma), and even a very few big whites than I do FF users who use big whites. The only FF users I know who shoot with big whites are press/sports shooters. If you want to talk about "niche", PJs are fast becoming a very small niche!

I don't personally know anyone who shoots BIF with a FF camera or that does BIF for a living (that is, for their primary income - I know a few who make money doing it on the side when they're not lawyering/architecting/CPAing during banker's hours). All of the BIF shooters I know personally use cropped bodies with those big whites (or other long lenses) for the reach. There are only a handful of internationally well known full time pros who shoot BIF with FF cameras.

Those who shoot FF with such lenses are a much smaller niche than those who use such lenses on crop bodies.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 13, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> I wish Canon had a facetracking feature that could be used while looking through the viewfinder. AFAIK that is not possible with any Canon FF camera, right? Focus peaking while looking through the viewfinder is also something I would love to have. Tell me that is not useful?



Focus peaking and face tracking are a function of the mirrorless functionality which is why it is not possible using Canon FF which are all OVFs. 



MrAndre said:


> That is what I get for hasty writing. Of course you are right, AF is not important for most landscape shooting. To clarify: the AF was just to be an example. The landscape part was more about new technological features, like DR. I quite often had situations where one exposure DR would not cut it, but multiple exposures was no possibility because the scene changed too quickly. Crashing waves with a sunset in the back are a nightmare for multiexposure HDR. Gradient filters were also not possible, because of uneven horizen. So here is a case where a camera with higher dynamic range will take the image, but the one without will not. Most of the time I still got the picture, but only with great amounts of effort in post production, but it will never be as perfect as one exposure.



I don't shoot a lot of landscapes but I find it hard to imagine there are many circumstances where the extra DR of a Sony will make or break the need to bracket an exposure. I would have thought if you are serious about landscapes you would either bracket or use filters - any image where people point out how great it is to recover 5 stops of shadows and avoid bracketing I think looks flat and uninspiring.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2018)

*Episode II: Attack of the DRones*


MrAndre said:


> To clarify: the AF was just to be an example. The landscape part was more about new technological features, like DR. I quite often had situations where one exposure DR would not cut it, but multiple exposures was no possibility because the scene changed too quickly. Crashing waves with a sunset in the back are a nightmare for multiexposure HDR. Gradient filters were also not possible, because of uneven horizen. So here is a case where a camera with higher dynamic range will take the image, but the one without will not. Most of the time I still got the picture, but only with great amounts of effort in post production, but it will never be as perfect as one exposure.


The fraction of scenes where one additional stop of DR will make the difference between 'not cutting it' and 'perfect' is vanishingly small.


----------



## MrAndre (Aug 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> *Episode II: Attack of the DRones*
> 
> The fraction of scenes where one additional stop of DR will make the difference between 'not cutting it' and 'perfect' is vanishingly small.



Its one stop in the top of the line, like 5d M4 vs. Sony A7III. But in the 2000 $ range Canon its 2,5 - 3 stops, which is the difference between having a 3 Stop Graduated ND filter or not.



Mikehit said:


> Focus peaking and face tracking are a function of the mirrorless functionality which is why it is not possible using Canon FF which are all OVFs.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't shoot a lot of landscapes but I find it hard to imagine there are many circumstances where the extra DR of a Sony will make or break the need to bracket an exposure. I would have thought if you are serious about landscapes you would either bracket or use filters - any image where people point out how great it is to recover 5 stops of shadows and avoid bracketing I think looks flat and uninspiring.



As I said, there are situations where you cannot use filters or bracket.


----------



## BillB (Aug 13, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> Shooting a landscape does not require autofocus at all let alone the latest and greatest eye autofocus. So no camera is going to help you there. And as a wildlife photographer where AF is actually critical i would go with an off sensor canon system over an on sensor mirrorless system every day of the week. As for technical failure. Sony has a far better record of 'failing' than any canon. Sony's are a spec sheet. That's all. They have a better sensor but in reality they simply do not iutperform a reliable camera unless you are shooting in perfect conditions. As soon as conditions deteriorate just a little(which is the case in 90 percent of situations) then a canon dslr(or nikon for that matter) win hands down.





MrAndre said:


> I wish Canon had a facetracking feature that could be used while looking through the viewfinder. AFAIK that is not possible with any Canon FF camera, right? Focus peaking while looking through the viewfinder is also something I would love to have. Tell me that is not useful?
> 
> Your statements boil down to: All technological advancements in other cameras are just marketing. That is a very cheap shot, which is why I do not consider your oppinion valid at all. Differentiate at the very least.
> 
> ...




Well, for me, using the viewfinder is about using AF to shoot stills, because the camera is going to be on a tripod using Liveview if I am shooting manual or I am shooting video, not that I do either very often.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> I know more APS-C shooter that use 100-400s, 150-600s (Sigma/Tamron), a few 120-300s (Sigma), and even a very few big whites than I do FF users who use big whites. I don't personally know anyone who shoots BIF with a FF camera ....All of the BIF shooters I know personally use cropped bodies with those big whites (or other long lenses) for the reach. There are only a handful of internationally well known full time pros who shoot BIF with FF cameras.
> 
> Those who shoot FF with such lenses are a much smaller niche than those who use such lenses on crop bodies.



Maybe you don't know many people.  Almost all of the BIF shooters I know use FF. The couple of them that don't are hoping to switch to FF soon. 

I agree that broadly speaking, more BIF shooters use crop. Why? Exactly the same reason they also use a Canon 100-400mm Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm instead of a Canon 600mm f/4 II – cost. Sure, some of them claim it's 'for the reach', but likewise some people claim they drive a Nissan Versa or a Hyundai Accent for the better fuel economy. Broadly speaking, more people use crop cameras than FF for every type of photography...because they're cheaper. 

I suspect most people who can afford an actual big white (costing >$5K) also buy a FF camera to mount it on.


----------



## Treyarnon (Aug 13, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> That is what I get for hasty writing. Of course you are right, AF is not important for most landscape shooting. To clarify: the AF was just to be an example. The landscape part was more about new technological features, like DR. I quite often had situations where one exposure DR would not cut it, but multiple exposures was no possibility because the scene changed too quickly. Crashing waves with a sunset in the back are a nightmare for multiexposure HDR. Gradient filters were also not possible, because of uneven horizen. So here is a case where a camera with higher dynamic range will take the image, but the one without will not. Most of the time I still got the picture, but only with great amounts of effort in post production, but it will never be as perfect as one exposure.



Not being aggressive - but do you shoot landscapes?
Because in 15 years of shooting landscapes with Canon digital cameras I have never felt I have lost a shoot because of insufficient dynamic range. Not once.

I have read a lot of angst on fora - posts like yours "cannot shoot landscapes on Canon because of DR" - but when I look at photos taken on Sonys, Canons or Nikons - I cannot see a difference. Can you show me a shot taken on a Sony which a Canon could not achieve?


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maybe you don't know many people.  Almost all of the BIF shooters I know use FF. The couple of them that don't are hoping to switch to FF soon.
> 
> I agree that broadly speaking, more BIF shooters use crop. Why? Exactly the same reason they also use a Canon 100-400mm Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm instead of a Canon 600mm f/4 II – cost. Sure, some of them claim it's 'for the reach', but likewise some people claim they drive a Nissan Versa or a Hyundai Accent for the better fuel economy. Broadly speaking, more people use crop cameras than FF for every type of photography...because they're cheaper.
> 
> I suspect most people who can afford an actual big white (costing >$5K) also buy a FF camera to mount it on.



I will admit I don't get out as much as I used to. And I've never been in the caviar crowd that can afford just about anything they want.

I may not have been as clear as I hoped above. Some of those I know who use long focal length lenses with crop bodies also own FF bodies, but they don't tend to use the FF bodies when using the long lenses for BIF.


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 13, 2018)

Aussie shooter said:


> Shooting a landscape does not require autofocus at all let alone the latest and greatest eye autofocus. So no camera is going to help you there. And as a wildlife photographer where AF is actually critical i would go with an off sensor canon system over an on sensor mirrorless system every day of the week. As for technical failure. Sony has a far better record of 'failing' than any canon. Sony's are a spec sheet. That's all. They have a better sensor but in reality they simply do not iutperform a reliable camera unless you are shooting in perfect conditions. As soon as conditions deteriorate just a little(which is the case in 90 percent of situations) then a canon dslr(or nikon for that matter) win hands down.



I think people write off sony a bit quickly at times when it comes to new tech/features; I'd far rather canon put new features in, even if not perfect, and improve them slowly over newer models, than to not include them at all. The m50 is a good example of this, with its eye detect af - it's not perfect but its great to see a new feature being added. 

I've had plenty of failures with my canon camera, where my sony would have/did work well. It depends on the type of shooting involved


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> *Episode II: Attack of the DRones*
> 
> The fraction of scenes where one additional stop of DR will make the difference between 'not cutting it' and 'perfect' is vanishingly small.


Last weekend I could have used more DR, and Canon’s lack of sufficient DR cost me the shot!
I need an additional 4 or 5 stops for the highlights and another 3 or 4 stops for the shadows....

I suppose I could have set up the tripod, bracketed 5 or 7 shots, and stepped to the side before the oncoming car ran me over.... maybe.... but I'm not going to bet my life on it......


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> Its one stop in the top of the line, like 5d M4 vs. Sony A7III. But in the 2000 $ range Canon its 2,5 - 3 stops, which is the difference between having a 3 Stop Graduated ND filter or not..


Oh, ok then. I presume you've already bought a Sony full frame camera. How are you enjoying it so far?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 13, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> I'd far rather canon put new features in, even if not perfect, and improve them slowly over newer models, than to not include them at all.



That is precisely what Canon does NOT do with their premium models. 
That is also why Sony annoys a few of its users when they release a new camera a year later solving the problems that the previous model should not have had in the first place.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> I may not have been as clear as I hoped above. Some of those I know who use long focal length lenses with crop bodies also own FF bodies, but they don't tend to use the FF bodies when using the long lenses for BIF.


No doubt. But there are several relevant factors besides sensor size and "reach". When I had a 7D then bought a 5DII, I continued using the 7D for BIF because of the better AF and higher frame rate. At the high ISOs needed for shutter speed early/late in the day, FF trumps crop. Also, a 7DII has no 'reach advantage' over a 5Ds.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 13, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> That is precisely what Canon does NOT do with their premium models.
> That is also why Sony annoys a few of its users when they release a new camera a year later solving the problems that the previous model should not have had in the first place.



Also, when you compare Canon products to the rest of the world of electronics, there are astoundingly few firmware updates...… Personally, I prefer stable products....


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 13, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> I wish Canon had a facetracking feature that could be used while looking through the viewfinder. AFAIK that is not possible with any Canon FF camera, right? Focus peaking while looking through the viewfinder is also something I would love to have. Tell me that is not useful?
> 
> Your statements boil down to: All technological advancements in other cameras are just marketing. That is a very cheap shot, which is why I do not consider your oppinion valid at all. Differentiate at the very least.



Have you ever used the iTR tracking feature offered by the 1D X, 1D X Mark II, 5D Mark IV, and 7D Mark II? Three of those four are FF cameras.

When using AI Servo AF with iTR active, if one initially acquires AF on a face, the camera will use information from the RGB+IR metering sensor to assist the AF system in tracking that face using the color/shape of the face. If some of the many other user selectable AF settings are properly chosen, it does so fairly well and with decent speed. The only reason we probably don't hear more about it is because:

1) It's not perfect, particularly if some of the other user selectable AF parameters aren't set for speed. Canon doesn't tout something that only works as advertised some of the time the way Sony does. 
2) Too many pro shooters don't bother reading the 500+ page User Manual or the supplementary 200+ page AF Manual when they get a new 1D X Mark II and don't even know iTR tracking exists. 
3) It requires using 'Auto AF point selection' and the users who even get that far immediately dismiss it because they don't read the manual to discover that even when in 'Auto AF point selection' AF mode the initial AF point each time AF is initialized can be a manually selected single AF point. 
4) Many shooters select one (of six available) AF cases and stick with it forever. Each AF case has three parameters that are adjustable within that case. It takes a long time and a lot of experimentation to to learn how to use the various use cases most effectively for the various scenarios for which they are designed to be used. That means shooting in non-mission critical situations (a/k/a "practicing") to learn how to use it. Too many pros think they don't ever need to practice shooting with a new tool when they're off the clock. Imagine a classical musician that gets a new instrument or is asked to play a difficult piece they've never done before thinking they don't need to rehearse before the premiere.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> No doubt. But there are several relevant factors besides sensor size and "reach". When I had a 7D then bought a 5DII, I continued using the 7D for BIF because of the better AF and higher frame rate. At the high ISOs needed for shutter speed early/late in the day, FF trumps crop. Also, a 7DII has no 'reach advantage' over a 5Ds.



Myself, when out in the canoe, I tend to have two camera/lens in my pelican case and when the occasion arrives, reach for the appropriate one. For wide, I pick up a 6D2 with a 24-70 on it, for long it's a 7D2 with a 150-600...… and as Neuro has said, when the light falls off the 7D2 stays in the case and I use the appropriate lens on the 6D2.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> No doubt. But there are several relevant factors besides sensor size and "reach". When I had a 7D then bought a 5DII, I continued using the 7D for BIF because of the better AF and higher frame rate. At the high ISOs needed for shutter speed early/late in the day, FF trumps crop. Also, a 7DII has no 'reach advantage' over a 5Ds.



On the other hand, the 7D II does have a pretty significant fps advantage over the 5Ds. It also has an AF system that is much better in terms of shot-to-shot consistency than the 7D. Both are rather significant when talking about BIF. If one crops the image from a 5Ds down to the size of a 7D Mark II, one also gives up the entire FF advantage, too. I that case, why not just use the 7D Mark II and take advantage of the higher frame rate?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 13, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Have you ever used the iTR tracking feature offered by the 1D X, 1D X Mark II, 5D Mark IV, and 7D Mark II? Three of those four are FF cameras.
> 
> When using AI Servo AF with iTR active, if one initially acquires AF on a face, the camera will use information from the RGB+IR metering sensor to assist the AF system in tracking that face using the color/shape of the face. If some of the many other user selectable AF settings are properly chosen, it does so fairly well and with decent speed. The only reason we probably don't hear more about it is because:
> 
> ...


Well said!

Personally, when I got a 6D2, I read the AF manual. At first my AF hit rate on moving targets was pathetic, but after a lot of experimentation and a lot of practice, I figured out what works for me and saved it in the custom modes... C1 for small and fast, C2 for medium, and C3 for large and slow items.... BTW, once you and your friends become senior citizens you don't need iTR because your subjects don't move that fast


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 13, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> That is precisely what Canon does NOT do with their premium models.
> That is also why Sony annoys a few of its users when they release a new camera a year later solving the problems that the previous model should not have had in the first place.



That'd be kinda disappointing if they didn't do this: another example is the dual pixel raw in the 5dmk4, seems to be a beta feature but it sounds like it could have great potential. I'd find it better to have features that only work sometimes/with caveats than not have them at all still, maybe it's just me though


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> On the other hand, the 7D II does have a pretty significant fps advantage over the 5Ds. It also has an AF system that is much better in terms of shot-to-shot consistency than the 7D. Both are rather significant when talking about BIF. If one crops the image from a 5Ds down to the size of a 7D Mark II, one also gives up the entire FF advantage, too. I that case, why not just use the 7D Mark II and take advantage of the higher frame rate?


Exactly my point, reasons that are not about sensor size and 'reach', 



Michael Clark said:


> All of the BIF shooters I know personally use cropped bodies with those big whites (or other long lenses) *for the reach*.



Incidentally, if you're always cropping, you likely need a longer lens.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 13, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> That'd be kinda disappointing if they didn't do this: another example is the dual pixel raw in the 5dmk4, seems to be a beta feature but it sounds like it could have great potential. I'd find it better to have features that only work sometimes/with caveats than not have them at all still, maybe it's just me though



Dual pixel raw fell flat on its face because Adobe and other third party raw processing application makers refused to integrate it into their products.

Canon's _Digital Photo Professional 4_ is better than a lot of folks give it credit for being (and a lot better than previous versions), but it also has a long ways to go in some areas. I actually prefer the finer color control _DPP_ allows compared to _LR_. But like any complex piece of software, you have to spend time learning how to use it. Too many people try it, can't find the tool for what they want to do in the first thirty seconds, and then cry about how "It can't do such-and-such" because they didn't take the time to find the capability that is actually in there.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Exactly my point, reasons that are not about sensor size and 'reach',
> 
> 
> 
> Incidentally, if you're always cropping, you likely need a longer lens.



Or you need to improve your fieldcraft.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 13, 2018)

Treyarnon said:


> Not being aggressive - but do you shoot landscapes?
> Because in 15 years of shooting landscapes with Canon digital cameras I have never felt I have lost a shoot because of insufficient dynamic range. Not once.



Indeed. It depends upon where the light source is, and to what extent you want to flatten out the DR in post. Many of us don't like the "HDR" / "cartoon" look, but some do. As having "higher DR for landscapes" involves under exposing to keep (a little) more highlight info and then raising shadows it's something that I've never felt compelled to do due to the reduced tonality at the shadow end, even with the "14 stops of DR" Sony.

For Landscape, to be honest I see little practical difference in DR between the original Canon 5D, the Sony A7, Pentax K5ii and now the 5Ds. All at base ISO of course.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Or you need to improve your fieldcraft.


I’m working on that. I frequently shoot near marshes, lakes and the ocean. Any tips to improve the ‘walking on water’ fieldcraft?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m working on that. I frequently shoot near marshes, lakes and the ocean. Any tips for walking on water?


You could carry a canoe.... it also acts as a great umbrella if it starts to rain


----------



## Treyarnon (Aug 13, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Dual pixel raw fell flat on its face because Adobe and other third party raw processing application makers refused to integrate it into their products.
> 
> Canon's _Digital Photo Professional 4_ is better than a lot of folks give it credit for being (and a lot better than previous versions), but it also has a long ways to go in some areas. I actually prefer the finer color control _DPP_ allows compared to _LR_. But like any complex piece of software, you have to spend time learning how to use it. Too many people try it, can't find the tool for what they want to do in the first thirty seconds, and then cry about how "It can't do such-and-such" because they didn't take the time to find the capability that is actually in there.



Have you found Dual Pixel Raw useful?
Genuine question - I don't have a 5D4, and you just don't hear a lot of opinion on it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Most camera users - including FF camera owners - never use 100-400 or long white teles. It is a very niche use case in the overall market. Importance of large body to use large lenses is totally exaggerated in this forum


The f/2.8 standard and telephoto zooms (24-70, 70-200) are bread-and-butter lenses for many FF shooters, and they are also ‘large lenses’ which are poorly balanced by small MILC bodies


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> Indeed. It depends upon where the light source is, and to what extent you want to flatten out the DR in post.


It also depends on what you value. Some people value photography and the resulting images. Others value a list of specifications. 



MrAndre said:


> ...there is no camera with the spec list I want and which I would see fit for 2018 by Canon.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 13, 2018)

Treyarnon said:


> Have you found Dual Pixel Raw useful?
> Genuine question - I don't have a 5D4, and you just don't hear a lot of opinion on it.



I don't own a 5D Mark IV. I'm still happy with my 5D Mark III. There are several reasons.

1) I don't find that the 5D Mark III misses AF that often when used properly, thus the need for dual pixel raw isn't really on my list of considerations about whether to get a 5D Mark IV. 
2) Most of what I shoot is high frame rate sports/performing arts. The added file sizes of 30 MP compared to 22 MP plus the added file sizes of dual pixel raw turned on compared to dual pixel raw turned off would slow me down too much. Even if I had a 5D Mark IV I doubt I'd use dual pixel raw that often due to buffer issues.
3) It's a lot of money for a minimal benefit for me and what I shoot. The only thing I wish the 5D Mark III had that it doesn't is flicker reduction. But the 6D Mark II has that at less than half the price of the 5D Mark IV.

The 5D Mark IV is a very nice camera. For me it's just not worth what it would cost compared to the camera I'm already using.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> No doubt. But there are several relevant factors besides sensor size and "reach". When I had a 7D then bought a 5DII, I continued using the 7D for BIF because of the better AF and higher frame rate. At the high ISOs needed for shutter speed early/late in the day, FF trumps crop. Also, a 7DII has no 'reach advantage' over a 5Ds.



100% correct. The 5DS even when cropped hard delivers great detailed shots if kept within its optimum ISO range (I rarely go higher than 400ISO and I'm normally at 100ISO)


----------



## MrAndre (Aug 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> It also depends on what you value. Some people value photography and the resulting images. Others value a list of specifications.



You can keep telling that to yourself. You have no idea what I value, but even you cannot defend canon in reasonable way and thats why you make it personal. Cheap shot! If I want to buy a FF camera with landscape and portraits in mind in 2018 and dont have the money for a top of the line camera, Canon is not on par with others. Thats just how it is. Can you still produce nice images with Canon cameras? Yes, of course!
Do you get the best value for your money? I do not think so.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 13, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> You can keep telling that to yourself. You have no idea what I value, but even you cannot defend canon in reasonable way and thats why you make it personal. Cheap shot! If I want to buy a FF camera with landscape and portraits in mind in 2018 and dont have the money for a top of the line camera, Canon is not on par with others. Thats just how it is. Can you still produce nice images with Canon cameras? Yes, of course!
> Do you get the best value for your money? I do not think so.


Of course, you are welcome to have and express your opinion. Based on what people are actually purchasing, your in the minority, but that should not affect your personal viewpoint in the least. 

Then again, things like native lens selection, reliability, service and support are also part of a value proposition. In those areas, Sony is not on par with others. That’s just how it is.


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 13, 2018)

docsmith said:


> Ha.....I hope you are right.
> 
> But, if history is any indicator, Canon will release a FF mirrorless that will be a massive internet disappointment, a spec sheet failure, and something that will be roasted like a luau pig in many a youtube video.
> 
> oh...and it will be used to take many wonderful pictures and outsell the Nikon/Sony offerings combined.



Like Canon was horribly bashed 30 years ago when the EOS system was released. Lousy specs on the first couple of cameras etc. But the technology was there and it has taken others 30 years to start to catch up with the all electric mount. Look at the Nikon struggles for 30 years now in this area and finally have to change the mount which I will guess will not support most older lenses including the older AF type lenses. Yes they will likely mount with an adapter but so what? No matter what Canon comes out with it will most likely allow all features of all EF type lenses no matter how old the be 100% operational.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 13, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> I wish Canon had a facetracking feature that could be used while looking through the viewfinder.


I would like it to be an option. I don't want to lose OVF functionality because of it. If Canon improves its iTR for precise face tracking while keeping the OVF working, fine with me. Still, I'm not in hurry.

But I bet you think that Canon is not "innovative" enough to have iTR in the first place.



MrAndre said:


> Focus peaking while looking through the viewfinder is also something I would love to have. Tell me that is not useful?


I can see what it is good for when it is on an external monitor while shooting videos.
I don't see what it is useful for if it is crammed into a little viewfinder while shooting stills.



MrAndre said:


> Your statements boil down to: All technological advancements in other cameras are just marketing. That is a very cheap shot, which is why I do not consider your oppinion valid at all. Differentiate at the very least.


Your statements boil down to: If people don't trust marketing BS and prefer an actually working product, then they are against "all technological advancements". That is a very cheap shot, which is why I do not consider your opinion valid at all. Differentiate at the very least.


----------



## Treyarnon (Aug 13, 2018)

Kit. said:


> I would like it to be an option. I don't want to lose OVF functionality because of it. If Canon improves its iTR for precise face tracking while keeping the OVF working, fine with me. Still, I'm not in hurry.


I see the 5D4 has an option for 'iTR AF Face priority' - is that sufficient for you?
See 2:11 in:


----------



## Kit. (Aug 13, 2018)

Treyarnon said:


> I see the 5D4 has an option for 'iTR AF Face priority' - is that sufficient for you?


I don't care, but people that want it to reliably keep eyes in focus with 85/1.2 will probably be disappointed.

(They will likely be disappointed by Sony as well, but they won't post that _here_)


----------



## Treyarnon (Aug 13, 2018)

Kit. said:


> I don't care, but people that want it to reliably keep eyes in focus with 85/1.2 will probably be disappointed.
> 
> (They will likely be disappointed by Sony as well, but they won't post that _here_)


If you were shooting a mission critical shot at F1.2, I would think you would want to manually focus that.
But hey - a focus zoom through the viewfinder might be handy for that, and Canon don't offer that in a FF camera at present. 
[dream mode] I would love Canon to bring back their 'eye controlled AF' - I think that could be awesome when paired with a focus zoom in the viewfinder. 
Just put the lens into MF mode and hit the 'AF On' button, and the camera will automatically detect where you are looking at in the viewfinder and zoom in on that location for precise focus control... Might make me want a mirrorless camera that [/dream mode]


----------



## Kit. (Aug 13, 2018)

Treyarnon said:


> [dream mode] I would love Canon to bring back their 'eye controlled AF' - I think that could be awesome when paired with a focus zoom in the viewfinder.
> Just put the lens into MF mode and hit the 'AF On' button, and the camera will automatically detect where you are looking at in the viewfinder and zoom in on that location for precise focus control... Might make me want a mirrorless camera that [/dream mode]


How about piezoelectrically-controlled "dual pixel" focusing screen?


----------



## BillB (Aug 13, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> I don't own a 5D Mark IV. I'm still happy with my 5D Mark III. There are several reasons.
> 
> 1) I don't find that the 5D Mark III misses AF that often when used properly, thus the need for dual pixel raw isn't really on my list of considerations about whether to get a 5D Mark IV.
> 2) Most of what I shoot is high frame rate sports/performing arts. The added file sizes of 30 MP compared to 22 MP plus the added file sizes of dual pixel raw turned on compared to dual pixel raw turned off would slow me down too much. Even if I had a 5D Mark IV I doubt I'd use dual pixel raw that often due to buffer issues.
> ...



If you want to stay feeling that way, I wouldn't spend too much time playing around with the 5DIV's touchscreen user interface. The shadow lifting is sweet too.


----------



## hmatthes (Aug 13, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> While waiting for Canon's FF Mirrorless, the Fuji GFX gets better looking by the day...


Tried one yesterday and was deeply disappointed but the UI and physical design. I’ve been using Exp. Comp. on a rear dial for almost 30 years. The GFX grip make accessing the rear dial nearly impossible even for smaller hands. Using the front dial had me shut off the camera several times. 
When I ask the sales person about not being able to correct EVF diopter properly, she said “it happens” then removed the battery, counted to 10, and started it up again. 
Later while shooting at a Canon event, I was happy to have my trusty 6D in my hands!
Canon: please give us a large frame sensor (50+ meg) mirrorless EOS with EF adapter and do not make it smaller than a 5D-IV!


----------



## Treyarnon (Aug 13, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> Canon: please give us a large frame sensor (50+ meg) mirrorless EOS with EF adapter and do not make it smaller than a 5D-IV!



Absolutely! And no more expensive than the 5D4 either!


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 13, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> 100% correct. The 5DS even when cropped hard delivers great detailed shots if kept within its optimum ISO range (I rarely go higher than 400ISO and I'm normally at 100ISO)



Since the pixel pitch is nearly identical, if one crops the 5Ds to the same size as the 7D Mark II, the results will be near identical as well. A FF sensor has no inherent advantages over an APS-C sensor if the images from both are enlarged by the same factor. The advantage of a FF vs. an APS-C sensor is all based on the lower enlargement ratio needed to get to the same display size.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 13, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Focus peaking and face tracking are a function of the mirrorless functionality which is why it is not possible using Canon FF which are all OVFs.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't shoot a lot of landscapes but I find it hard to imagine there are many circumstances where the extra DR of a Sony will make or break the need to bracket an exposure. I would have thought if you are serious about landscapes you would either bracket or use filters - any image where people point out how great it is to recover 5 stops of shadows and avoid bracketing I think looks flat and uninspiring.



Well, unless the light meter is actually a .5 MP RGB+IR CMOS sensor that can be tied into the AF system.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 13, 2018)

BillB said:


> If you want to stay feeling that way, I wouldn't spend too much time playing around with the 5DIV's touchscreen user interface. The shadow lifting is sweet too.



I know the cameras I use well enough to change every setting I need to without taking my eye from the viewfinder: ISO, Av, Tv, AF mode, AF point selection, EC, FEC, WB, EL, FEL, etc.

I also know how to properly expose when shooting the frame, rather than when looking at it in post.


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 14, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> I know the cameras I use well enough to change every setting I need to without taking my eye from the viewfinder: ISO, Av, Tv, AF mode, AF point selection, EC, FEC, WB, EL, FEL, etc.
> 
> I also know how to properly expose when shooting the frame, rather than when looking at it in post.



I mean this as a genuine question as I think I've missed something, are you meaning you shouldnt/shouldn't have to play with shadows if you get correct exposure?


----------



## docsmith (Aug 14, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> I love them and I love the ecosystem, but I am frustrated, because there is no camera with the spec list I want



I am a little late to this party, but I was going back and looking at this thread and saw this.

I am curious....is there any single specific camera, or, more precisely, camera system that does have the "spec list" that you want? Not just something off their camera, the whole ecosystem.

I say this as before I was deep into the Canon system (no turning back at this point) I did evaluate other systems. I found them lacking in different ways and in the end I chose Canon.

Of course, the joke would be that it is like dating to marriage. Ultimately you pick one. Good things....and ...umm...other things.


----------



## MrAndre (Aug 14, 2018)

docsmith said:


> I am a little late to this party, but I was going back and looking at this thread and saw this.
> 
> I am curious....is there any single specific camera, or, more precisely, camera system that does have the "spec list" that you want? Not just something off their camera, the whole ecosystem.
> 
> ...



Sadly, no. If adapted lenses would work 100%, then it would be a close call. What frustrates me about Canon is that the limits they put on their cameras feel arbitrary. Like with the 6D2... they previously released the 5D4 which proved that they can increase dynamic range, but they chose not to. With their cinema line up, they prove that they can create great 4k cameras. They basically have all the components, but refuse to put them together. And why would they, because they are the biggest company with the greates market share, they would most likely steal their own customers.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 14, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> Sadly, no. If adapted lenses would work 100%, then it would be a close call. What frustrates me about Canon is that the limits they put on their cameras feel arbitrary. Like with the 6D2... they previously released the 5D4 which proved that they can increase dynamic range, but they chose not to. With their cinema line up, they prove that they can create great 4k cameras. They basically have all the components, but refuse to put them together. And why would they, because they are the biggest company with the greates market share, they would most likely steal their own customers.



You mean like Sony who have crippled their wonderful A73 with an ancient technology LCD and EVF?


----------



## Aussie shooter (Aug 14, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> Sadly, no. If adapted lenses would work 100%, then it would be a close call. What frustrates me about Canon is that the limits they put on their cameras feel arbitrary. Like with the 6D2... they previously released the 5D4 which proved that they can increase dynamic range, but they chose not to. With their cinema line up, they prove that they can create great 4k cameras. They basically have all the components, but refuse to put them together. And why would they, because they are the biggest company with the greates market share, they would most likely steal their own customers.



If you want the DR of a 5d4. Then buy a 5d4. Don't whinge that a cheaper camera doesn't have everything you want. Fact is though, if DR is the be all and end all then you should get a Sony. I am not sure canon will match them in the next decade. If a tech heavy spec sheet is the be all and end all then get a Sony. Canon clearly have little i terest in throwing out cameras with half baked tech features. If you want a camera that works. That works consistently. That works reliably. That works when you need it to work in crappy conditions and a camera that will 'get you the shot'. Then stop looking at spec sheets and buy a Canon or Nikon or even a Fuji. Sonys have a reputation of failing when it matters. And if that happens then what does it matter how amazing its specs are? I would rather a camera that does 3/4 of the things a sony does nmbut does them all the time than a camera that has the spec list from heaven but is a pain in the ass to use and only works 3/4 of the time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> You mean like Sony who have crippled their wonderful A73 with an ancient technology LCD and EVF?


None of that matters. Only DR matters. Clearly Canon knows how important DR is, that's why they charge more for the 5DIV than the 6DII. Can't you just picture them sitting in their wood-paneled boardroom, rubbing their hands together like Mr. Burns and chuckling over all their customers they're sticking it to by forcing them to pay more for DR or suffer the horrible woes of less DR because they can't afford the higher price.


----------



## BillB (Aug 14, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> Sadly, no. If adapted lenses would work 100%, then it would be a close call. What frustrates me about Canon is that the limits they put on their cameras feel arbitrary. Like with the 6D2... they previously released the 5D4 which proved that they can increase dynamic range, but they chose not to. With their cinema line up, they prove that they can create great 4k cameras. They basically have all the components, but refuse to put them together. And why would they, because they are the biggest company with the greates market share, they would most likely steal their own customers.





MrAndre said:


> Sadly, no. If adapted lenses would work 100%, then it would be a close call. What frustrates me about Canon is that the limits they put on their cameras feel arbitrary. Like with the 6D2... they previously released the 5D4 which proved that they can increase dynamic range, but they chose not to. With their cinema line up, they prove that they can create great 4k cameras. They basically have all the components, but refuse to put them together. And why would they, because they are the biggest company with the greates market share, they would most likely steal their own customers.





neuroanatomist said:


> None of that matters. Only DR matters. Clearly Canon knows how important DR is, that's why they charge more for the 5DIV than the 6DII. Can't you just picture them sitting in their wood-paneled boardroom, rubbing their hands together like Mr. Burns and chuckling over all their customers they're sticking it to by forcing them to pay more for DR or suffer the horrible woes of less DR because they can't afford the higher price.



4K matters too, and all the other magic numbers that DPR comes up with. That's what is meant by uncompetitive Canon specs. Doesn't matter whether the magic numbers mean anything important or not. How would anybody know that?


----------



## Kit. (Aug 14, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> I mean this as a genuine question as I think I've missed something, are you meaning you shouldnt/shouldn't have to play with shadows if you get correct exposure?


Normally, you would want to play with shadows before you take a picture, not after. It leads to better pictures. "Photography", after all, is "drawing with light".


----------



## MrAndre (Aug 14, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Normally, you would want to play with shadows before you take a picture, not after. It leads to better pictures. "Photography", after all, is "drawing with light".



Thats why Ansel Adams never dodged or burned. He as a master never had to.


----------



## BillB (Aug 14, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Normally, you would want to play with shadows before you take a picture, not after. It leads to better pictures. "Photography", after all, is "drawing with light".



Correct exposure can minimize the need for global adjustments in post processing, but local adjustments may still be desirable (depending on personal preference).


----------



## Kit. (Aug 14, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> Thats why Ansel Adams


...wasn't fond of his own color photography work.



BillB said:


> Correct exposure can minimize the need for global adjustments in post processing, but local adjustments may still be desirable (depending on personal preference).


Some people are too lazy to bring a reflector or too impatient to wait for a cloud because they believe higher DR with "local adjustments" will make the job. It usually won't.


----------



## BillB (Aug 14, 2018)

Kit. said:


> ...wasn't fond of his own color photography work.
> 
> 
> Some people are too lazy to bring a reflector or too impatient to wait for a cloud because they believe higher DR with "local adjustments" will make the job. It usually won't.



True, but sometimes circumstances don't cooperate.


----------



## MrAndre (Aug 14, 2018)

Kit. said:


> ...wasn't fond of his own color photography work.
> 
> 
> Some people are too lazy to bring a reflector or too impatient to wait for a cloud because they believe higher DR with "local adjustments" will make the job. It usually won't.



Boy, would I love to see your work.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Aug 14, 2018)

Kit. said:


> ...wasn't fond of his own color photography work.
> 
> 
> Some people are too lazy to bring a reflector or too impatient to wait for a cloud because they believe higher DR with "local adjustments" will make the job. It usually won't.



This isn't a fair comment at all. Higher DR can occasionally save an image that would have been unusable otherwise. I'm sure event, wedding and photojournalists can definitely benefit from having higher DR. As humans, we are not infallible, and we may very well not be in the correct setting in the heat of the moment. Will I be proud of pulling 6-7 stops out of an image? Probably not, but delivering an image > telling them I missed the shot.


----------



## amorse (Aug 14, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Focus peaking and face tracking are a function of the mirrorless functionality which is why it is not possible using Canon FF which are all OVFs.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't shoot a lot of landscapes but I find it hard to imagine there are many circumstances where the extra DR of a Sony will make or break the need to bracket an exposure. I would have thought if you are serious about landscapes you would either bracket or use filters - any image where people point out how great it is to recover 5 stops of shadows and avoid bracketing I think looks flat and uninspiring.


I shoot a lot of landscapes - just because you *can* recover 5 stops of DR doesn't mean you *should*! Some scenes are much more interesting if you let it clip. I love the work of Alex Noriega - his photo "The Watcher" is a good example of where not to recover (I couldn't link directly to the image, but it's in this gallery if you're interested).

I switched from a 6D to a 5D IV and found that, at least superficially, the 5D IV made recovering shadows more manageable than the 6D. More than once the 5D IV has genuinely surprised me on what it could recover - more than once I've bracketed images because it appeared to clip a bit and found that the middle-exposure frame was sufficient. This was shot with a 5D IV, appearing to clip on the highlights and nearly clipping on the darks, but I had no trouble recovering tons of range to my satisfaction:



Not once did I have that experience with the 6D. Granted, that's all anecdotal considering I sold the 6D to get the 5D and couldn't do an on-site real-world comparison. 

I'd love to do a real-world comparison between the 5D IV and a Sony a7Riii or a7iii to see if it actually changes my keeper rate, but to be honest I'm pretty satisfied with my 5D IV's DR. As long as I know it's clipping I can usually manage with filters or bracketing.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 14, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Oh, really? For me, it looks like half of the forum uses 100-400.



This forum is not representative of the market as a whole.

I used to have 70-300mm on crop. Now I have 70-200mm on FF, and I haven't used the tele extenders for so long, I think of selling them.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 14, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> I mean this as a genuine question as I think I've missed something, are you meaning you shouldnt/shouldn't have to play with shadows if you get correct exposure?



In a perfect world you would take the shot at the perfect exposure and your output device would have more than enough dynamic range to show the shadows and the highlights.... and you would not have to "play with the sliders"

In the real world we have monitors and printers that do not handle the same DR as your camera and we have to adjust the image so that it will display well on your output device, or you may want to shift things to create a mood, or shift colour(s) to move emphasis around... For example, in technical documentation I sometimes have to absolutely butcher realism to properly show scratches on a polished metal.... it all depends on your goal.


----------



## Deleted member 380306 (Aug 14, 2018)

I purchased the 6d2 and haven't been impressed with it's performance I.E it's DR and colour rendition and find the images weak in detail when pushed. For me it's really down to the price paid for what is an 80d with a 6d image, I think it was priced way too high for what it was and TBH as a company I'm not that impressed with the stuff I'm seeing from them anymore. I'm looking forward to seeing what Nikon bring to the table and I'll jump over to Nikon if the reviews are once again not good for canon on their mirrorless side, I wonder if others feel the way I do?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 14, 2018)

Kit. said:


> ...wasn't fond of his own color photography work.
> Some people are too lazy to bring a reflector or too impatient to wait for a cloud because they believe higher DR with "local adjustments" will make the job. It usually won't.



Yes.... I always carry stands and reflectors with me when I go hiking or canoeing..... and I find that the wildlife will patiently wait for a cloud to pass overhead so that I can take the shot in less harsh lighting....


----------



## Treyarnon (Aug 14, 2018)

amorse said:


> I shoot a lot of landscapes - just because you *can* recover 5 stops of DR doesn't mean you *should*! Some scenes are much more interesting if you let it clip.
> 
> I switched from a 6D to a 5D IV and found that, at least superficially, the 5D IV made recovering shadows more manageable than the 6D. More than once the 5D IV has genuinely surprised me on what it could recover - more than once I've bracketed images because it appeared to clip a bit and found that the middle-exposure frame was sufficient.


I'm shooting with the 5Ds - and with that, I have been genuinely surprised about what is possible to recover from the shadows, despite all the internet noise about how the 5Ds is rubbish for this. But fully agree - just because you can, does not mean you should.

Single shot from the 5Ds (with 2 stop ND grad):


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 14, 2018)

Treyarnon said:


> I'm shooting with the 5Ds - and with that, I have been genuinely surprised about what is possible to recover from the shadows, despite all the internet noise about how the 5Ds is rubbish for this. But fully agree - just because you can, does not mean you should.
> 
> Single shot from the 5Ds (with 2 stop ND grad):
> View attachment 179689


Nice picture ! I agree the 5DS has a very good exposure latitude, especially considering it’s off chip ADC. But to be honest I could have made that shot with my (original) 5D if I’d used a two stop grad ;-)


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 14, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> This isn't a fair comment at all. Higher DR can occasionally save an image that would have been unusable otherwise. I'm sure event, wedding and photojournalists can definitely benefit from having higher DR. As humans, we are not infallible, and we may very well not be in the correct setting in the heat of the moment. Will I be proud of pulling 6-7 stops out of an image? Probably not, but delivering an image > telling them I missed the shot.



Yes but to save that shot with the additional DR that a 5Div or Sony A7 would have over say the 6Dii you’d have to be continually under exposing as routine. That’s the whole issue with this “extra stop of DR saves the day “ argument: it offers nothing at the highlight end for a given “correct” exposure. I’m not saying this is your view, but many who yearn on the internet for greater range assume it’s at both ends. It’s not. It’s all do do with how much info is at the shadow end before it becomes swamped with noise, FPN, banding etc. So if you over expose highlights with a Sony or whatever you’re still screwed. (Actually I find Canon more robust in the highlight fall off but that’s another story). 

So once you understand that it becomes clear that in an exposure cock up the chances are that the extra exposure latitude will only help if you were under exposing.


----------



## amorse (Aug 14, 2018)

Treyarnon said:


> I'm shooting with the 5Ds - and with that, I have been genuinely surprised about what is possible to recover from the shadows, despite all the internet noise about how the 5Ds is rubbish for this. But fully agree - just because you can, does not mean you should.
> 
> Single shot from the 5Ds (with 2 stop ND grad):


Beautiful photo! No doubt even with my 6D I almost always found a way around a DR issue - usually with filters, but occasionally with bracketing. To be fair, I still often use filters with he 5D IV - improved DR doesn't mean I expect to capture everything all the time, nor would I want to. My image above was an odd case because I found myself trying to ND grad the top and bottom of the image to capture the whole histogram and it just wasn't working for me, so I tried bracketing instead only to find that in the end I didn't need any of that on the 5D IV. Even though the image was clipped on the histogram, there was more highlight latitude than the camera let on.

My only point was that the extended range in DR has, for me, created a noticeable difference in how I use the 5D IV vs the 6D. Not to say anything is unusable or even poor at what it does, just that it can have a real-world impact. Again, without doing side by side comparisons in the field it's all hearsay!


----------



## Treyarnon (Aug 14, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> Nice picture ! I agree the 5DS has a very good exposure latitude, especially considering it’s off chip ADC. But to be honest I could have made that shot with my (original) 5D if I’d used a two stop grad ;-)



I have not shot landscapes with a 5D for the best part of 10 years. But yes, in general exposure terms, the 5D should be fine here. There have of course been many incremental IQ improvements over the years - the most siginificent of which in my opinion was the move from 12 bit to 14 bit raws (which happened between the 5D2 and 3) . This has given the later camers a fantastic smoothness of tone; so if you no need to rescue a bad exposure (or lift a shadow) - the modern cameras do have an advantage of the older ones.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 14, 2018)

Treyarnon said:


> the most siginificent of which in my opinion was the move from 12 bit to 14 bit raws (which happened between the 5D2 and 3) .



To be pedantic the original 5D is 12 bit, the 5DII 14 bit.


----------



## Treyarnon (Aug 14, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> To be pedantic the original 5D is 12 bit, the 5DII 14 bit.


Ah, my bad. 
When moving from the 5D2 to 5Ds, I did notice that the 5Ds has a richness and smoothness of tone that I was decernably better than I was seeing from the 5D2. I had put that down to an increase in bit depth - but I guess its simply Canon improving their color science over the years.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 14, 2018)

Treyarnon said:


> Ah, my bad.
> When moving from the 5D2 to 5Ds, I did notice that the 5Ds has a richness and smoothness of tone that I was decernably better than I was seeing from the 5D2. I had put that down to an increase in bit depth - but I guess its simply Canon improving their color science over the years.



Yes I agree with you on the tone of the 5Ds, but I'd put this down to the 50 MP overkill giving improved colour definition, especially in greens. In fact the 5Ds has finally put to bed any nostalgic desires I had for MF or LF transparency film. Put this camera on a solid tripod and add a good lens; the results really do look like a 5x4 Kodachrome transparency.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 15, 2018)

Beautiful landscapes, guys!


----------



## Bennymiata (Aug 15, 2018)

I've been taking photos since I was 5, and got my first SLR (film) at age 11 in 1966 and now shoot professionally (as I have done for some years). I learned a long time ago that spec sheets don't always equate to making consistantly good photos.
Apart from my fingers getting caught between the mount and the grip, I really don't like the colours that come out of Sonys. 
I've done a couple of jobs with Sonys, and I'm usually dissapointed with the results too. Focus accuracy is nowhere near as good or quick as my old 5d3.
I do jobs where the camera is in my hands for 14+ hours at a stretch, and my right hand hurts after half an hour with a Sony A7whatever.
Results and the feel of a camera are far more important to me than a spec sheet, and that's why I choose to shoot with Canons and why the vast majority of pros also use Canons.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Aug 15, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> You mean like Sony who have crippled their wonderful A73 with an ancient technology LCD and EVF?





Sporgon said:


> Yes but to save that shot with the additional DR that a 5Div or Sony A7 would have over say the 6Dii you’d have to be continually under exposing as routine. That’s the whole issue with this “extra stop of DR saves the day “ argument: it offers nothing at the highlight end for a given “correct” exposure. I’m not saying this is your view, but many who yearn on the internet for greater range assume it’s at both ends. It’s not. It’s all do do with how much info is at the shadow end before it becomes swamped with noise, FPN, banding etc. So if you over expose highlights with a Sony or whatever you’re still screwed. (Actually I find Canon more robust in the highlight fall off but that’s another story).
> 
> So once you understand that it becomes clear that in an exposure cock up the chances are that the extra exposure latitude will only help if you were under exposing.



The real issue here is at the end of the day, people that shoot competitive systems that don't have certain features or sensor performance, such as DR latitude, etc. should simply say: "Yes, my chosen system simply does not have the same performance as the competition." They can definitely follow-up that statement to say that those features are not in the mainstream and thus isn't something they would use or that their system of choice has better lens selection, pro support programs or market share adoption. Those are facts. But these days I see time and time again that people say that the competition is an ergonomic mess, is a perpetual beta test, has poor reliability, poor color science and has a feature set mainly comprised of marketing fluff. That however, is simply an opinion or anecdotal at best to downplay why the competition is a poor choice overall.

If you like Canon, accept the compromises Canon's current strategy entails vs the competition. If you don't, switch and accept that you will also leave the things that Canon does very well. Canon's upcoming MILC will probably address a lot of those things the competition does well. Personally, I didn't feel the opportunity cost of staying with Canon was worth waiting 5+ years for them to "catch up", but YMMV.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 15, 2018)

I agree with you.
Most comebacks to critics of Canon tie in their personal preferences with a highly flawed conclusion (and click-bait opinion) that because Canon is not doing everything Sony does as well as continuing what it does so well it is therefore *******, all mixed in with a total and wilful ignorance of what it takes to develop these things. And those same people then go out and buy more Canon gear! 
Credit to you for taking the plunge - like you, if I am so upset at what a company is doing I go out and buy the gear that satisfies my intentions. I think life is to short for my enjoyment of photography to be marred by feelings of 'betrayal' or 'taken for granted' (words that have been used in this context, quite ridiculously IMO) and I would rather lose money on the sale and get back to enjoying the hobby.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 15, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> If you like Canon, accept the compromises Canon's current strategy entails vs the competition. If you don't, switch and accept that you will also leave the things that Canon does very well.



Or just use multiple brands when one is more aligned to a specific goal.

Outside of muscle cars and pickup trucks, I’ve never observed such brand loyalty as exists among ILC enthusiasts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Or just use multiple brands when one is more aligned to a specific goal.


Exactly. If Nikon hadn’t abandoned the 1 line, I’d likely have bought an AW-1 with a few lenses for underwater use.


----------



## ethanz (Aug 15, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Outside of muscle cars and pickup trucks, I’ve never observed such brand loyalty as exists among ILC enthusiasts.



But it's so enjoyable to poke fun at Nikon users


----------



## schmidtfilme (Aug 15, 2018)

I hope that they have native EF mount. I don't mind larger body. I have a M5 if I need a small camera.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 17, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Exactly. If Nikon hadn’t abandoned the 1 line, I’d likely have bought an AW-1 with a few lenses for underwater use.


I have a Nikon camera because someone was selling a D7000 with lights and an aquatica housing + dome for a good price


----------



## JordanRushing (Aug 17, 2018)

*Canon FF Mirrorless Wishlist (Is this unreasonable?)*

1.) 4k at 200mbps codec
- Preferably Apple ProRes codec
- Preferably downres from 5k
- Preferably at 60fps, doubtful though as they'll probably reserve that for c300 upgrades even though the GH5 can do 60fps
2.) 15 stop DR
3.) eye auto focus
4.) EVF with very high refresh rate
5.) ISO Range 50 - 204,800
6.) Silent shooting
7.) At least 10fps shooting
8.) USB-C
9.) IBS (5 - axis)
10.) 40+ Megapixel
11.) 700+ phase-detection
12.) 425+ contrast AF points
13.) 93+% image coverage
14.) Focus peaking
15.) $2,000 USD price mark
16.) EF-X mount to allow me to keep my current full frame lenses without any modifications or buying new lenses

This is more or less an a7iii, this doesn't seem unreasonable right? First post btw ^_^


----------



## ethanz (Aug 17, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> 15.) $2,000 USD price mark



Maybe add 50-100%


----------



## JordanRushing (Aug 17, 2018)

ethanz said:


> Maybe add 50-100%


This I'm the most nervous about. _If_ they give all of the above, again more or less an A7iii, is Canon confident in having more or less the same camera (spec wise) for double the price?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 17, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> *Canon FF Mirrorless Wishlist (Is this unreasonable?)*
> 
> 1.) 4k at 200mbps codec
> - Preferably Apple ProRes codec
> ...



As a wishlist it is fine.
But it is way higher than I expect considering what we have seen for Canon developments/patents and comments from Canon about why they did what they did in previous models. A lot of what you list is dependent on processor capacity and one thing Sony has a clear lead in processor capacity to manage high data volumes. For example, on release of the 5DIV one Canon exec commented they had a large batch of chips they needed to clear (which suggested it limited their options including regards video). Also Canons design philosophy and the fact they don't need to challenge SOny on every level:

1.) 4k at 200mbps codec
- Preferably Apple ProRes codec - doubtful. Canon's lack of progress in video suggests to me they will stay with 'good enough' codecs.
- Preferably downres from 5k - unlikely as Canon do not seem to have access to processors capable of this
- Preferably at 60fps, doubtful though as they'll probably reserve that for c300 upgrades even though the GH5 can do 60fps
2.) 15 stop DR - They have shown no sensor capable of getting to this and I am not sure it is high on their priorities nor needed. Likely an adapted 5DIV sensor.
3.) eye auto focus
4.) EVF with very high refresh rate
5.) ISO Range 50 - 204,800 this will depend on the sensor tech (see (2)) - Canon won't do it if it only there for bragging rights
6.) Silent shooting
7.) At least 10fps shooting possible. But with electronic shutter offering higher it will not be high on their priorities (even their 5DIV is only 7 fps).Likely 5-6 fps
8.) USB-C
9.) IBS (5 - axis) - highly unlikely. However they may offer decent faux-IBIS where the sensor is oversized and the image is 'tracked' as shake moves it around the sensor (I believe they use this in their video)
10.) 40+ Megapixel unlikely. 30MP?
11.) 700+ phase-detection Unlikely
12.) 425+ contrast AF points Does any other Canon model offer anywhere near this? 
13.) 93+% image coverage
14.) Focus peaking
15.) $2,000 USD price mark dream on....
16.) EF-X mount to allow me to keep my current full frame lenses without any modifications or buying new lenses


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 17, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> As a wishlist it is fine.
> But it is way higher than I expect considering what we have seen for Canon developments/patents and comments from Canon about why they did what they did in previous models. A lot of what you list is dependent on processor capacity and one thing Sony has a clear lead in processor capacity to manage high data volumes. For example, on release of the 5DIV one Canon exec commented they had a large batch of chips they needed to clear (which suggested it limited their options including regards video). Also Canons design philosophy and the fact they don't need to challenge SOny on every level:



Yeah, totally agree, hoping to be wrong and that canon will change their current philosophy with a ff mirrorless release

1.) 4k at 200mbps codec
- Preferably Apple ProRes codec - doubtful. Canon's lack of progress in video suggests to me they will stay with 'good enough' codecs. - I'd expect something similar to the m50, plus mjpeg, with clog. 
- Preferably downres from 5k - unlikely as Canon do not seem to have access to processors capable of this. Agreed,considering they haven't managed a full frame read out yet
- Preferably at 60fps, doubtful though as they'll probably reserve that for c300 upgrades even though the GH5 can do 60fps - Unlikely, no one has a full frame 60fps 4k option yet? Not sure canon will be rushing to lead this, given recent releases
2.) 15 stop DR - They have shown no sensor capable of getting to this and I am not sure it is high on their priorities nor needed. Likely an adapted 5DIV sensor. - Canon might be able to pull this off with a bit of computational magic, using the dual pixel readouts?
3.) eye auto focus
4.) EVF with very high refresh rate
5.) ISO Range 50 - 204,800 this will depend on the sensor tech (see (2)) - Canon won't do it if it only there for bragging rights
6.) Silent shooting
7.) At least 10fps shooting possible. But with electronic shutter offering higher it will not be high on their priorities (even their 5DIV is only 7 fps).Likely 5-6 fps- I'm expecting higher than this, 8-10 would be my pick
8.) USB-C
9.) IBS (5 - axis) - highly unlikely. However they may offer decent faux-IBIS where the sensor is oversized and the image is 'tracked' as shake moves it around the sensor (I believe they use this in their video) - the current method is to crop into the image I think, which reduces quality as far as I can tell - I'm under the impression they don't up the resolution area to compensate. Agree with mechanical ibis being unlikely
10.) 40+ Megapixel unlikely. 30MP?
11.) 700+ phase-detection Unlikely - does dpaf work quite the same way as on-sensor phase detect for the number of af points? I think this would be a potential strength for canon here, they could in theory surpass this, if my understanding is correct
12.) 425+ contrast AF points Does any other Canon model offer anywhere near this? 
13.) 93+% image coverage- they're pretty close to this already with the 5dmk4 dpaf, so I'd be expecting something close to this 
14.) Focus peaking - hopefully, along with zebras, but they have been reluctant to do so previously 
15.) $2,000 USD price mark dream on....I can't see canon releasing a camera with these specs for any change for 3500, and even then it'd be missing a number of above points, given current canon dslr pricing 
16.) EF-X mount to allow me to keep my current full frame lenses without any modifications or buying new lenses


----------



## JordanRushing (Aug 17, 2018)

Alright so then follow up. If Canon's new latest and greatest Mirrorless came out in October (and you're in the market for a new mirrorless, coming from a dslr), and it was lower in specs than say the a7iii, but cost more than the a7iii, would you still choose the Canon ML over the Sony? Only benefit I can personally see is Canon's customer service. If I'm missing something else, please point it out to me.

I'm just curious as to why someone would stay with something that costs more and at least spec sheet wise, isn't as good, except for brand loyalty and cs?


----------



## ethanz (Aug 17, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> I'm just curious as to why someone would stay with something that costs more and at least spec sheet wise, isn't as good, except for brand loyalty and cs?



There are threads upon threads about this. Sometimes specs aren't the end all be all, to most reasonable people.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 17, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> Alright so then follow up. If Canon's new latest and greatest Mirrorless came out in October (and you're in the market for a new mirrorless, coming from a dslr), and it was lower in specs than say the a7iii, but cost more than the a7iii, would you still choose the Canon ML over the Sony? Only benefit I can personally see is Canon's customer service. If I'm missing something else, please point it out to me.
> 
> I'm just curious as to why someone would stay with something that costs more and at least spec sheet wise, isn't as good, except for brand loyalty and cs?



Forget spec-sheet willy-waving and list the advantages that mirrorless offers by which I mean things mirrorless does that DSLR cannot such as WYSIWYG EVF, maybe focus peaking and zebras then put it with a FF sensor and Canon ergonomics. That is what will sell for this first iteration.
Too many people talk as if going mirrorless is the only advance that can be made and then attribute it to Sony whereas very little of what they do was actually developed by Sony.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> I'm just curious as to why someone would stay with something that costs more and at least spec sheet wise, isn't as good, except for brand loyalty and cs?


For some people (like you, apparently) a camera's list of specifications is more important than usability, ergonomics, diversity of system components, reliability, long term product support, etc. 

Most people feel differently, although you wouldn't know that if you only consider forum participants.


----------



## BillB (Aug 17, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> Alright so then follow up. If Canon's new latest and greatest Mirrorless came out in October (and you're in the market for a new mirrorless, coming from a dslr), and it was lower in specs than say the a7iii, but cost more than the a7iii, would you still choose the Canon ML over the Sony? Only benefit I can personally see is Canon's customer service. If I'm missing something else, please point it out to me.
> 
> I'm just curious as to why someone would stay with something that costs more and at least spec sheet wise, isn't as good, except for brand loyalty and cs?



Native EF lenses, the Canon touchscreen user interface, especially touchscreen focussing, and Canon support capabilities might all be factors, especially if other specs are "good enough". How many of the Sony specs have any practical value depends on what the individual photographer wants to do. Pretty much anybody buying a fullframe mirrorless is buying up from something. At the level we are talking about, almost any camera is overkill for most needs at the performance spec level, and performance specs are just magic numbers with little practical significance. To switch to Sony would most likely mean buying lenses, so that would be part of the cost package as well. 

At this point, a lot more people have 6Ds and 5Ds than own Sony's, so the burden is really on Sony to demonstrate the value package to get people to switch. Up until now the magic numbers haven't been all that successful a marketing strategy. With the A7III, SONY seems to be emphasizing price, but that is still more expensive than standing pat with what you have, which is a choice that most people in this market have.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 18, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> I mean this as a genuine question as I think I've missed something, are you meaning you shouldnt/shouldn't have to play with shadows if you get correct exposure?



"Playing with shadows" shouldn't require 5+ stops of adjustment if you shot it/lit it correctly. Part of being a photographer, as opposed to a camera holder, is recognizing when a scene is appropriate for the equipment you're using and the display medium you intend to use.

It's a pretty large leap to go from equating "shoot it right to start with and don't underexpose by 4-5 stops" to "you shouldn't ever need to 'play around with the shadows." 

It's also a pretty large leap to say that a camera that can "only" recover 4 stops in the shadows is "out of date garbage" but a camera that can recover 6 stops in the shadows is the "greatest thing since sliced bread."


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 18, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> Thats why Ansel Adams never dodged or burned. He as a master never had to.




I doubt Ansel ever dodged/burned by 5+ stops because he missed exposure. But he wasn't perfect. One only has to look at the evolution of the prints he created of 'Moonrise, Hernandez, NM' to see that. He shot it in 1941. The definitive prints weren't made until the mid 1960s. In interviews he practically admitted he was so rushed to get the shot before the sun set too low, couldn't find his light meter, and missed exposure a bit. That's what drove him to experiment so much to get the print he wanted.

One must also remember that the film he was using did not have the DR of even the "crappy" Canon 5D Mark IV or 6D Mark II.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 18, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> This isn't a fair comment at all. Higher DR can occasionally save an image that would have been unusable otherwise. I'm sure event, wedding and photojournalists can definitely benefit from having higher DR. As humans, we are not infallible, and we may very well not be in the correct setting in the heat of the moment. Will I be proud of pulling 6-7 stops out of an image? Probably not, but delivering an image > telling them I missed the shot.



PJs are on such tight time constraints these days that they rarely shoot raw. If you push it to the wires 15 minutes after it happened someone else has already beaten you to the punch and everyone has already picked up that earlier image. That's really nothing new, it's just that the time frame has gotten shorter.

Consider that Neil Leifer's iconic color photo of Ali standing over Liston was basically ignored by the wire services because John Rooney's gritty, B&W image from a worse angle was on the wires hours before his image was.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sport..._true_story_behind_neil_leifer_s_perfect.html


----------



## scyrene (Aug 18, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> Hardly ******* but it is a risky strategy by Canon to be slow to the mirrorless full frame market.
> It's only anecdotal and not reflective of the market as a whole but a friend of mine works in a camera shop and he's finding alot of Canon and Nikon users trading in to switch to Sony Mirrorless. They are starting to get overstocked in 2nd hand gear. The A7R III has alot of interest in my circles which is serious amateur as opposed to professional.
> Part of it is looking for something new and better and no solid word from Canon on a new full frame mirrorless doesn't help. If I were them I'd seriously hint at something while they are getting organised on actual dates. That's what Nikon are doing with the teasing trailers.



LOL


----------



## scyrene (Aug 18, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> I really hope it’s impressive and rivals the A7RIII and D850 in specs and pricing. Canon have an excellent opportunity to reshape the past three years of bad press.
> 
> It’s not all bad but the 6DII, 5DIV pricing and video features and the M50 have not been as welcomed as Canon or many of their users had hoped.



Sales >>> press


----------



## scyrene (Aug 18, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> I do not get people defending canon here. If you are in the market looking for a FF camera, Canon is the last brand that comes to mind. No camera they are offering is up to par with their peers. They are lagging behind about 3-5 years, which is huge. In the last five years DR has improved by up to 5 stops, autofocus like eye-AF and no black out while continious shooting have come along. Dont get me started on Canons take on 4K video. For the same money of the 5D Mark4 you can get a Sony A7III with a lens, which exceed the 5D in every way possible besides resolution.
> 
> I love Canon, but I am close to jumping ship. Every time I get back from a portrait session with my original 6D and I see a focus miss, because of recomposing, I am thinking: With Eye-AF that might have been a keeper. And every portrait photographer knows, how awful it feels to sort out a picture with perfect expression, because of missed focus! Just like every landscape photographer knows the pain of not enough DR in a critical moment.
> 
> Its no joke that you see every youtuber on the planet switching to sony. If your camera breaks today, what would you buy? Sony has earned the trust of a lot of people to give you the newest and most advanced technology in every iteration. Nikon at least tries to keep up. But Canon lost a lot of trust. They released cameras which they crippled on purpose so you have to spend more money. Why would you want to stay with a company like that?



*LOL*


----------



## scyrene (Aug 18, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> The comment "I love Canon, but I am close to jumping ship" for me is relevant.



It's relevant in working out who's trolling, certainly.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 18, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Some people are too lazy to bring a reflector or too impatient to wait for a cloud because they believe higher DR with "local adjustments" will make the job. It usually won't.



LOL. I can only imagine you do a very narrow range of photography if this is your attitude. I think the DR-obsessed shadow-lifting evangelists overstate their case, but some shadow lifting is appropriate sometimes. I'm not sure of any wildlife photographers (or candid street photographers, landscape photographers, sports photographers, or architectural photographers) who use reflectors. They must be bad at taking pictures!


----------



## dak723 (Aug 18, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> Alright so then follow up. If Canon's new latest and greatest Mirrorless came out in October (and you're in the market for a new mirrorless, coming from a dslr), and it was lower in specs than say the a7iii, but cost more than the a7iii, would you still choose the Canon ML over the Sony? Only benefit I can personally see is Canon's customer service. If I'm missing something else, please point it out to me.
> 
> I'm just curious as to why someone would stay with something that costs more and at least spec sheet wise, isn't as good, except for brand loyalty and cs?



I own an Olympus as well as a Canon, so brand loyalty has nothing to do with my decision. I bought and tried the first two generation Sony A7 cameras with the intent to replace my Canon 6D. The spec sheet, as you say, seemed more impressive. I returned each Sony and compared to the 5 or 6 digital cameras I have owned, the Sonys were by far the worst. Taking the same shots with both the Sony and Canon, I found many to be comparable, but overall none of the Sony shots were preferable and many of the Canon shots were. These were all landscape shots in daylight (which I shoot most of all) and the additional DR of the Sony was never noticeable. While obviously subjective, I found the tonal curves of the Canon shots to be better in terms of mid range contrast. Color, as far as I am concerned is a big plus for Canon. One of the Sonys underexposed by a full stop, the other by almost 1 1/2 stops - by far the worst exposure metering from any cameras I have owned. The EVF was poor - worse than my Olympus E-M1. And the ergonomics are terrible. All my opinions, of course. And not being able to afford more expensive lenses, I bought the kit 28-70 (I believe) zoom. (Not cheap either, by the way). These less expensive lenses for the Sony system do not have the same type of design that the more expensive lenses do to compensate for the short flange distance of the Sony FF, thus have very poor performance away from the image center. When I realized that I would be keeping the Canon 6D, I then considered keeping the Sony and selling the Olympus E-M1. But when I compared those cameras, I kept the Olympus and returned the Sony. 

So, in short, the spec sheets didn't tell me that the color was poor, the exposure was bad, the lenses were inadequate, and the ergonomics very uncomfortable compared to both my Canon and my Olympus.

Now, it is quite possible - and most reviews seem to mention - that improvements have been made in Sony generation III. But even if the Sony were equal to Canon in reliability, weather-sealing (where they are really awful) and ergonomics, I would still choose Canon because of their superior color and overall IQ. The photos look better to me, and that is the deciding factor when I compare cameras and actually take the shots myself.


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 18, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> "Playing with shadows" shouldn't require 5+ stops of adjustment if you shot it/lit it correctly. Part of being a photographer, as opposed to a camera holder, is recognizing when a scene is appropriate for the equipment you're using and the display medium you intend to use.
> 
> It's a pretty large leap to go from equating "shoot it right to start with and don't underexpose by 4-5 stops" to "you shouldn't ever need to 'play around with the shadows."
> 
> It's also a pretty large leap to say that a camera that can "only" recover 4 stops in the shadows is "out of date garbage" but a camera that can recover 6 stops in the shadows is the "greatest thing since sliced bread."



Ah, I think I know what you were trying to say; I haven't been talking about people who have missed the exposure and need to push the exposure up 5 stops due to wrong settings and save the image (although being able to is always helpful in a pinch, when I talk about playing with the shadows, it's about exposing for highlights as much as possible (ettr, as I would with my canon), but being able to pull the shadows up also afterwards. In my uses, my 6d isn't flash at this. I'll often need to throw out the highlights/overexpose the brighter details in order to keep some detail in the shadow without heavy noise/banding.

For what I shoot (landscapes and widefield astro usually), I'm not in a position where I can light the subject, so I rely on a system that can capture as much dynamic range as possible, and I'll often push shadows and pull highlights a fair amount, and an extra 2-3 stops is often significant. I wouldn't call the 5dmk4 out of date garbage, it's not as good for that spec as some other cameras but it doesn't band or have heavy noise in shadows like my 6d does


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> I wouldn't call the 5dmk4 out of date garbage, it's not as good for that spec as some other cameras


With DP RAW, the 5DIV can deliver more DR in a single shot than Sony or Nikon's best. But I wouldn't call the a7RIII or the D850 out of date garbage, even though they're not as good for that spec as the 5DIV.


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 18, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> With DP RAW, the 5DIV can deliver more DR in a single shot than Sony or Nikon's best. But I wouldn't call the a7RIII or the D850 out of date garbage, even though they're not as good for that spec as the 5DIV.



I'd only caught up with the dual pixel raw file use when it was first starting to work - how much of a benefit does it give now? It was still about 1/2 a stop less than the sony and nikon dr when I read about it but excellent if they're improved it to be beyond those


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> I'd only caught up with the dual pixel raw file use when it was first starting to work - how much of a benefit does it give now? It was still about 1/2 a stop less than the sony and nikon dr when I read about it but excellent if they're improved it to be beyond those


One stop. It's always been one stop, because one subframe has half the exposure of the other subframe. There's less than a one stop difference in DR between the 5DIV and the other top models (without considering DR RAW). The math is simple, but what adds up to 'the most DR available in a single shot' to some apparently adds up to 'not quite out of date garbage' to others.


----------



## dcm (Aug 18, 2018)

Based on many years of product R&D experience, there's a bit more to a spec sheet than what's discussed here. A common model is FURPS: Functionality, Usability, Reliability, Performance, and Supportability. There are variations with more -ilities. 

When companies specify a product, they identify the full set of specifications to satisfy a customer profile (not all customers). Each category may contain Musts, Wants, and Wows. 

Musts are required, but the customer seldom articulates them. They are assumed to be there and will be missed if they aren't. They are Product Killers.

Wants reflect the current marketplace and what customers will articulate, often because they are in competitors' products. Marketing often provides this list and no product has all of them. This is the Customer Scream-o-meter.

Wows are features your customer never thought to ask for, but are blown away when they appear. R&D provides these and protects them with patents. Wows are a significant competitive advantage. These are Disruptive Innovations.

Over time Wows become wants and Wants become Musts. Most forum discussions seem to focus Wants for Functionality and Performance. But that is an incomplete picture as some forum posters point out.

Products underperform or fail when the company does not achieve the right balance in their FURPS. I once challenged my management team with 3 rolls of pennies when I felt our balance was wrong. I asked them to allocate one roll of pennies to show our investment, one for our chief competitor's investment, and one for the customer's spending on the FURPS categories for our product. Eyes opened.

Canon, Nikon, and Sony each have different investment profiles in FURPS. Not all customers have the same profile - that's why you have different products. Some companies do a better job of matching the customer profile(s) than others - they are the market leaders.

If a product that sells well seems under spec’d to you, it might be that you aren't looking at the full picture or you aren't close to the customer profile for that product.


----------



## BillB (Aug 18, 2018)

dcm said:


> Based on many years of product R&D experience, there's a bit more to a spec sheet than what's discussed here. A common model is FURPS: Functionality, Usability, Reliability, Performance, and Supportability. There are variations with more -ilities.
> 
> When companies specify a product, they identify the full set of specifications to satisfy a customer profile (not all customers). Each category may contain Musts, Wants, and Wows.
> 
> ...



Exactly. In this context, one of the ongoing issues is how much the internet buzz generators reflect consumer interests and/or shape sales. Or, whether Canon is, in fact, finally *******.


----------



## jpcanon (Aug 18, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> That is precisely what Canon does NOT do with their premium models.
> That is also why Sony annoys a few of its users when they release a new camera a year later solving the problems that the previous model should not have had in the first place.



yea... while the other sony users are just happy the big S gave them something new to buy this year...


----------



## BillB (Aug 18, 2018)

jpcanon said:


> yea... while the other sony users are just happy the big S gave them something new to buy this year...



Or at least to use for internet trolling. Tha's a lot cheaper than buying anything.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 18, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> Thats why Ansel Adams never dodged or burned. He as a master never had to.



I hope you are being ironic. He admitted he did a lot of post-shoot adjustment and even quipped "Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."
I think it was the Yosemite shot where he totalled over 300 different dodge/burns.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 18, 2018)

dcm, thanks for that, it was interesting. Too bad many CR viewers can't comprehend it.

Jack


----------



## dcm (Aug 19, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> dcm, thanks for that, it was interesting. Too bad many CR viewers can't comprehend it.
> 
> Jack



Thanks Jack. Lived on the other side for a long time. 

It's interesting / amusing to see the points of view on the forum. Not that different from the corporate wide internal and external idea submission processes I handled for several years at a large company. Many started with "I have an idea that will make a billion dollars..."


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 19, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> Okay, I get that big lenses are a reason for Canon. I respect that. But what about photographers who do not need big lenses like portrait, wedding, event, architecture and landscape photographers? Maybe Canon is the most reliable camera manufacturer with the best repair sites, but I think that does excuse them for not innovating on the technological site.
> 
> I am not saying that their cameras are bad at all. I love them and I love the ecosystem, but I am frustrated, because there is no camera with the spec list I want and which I would see fit for 2018 by Canon. If I did not care about Canon, I would not be writing here. I would just buy from another manufacturer and be done with it. You can critizise me and tell me that I should be able to manage with Canon gear. But no camera Canon is offering is something I could buy without feeling betrayed because I spend a lot of money for lackluster technology.
> 
> I know that no camera will make me a better photographer, but they can make it a lot easier to at least prevent technical failure. Tell me autofocus for instance does not help you take better pictures? Of course you could manage with manual, but the keeper rate would go to shit! In some situations, like time sensitive landscapes dynamic range can make or break the image.



Yeah, because architecture and landscape photographers would _never_ find a tilt/shift lens with free rotation between the tilt axis and the shift axis useful _at all_, would they?

Have you even compared Canon's five TS-E L-series lenses to the competition? There's no comparison to what Canon has done with the TS-E 17mm, TS-E 24mm II, TS-E 50mm Macro, TS-E 90mm Macro, and TS-E 135mm Macro. How can you not consider those lenses innovative?

The same architecture crowd would probably have no use for a truly rectilinear 11-24mm FF lens that is very sharp, either, would they?

Have you ever looked around at weddings and events and seen how many white 70-200/2.8 lenses there are working that sector? Why do you think they are so popular?

Hint: It's not because they're so cheap. When one needs a lens that can absolutely, positively get the job done consistently from shot to shot, the L series 70-200mm lenses are many professionals' choice.

As far as portraiture goes, the best performance on a flat test chart measured at closer distances than anyone in their right mind would ever shoot a human being doesn't always mean a lens is the best for portraiture. The same correction for field curvature that improves lenses' edge to edge sharpness when imaging a flat test chart will make a lens' bokeh busy and/or harsh.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Aug 19, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Sales >>> press


It won’t be long before the press starts impacting sales.


----------



## jpcanon (Aug 19, 2018)

BillB said:


> Or at least to use for internet trolling. Tha's a lot cheaper than buying anything.



and less work than going out and you know, taking pictures.


----------



## jpcanon (Aug 20, 2018)

I must be on a different planet... where I come from, a single digit Canon DSLR was always universally considered a high end product. I feel like I"m lucky to have a high end example of digital optical technology like my 6DII , and a its a 'mark' no less!

I read about something like this a few years ago in a book, something about how luxury brands are in a race to the bottom where globalization and technology have removed the financial barriers to their products causing a series of pros and cons. Sad to see Canon go down this route but in a way their stratification let me hit my goal of a 'full frame' camera quicker. Short of being a professional or just having $$$ to burn the 6D Mark II that I got for $1499 (plus free 13 month Canon Carepak + free battery grip) is really most I'd spend anyway. In the end, at that price - Canon connected the dots; more so than other brands - they got the sale.

I suspect that is why they have 50% of the market and something tells me they will remain there even after they release their FF mirrorless body.


----------



## deleteme (Aug 20, 2018)

scyrene said:


> LOL


I was just at Samy's in L.A. this weekend and they had stacks of used A7RII bodies.
Turnover happens.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 21, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> It won’t be long before the press starts impacting sales.



We've been hearing that a long time. For instance, Canon's "DR deficiency" has been decried by some parties for years, but sales have actually increased relative to the competition. It would seem that the importance of the Canon-critical press (DPR, YouTubers, a few forum goers here and elsewhere) isn't that great when it comes to the camera-buying public.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 31, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Since the pixel pitch is nearly identical, if one crops the 5Ds to the same size as the 7D Mark II, the results will be near identical as well. A FF sensor has no inherent advantages over an APS-C sensor if the images from both are enlarged by the same factor. The advantage of a FF vs. an APS-C sensor is all based on the lower enlargement ratio needed to get to the same display size.


Theoretically thats true practically I beg to differ


----------

