# Canon and Nikon - Past Their Prime? by Kai Wong



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 22, 2014)

This is an interesting article that Kai Wong (the Chinese dude who speaks in English accent on DigitalrevTV youtube channel) ... this is only meant as an interesting read, not to bash Canon or Nikon ... disagreements are welcome, but kindly refrain from hate posts please. Thanks

As published in http://www.digitalrev.com/article/canon-and-nikon-past-their/MTc3MzU1MDAz
22 Dec 2013 by Kai Wong

Fancy dress parties are hateful. It's not the taking part that irks me, it's the having to see other people take so much pleasure from lazily dressing-up in attire that adheres to a stereotype of what it's supposed to represent. It makes me feel a little sad for the people who go to those 1970s disco nights wearing an off-the-shelf kit consisting of: big 'fro, shiny flares, big collars and big sunglasses. It makes you wish the 70s was an object just so that you could punch it in anger, but the fact of the matter is that the 70s was actually pretty cool. Kind of.

That brings me neatly to Nikon's fancy dress disaster: the Df. What a shambles. In a nutshell, it's a D610, with a Nikon FM - a classic SLR from the 70s - costume on and not a very good one at that. Nikon designed the Df to be a cool blend of digital sensibilities fused with a nostalgic nod to the charming classic minimalism of a film camera that was once used by the masses decades ago. The trouble with the execution, however, is that it has ended up being not so much a tribute to the FM as it is a parody. If you wanted to satisfy your nostalgic desires or wanted a DSLR that works like a fully manual SLR then you'll be severely disappointed with the Df.

Outside of the pro market, I sometimes wonder if Nikon is getting a bit fuddy-duddy. Canon too. Nikon and Canon are having a bit of an identity crisis (or is that mid-life crisis?). They can both produce pro-grade products well, with higher end DSLRs that continue to sell well. So well that they don’t want to make any of their lower end stuff anywhere near as good for fear of harming the sales of the top end stuff. They're also incredibly cautious when it comes to their entry into the mirrorless camera market. Although they are aware that mirrorless is a threat to entry-level DSLR sales, they have no choice but to enter this segment but while still trying to get people to buy their DSLRs. Canon, like Nikon, still don’t seem to get it either.

The Canon EOS M2 was announced recently, which is more or less the same camera as the EOS M albeit with wifi and faster autofocus speed. But, frankly, you couldn’t have gotten any slower than the autofocus speed of the EOS M, so the only way was up. Not that this product announcement is really relevant anyway as it seems like Canon will be keeping this camera as an Asia-only release, if reports on the net are to be believed. No crying shame there mind you, as the EOS M2 is about as tantalising as a used bar of soap (the EOS M2 is seemingly designed to look like one too).

When Canon and Nikon try to be cool and different the result is somewhat lame. It’s like listening to an Uncle try to drop some words he found on urban dictionary into a conversation - it’s embarrassing. Although they seem to understand that there is a market for people who like mirrorless cameras or stylish cameras, their efforts lack substance. It feels like they think that it’s enough to produce something that is all about the superficial qualities and without any real depth to the product. Sony is quite the opposite: they have made some interesting products recently - a7 & a7R, RX1, QX10 - with cool tech albeit encased in something as bland looking as one of their TV remotes. The game is changing, and props must go to Sony for realising that life outside of DSLRs isn’t just a load of fancy dress.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 23, 2014)

I can feel the "heat" from this topic already 

My 2cents: There are two diff. markets, Pro and everyday shooter. The Pro will cont. with DSLR and wonderful L lenses. Where everyday shooters want something simple and compact, but doesn't want to give up FF IQ - this option doesn't exist until Sony shows up.

For me, I rather enjoy both worlds.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 23, 2014)

Generally, the consumers are the ultimate voter on which products meet their needs or expectations. 

In spite of Sony's innovations, when it takes a company 3 months to repair a product, they are not really serious about being in the market long term. Another factor is the different expectations in Asia compared to the US and Europe. Camera manufacturers have to cover both markets, and rather than make one product fit all, they should more directly aim at a given market. Canon had originally stated that the "M" was aimed at the typical Japanese female photographer (whatever that means). If so, then its no wonder that they are struggling to sell in the US/Europe but doing much better in Asia.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 23, 2014)

I agree, these are 2 different markets.
As far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to sell my FF DSLR's, but this is what I think:
The mirrorless market is eating more and more in to the entry level DSLR's for people who want to upgrade from advanced point & shoot or "bridge" cameras (which is a very big market) ... but once the beginners become a bit more advanced, they realize that the upgrade path basically does not exist (i.e. better/faster lenses for action, especially when they want reach) ... so the only choice of upgrade, for the foreseeable future, is Pro DSLRs like 5D MK III/D800 and upwards (or 7D MK II / D400 if and when they are released). 
But what I don't understand about Canon and Nikon is their growth received a significant steroid boost after the Rebel line of cameras were introduced, now that segament is getting eaten away by the mirrorless crowd ... so why don't they (Canon/Nikon) want to make better mirrorless cameras? ... its not like they lack the technological know how ... if Sony, Fuji, Olympus can make it, I am sure Canon & Nikon with their vastly superior experience & resources can make truly awesome mirrorless cameras. Surely, making better EOS-M or the V/J series cameras will not discourage pros and advanced hobbyists from buying into bigger better DSLRs & lenses. I would rather buy a good FF or APSC mirrorless camera from Canon or Nikon instead of Sony, Fuji or Olympus ... but unfortunately, Canon and Nikon don't seem to be interested despite the stats showing significant growth in mirrorless segament ... even the third party manufacturers (like Sigma, Tamron etc) have realized the potential market in the mirrorless segment and have also introduced lenses for them.
Appreciate your thoughts ... and a request to keep it civil without spreading personal attacks and grief. 
Peace


----------



## CanNotYet (Jan 23, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> but unfortunately, Canon and Nikon don't seem to be interested despite the stats showing significant growth in mirrorless segment ...


Well, as you can see in another thread in this forum, mirrorless isn't growing all that much, so I think CaNikon are just biding their time. At least Canon could just slap the M into an SL1 body with M-mount and EVF and go from there easily. 

So, they release products just to have a presence at the market, ready to ramp up when the masses drops entry DSLRs for Mirrorless.


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 23, 2014)

The key problem is differentiation.

Every manufacturer tries to have something special. Canon has the f/1.2 primes for example, Sony now has the a7, Zeiss has the Otus series, Sigma has great affordable primes and the USB dock... Nikon tried with the Df. Typical case of good idea, poor execution. They had the 36MPix body, but then the a7r stole their monopoly and maybe they were pushed to release something peculiar. The Nikon 1 AW is a great idea, but at least here in EU it is sold only as a kit with the 18-55 and you have to buy the 10/2.8 separately. Like, seriously, who wants to shoot f/5.6 on a 1" sensor underwater? The ridiculous mandatory purchase of the 18-55 is what put me off from buying it.

And BTW, Nikon doesn't seem too bad at pimping lower end bodies. The D3300, D5300 and D7100 have a quite respectable set of features. Canon wasn't really in the club before the 70D.


----------



## Woody (Jan 23, 2014)

The bottom line in all camera companies is this: profit. Which companies have the biggest market shares worldwide? I'm afraid it's still Canon and Nikon. Sony has been trying very hard, releasing one product after another... but their market shares have not changed an iota over the years. I agree the RX100 and A7 series are fantastic.... but just check out how well these cameras are selling on Amazon (USA) and BCNRanking (Japan)... Clearly, the market isn't embracing these cameras.

So, are Nikon and Canon past their prime? Don't think so. Sure, they have misfires like the Df and EOS M/M2... but who cares about these products when their target market is very small in the first place? Remember, the ratio of DSLR:EVIL camera sold is 9:1 in both N. America and Europe... it's been like that for years.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 23, 2014)

CanNotYet said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > but unfortunately, Canon and Nikon don't seem to be interested despite the stats showing significant growth in mirrorless segment ...
> ...


According to Business Insider, the mirrorless camera sales from JAN to OCT 2013 were 85.9 million (refer to the below pie chart from Business Insider), I'm assuming those figures have gone up to at least 100 million by 31 DEC 2013 (taking into the lucrative holiday season, discounts etc), ... Although it is still only 20% of DLSR sales volume, there are 100 million mirrorless cameras being sold in 1 year and assuming the average price being US$500 each, that's a 50 Billion dollar industry for a mirrorless camera+kit lens (excluding additional lenses). If Canon/Nikon make good quality mirrorless camers, I think they can easily dominate 50% of that market. Keep in mind that recently (in 2013) Canon & Nikon cut their profit forcasts ... so, surely they can make do with a cool 25 billion dollars of the mirrorless market share if they tried to make good quality mirrorless camers ... not to mention their strength in making awesome lenses, with will only add to their bottom line.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 23, 2014)

Woody said:


> The bottom line in all camera companies is this: profit. Which companies have the biggest market shares worldwide? I'm afraid it's still Canon and Nikon. Sony has been trying very hard, releasing one product after another... but their market shares have not changed an iota over the years. I agree the RX100 and A7 series are fantastic.... but just check out how well these cameras are selling on Amazon (USA) and BCNRanking (Japan)... Clearly, the market isn't embracing these cameras.
> 
> So, are Nikon and Canon past their prime? Don't think so. Sure, they have misfires like the Df and EOS M/M2... but who cares about these products when their target market is very small in the first place? Remember, the ratio of DSLR:EVIL camera sold is 9:1 in both N. America and Europe... it's been like that for years.


I do not believe Canon and Nikon are "past their prime", it was just the title used by Kai and I merely copy pasted it.
I do understand that bottom line is profit, but with Canon and Nikon's recent cut in their profit forecast, I am sure they can make do with some profits in what seems like an industry that is worth 50 billion american dollars (not counting lenses) by producing good quality mirrorless camers, which I think will only enhance their lens sales as well and add to their shrinking profits. Lets be frank here, weren't we all excited when we first heard the rumor about Canon's mirrorless camers (at that time we did not know the specs, but we all speculated that it would trounce the other manufacturers) but pretty much all of us were disappointed when it eventually come out at the price point that it did and the specs that it carried ... majority of us only bought the EOS-M when its price went down by over 50% ... I think if Canon and Nikon had made only 1 awesome mirrorless camera (which I still think they are capable of), they would have stolen the top 2 spots in the mirrorless camera industry. In my opinion the reason 9:1 ratio exists in US & Europe is because people there trust Canon and Nikon (rightly so) for their awesome products and fantastic customer service, and if they had made a great mirrorless camera, they would have been a run away hit. I still think there was a huge window of opportunity for Canon & Nikon, but for some reason, they don't seem to be interested, despite cuts in their profit forecasts.


----------



## Ricku (Jan 23, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I can feel the "heat" from this topic already
> 
> My 2cents: There are two diff. markets, Pro and everyday shooter. The Pro will cont. with DSLR and wonderful L lenses. Where everyday shooters want something simple and compact, but doesn't want to give up FF IQ - this option doesn't exist until Sony shows up.
> 
> For me, I rather enjoy both worlds.


Would be true, if it wasn't for the fact that the A7R trumps the 5D3 and 1DX in FF IQ, while still being small, simple, wifi/smartphone-connectable, e.t.c.. It is without a doubt the best camera available for my dear L-lenses.. Like Kai said, the game is changing.

EDIT: Oops, I just saw that you mentioned Sony. Never mind.


----------



## weixing (Jan 23, 2014)

Hi,
IMHO, don't need to worry for Canon... they already had the technology to come out a good mirrorless camera anytime... the big question is when?? If you ask me, my guess is this year or next year you'll see a higher end mirrorless camera from Canon. 

Anyway, mirrorless camera is not for everyone especially for wildlife photographer when many of them like to use their super telephoto lens as a scope... ;D Battery will use up very fast on a mirrorless camera if use this way.

Have a nice day.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 23, 2014)

Ricku said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I can feel the "heat" from this topic already
> ...



At the risk of stating the obvious, doesn't it rather depend what you intend doing with the combination? I wouldn't want to try shooting birds handheld with a tiny body on a big lens. For some applications, like this, autofocus speed/accuracy and ergonomics trump absolute image quality (even assuming your assertion was correct; I make no comment on that). And wifi isn't much use outside of the house, especially away from urban areas (though I'd be happy to see it in every camera, for those occasions when it is useful).


----------



## RGF (Jan 23, 2014)

Returning to differentiation, the challenge for Canon and Nikon is to be relevant in the days of camera phones.

Impact on the high market is close to zero - tho some pros are giving courses on iPhonology and producing interesting work. 

Impact on low end dSLR and P&S market is large.

Time for the big boys to get creative and produce innovative products that will appeal to the masses, not to those of us are a "photographers" but to those who take snapshots


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 23, 2014)

I don't want to discount his column, but Kai isn't exactly impartial here given that he is a big camera retailer, and is always looking to drive traffic to his site with some controversial comments/videos. His videos are pretty entertaining, and he isn't necessarily wrong with what he says, but as others have pointed out, there is a bigger picture if you're an established company. As fans, we always want more, but as he's pointing out with the Nikon Df, bad decisions can be costly. I'd rather have solid, less exciting products from a company that will still be in business 10+ years from now, than bleeding edge buggy gear (read Blackmagic) from a company that may or may not survive a dud product. What the big guys like to do is to let the smaller, more agile guys (read Blackmagic, again) take the risks and push them (the big guys) to innovate while keeping their stability. 

Yes, that sounds boring, but if you look at the 5DIII and Magic Lantern, it looks like Canon's giving the customers the best of both worlds.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 23, 2014)

Ricku said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I can feel the "heat" from this topic already
> ...



I'm not DR guy. Be able to shoot at higher ISO is what I'm really after in FF world. The reason I purchased A7 is compact - for travel oversea and just taking picture of my kids on short trip . I'm interested to add 2-3 Zeiss FE lenses to this compact system(55mm, UWA, 85 or 135 depends on lens size).

I just don't see myself attaching 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 100-400 f4, 300mm, or 400mm on this compact body. 5D III/1D X feels so much better with big lenses - not to mention AF tracking on DSLR is something current mirrorless can't keep up.

I do agree with you on IQ/sensor stuff


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 23, 2014)

In regard to...
"At the risk of stating the obvious, doesn't it rather depend what you intend doing with the combination? I wouldn't want to try shooting birds handheld with a tiny body on a big lens."
...

Great discussion. My personal opinion is that the slr market is severely hindered by our pre-conceived notion that a camera should look like an slr. In the future, I'd anticipate this model to be broken. Right now, some people think of it as a shutter mechanism, as the name implies. Most people think of it as the big "camera-shaped" hunk of metal and plastic that makes it look professional-ish. I don't think the shape is at all optimized, however, for taking pictures, except for the use of very small lenses. 

The discussion on mirrorless is a great example of why the term slr is increasingly inappropriate. If you stuck a mirrorless mechanism in the 1dx, would it not be an slr? And, on the other hand, if you took the existing 1dx shutter mechanism and installed it into a rifle-shaped mount that had balancing weights to adjust for different lenses, would it not be an slr?

20 years from now we may well have several different words we use for different types of rigs:
- slrs will have a different name and will be the category of cameras where you use both hands in front of your face. This will be the low-end tech, as the poor weight distribution alignment versus stability will be because the units lack a remote video feed to your eye.
- there will be several other categories of rigs that use different configurations:
- Rifle mounts; an interim design with better stability, but still needed only so long as direct eye placement is required. 
- Remote stable platforms; which can be thought of as camera turrets linked to a photographer
- Wearable platforms; exploiting different parts of the body, usually close to center of gravity, with combinations of clothes, attachment mechanisms and new grip positions
- Direction-cognizant light collectors; where large surface areas of wearable material can collect light, and due to the direction of origin information being preserved, lens-like interpretations of that (massive amount of) light can be made in software. 
- Insert your own fantasy here.

So for Canon/Nikon looking at the mirrorless trend, it's really an estimation of theirs as to whether or not that shutter mechanism happens to appear to be a long-term-worthy investment, versus a gear fad. On top of that, they need worry about it cannibalizing existing sales. Were I they, I'd attempt to design the best mirrorless mechanism, but use it to insert into existing constellation of form factors, and eventually new ones that would require the economy of space such mechanisms allow. There does not appear to me to be a good reason as to why mirrorless need be relegated to tiny sensors in the long-term. With optical viewfinders eventually being made useless by new form factors, the major disadvantage to mirrorless (no direct viewfinder) drops away.

It'll be an exciting development path. EOS-M could well replace the current Canon lineup of point-and-shoot cameras, which would be pretty smart on their part, because it opens up most numerous bit of market to lens purchases. It'll just take a few years for the brand managers in the various countries to chill out and let this cannibilization happen. Canon will be innovative in their patent portfolio, but let the market lead them, so they will appear to be fuddy duddy. -tig


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 23, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> There are two diff. markets, Pro and everyday shooter. The Pro will cont. with DSLR and wonderful L lenses.



Not true. Many professional photographers are using mirrorless systems.



weixing said:


> IMHO, don't need to worry for Canon... they already had the technology to come out a good mirrorless camera anytime...



IMHO, I don't think so. Both Canon and Nikon have been in the SLR game so long that they have millions tied into research and development that has not yet paid for itself. The insistence by Canon to slap IS into basically any new lens is proof of this assumption. This also means that they have been spending a lot of dinero on perfecting this technology, instead of simply binning it in favour of new ideas.



Rienzphotoz said:


> I do not believe Canon and Nikon are "past their prime" ...



As far as the "enthusiast" segment goes, yes, both Canon and Nikon are past it. I agree with you that both companies are severely missing out on a very lucrative market.



CanNotYet said:


> ... so I think CaNikon are just biding their time.



Personally, I have my eye on either the Olympus E-M10 or the Fujifilm X-T1 for my non-super-telephoto stuff ... as neither Canon nor Nikon has anything to compete with these cameras. Once I've bought into either (non-Canon) system, I also won't be contributing to Canon's profit for a time.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 23, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > There are two diff. markets, Pro and everyday shooter. The Pro will cont. with DSLR and wonderful L lenses.
> ...



[/quote]
I don't see how Pro sport shooters would buy current mirrorless over DSLR. 

I do agree with you on Pro with still shooting assigments


----------



## Skywise (Jan 23, 2014)

The crux of the problem isn't the SLR mechanism itself but what the SLR does. Most people don't want a "video" reproduction of what the sensor is seeing but the ability to actually SEE the view they want to shoot. (Especially when trying to shoot in bright sunlight)

You don't need an SLR mechanism for that, per se, but I'm not sure how you get away from a mirrored system otherwise. (Transparent sensor?) (Or do we all start wearing something like google glass and the camera beams the current shot onto our glasses? At which point the camera goes back to basically being a "box" with a lens)


----------



## unfocused (Jan 23, 2014)

I think the article raises some good points. 

Sometimes Nikon and Canon remind me of that 50-year-old guy with a pony-tail and an earring cruising the bars trying to pick up 21-year-olds. 

But, as others have pointed out, let's not confuse some very different markets. Point-and-Shoots never had the under 30 market. These are the customers who pick their phones based on the quality of the camera and consider the camera to be one of the most important functions of the phone. In fact, based on personal observation, I'd say many of them rank phone features in the following order: texting, camera/video, posting to social media, phone calls. 

Point and shoots were mostly the domain of adult non-photographers. Parents who only take pictures of their kids on vacations, at birthdays, graduations, etc. and couples who take pictures while traveling, but only to provide proof that they've been there. 

It's this market that has been killed off by improvements in the quality of camera phones. For them, the camera phone is a "good enough" technology that meets their needs and it's more convenient because it's always with them.

While the technology has changed, the demographics haven't. This market was met in the 1960s and 70s by Kodak Instamatics. Only a tiny, tiny percentage ever moved up the ladder to SLRs. That hasn't changed. 

What did change was that for a very few, brief years the digital point-and-shoot offered advantages that weren't met by any other medium. Take all the pictures you want, send them to Walgreens and have prints made in an hour. 

The problem is that this customer base isn't having prints made anymore. Instead they just upload the pictures to Facebook and for that, the new phones are better.

So, we've always had two very distinct market segments: the non-photographers who take pictures occasionally as a means to preserve life moments and a much smaller market of hobbyists/enthusiasts/professionals who consider the picture-taking to be a primary purpose.

In many ways, I see mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras as attempting to expand a market that is resistant to expansion. They are too complex for non-photographers and have too many drawbacks for serious photographers. 

Will this change? Possibly, as the technology improves. But, really why should either Canon or Nikon rush into a market that could fade; when it would require a major investment; and the technology is only partially developed?


----------



## Skywise (Jan 23, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Will this change? Possibly, as the technology improves. But, really why should either Canon or Nikon rush into a market that could fade; when it would require a major investment; and the technology is only partially developed?



True and I agree with what you say - But without the relatively lucrative p&s market I don't think Canon or Nikon can really survive, let alone grow, on the remaining DSLR market alone.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 23, 2014)

Skywise said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Will this change? Possibly, as the technology improves. But, really why should either Canon or Nikon rush into a market that could fade; when it would require a major investment; and the technology is only partially developed?
> ...



Possibly, but remember that Canon and Nikon built their businesses without the point and shoot market, unlike Sony, Panasonic, etc.

For Canon and Nikon the market really is just returning to a historical pattern that they are very familiar with. Most of the other companies entered the market during the boom years and may be less prepared and less committed to their photography lines. Of course, neither Canon nor Nikon depend solely on their DSLR lines. I'm more familiar with Canon, of course, which is a major player in a number of other industries. But, I get the sense that Nikon is reasonably well diversified as well, even if it is primarily in the optics industry (binoculars, spotting scopes, gun scopes, etc.)

The player that I think people do underestimate though is Fuji. This is a company that saw the entire film industry collapse and yet has succeeded (compare to Kodak). I've read that Fuji is the company that Canon is most worried about and I think it may be with good reason, given both their history and their current product line.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 23, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm not DR guy. Be able to shoot at higher ISO is what I'm really after in FF world. The reason I purchased A7 is compact - for travel oversea and just taking picture of my kids on short trip . I'm interested to add 2-3 Zeiss FE lenses to this compact system
> 
> I just don't see myself attaching 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 100-400 f4, 300mm, or 400mm on this compact body. 5D III/1D X feels so much better with big lenses - not to mention AF tracking on DSLR is something current mirrorless can't keep up.


+1 ... I won't be selling my 5D MK III and my EF lenses, in fact I'd be one of the first in line to get the 5D MK IV and a 100-400 L I version 2 (whenever they come out) ... but I'd definitely add the ZEISS 24-70 f/4 zoom, a compact UWA and a compact Macro lens for the A7 ... for me that's where I'd stop with the lenses for mirrorless cameras ... of course I definitely see my self buying the version 2 of A7 or A7R


----------



## weixing (Jan 23, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > There are two diff. markets, Pro and everyday shooter. The Pro will cont. with DSLR and wonderful L lenses.
> ...


Hi,
There is no need to research in mirrorless camera for Canon or Nikon. When you shoot in live view, you are actually using a "mirrorless" camera already... just without EVF. With dual pixel AF, Canon had all the technology to make a reasonable fast mirrorless camera anytime... 

Actually, I would prefer them to make a hybrid system... put an EVF behind the prism, so you had a setting that enable the EVF to turn on when the mirror is up and you can lock the mirror in up position if you prefer to use the EVF, but I guess if this going to happen, it'll happen to the 1D series... not a camera I can afford... ha ha ha.

Have a nice day.


----------



## missitnoonan (Jan 23, 2014)

I just can't see this right now in the US market, almost everyone I know owns a DSLR of some sort and I only know one person with a mirrorless system. Most of these people are parents with young children or grandparents who want the ability to track moving targets and eliminate shutter lag. In the lower price bracket ($500ish) you're going to do much better with a DSLR for this than a mirrored camera. I just don't see how mirrorless is going to eat DSLR sales for this demographic. 

I'm at the top end of cameras in my group (and these aren't people lacking in funds) and I'm shooting a 60d. The market for full frame is much smaller than for APSC, the number of people looking to shoot legacy manual focus lenses is miniscule in comparison to grandparents with their DSLR and kit lens, and I think everyone is just too quick to see an A7 and going running for the hills yelling DSLR sales are dying. It's still an expensive camera with expensive lenses. It's going to have little effect on most camera sales.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jan 23, 2014)

Canon just needs to Make an EOS Rebel N with a Facebook button instead of that printer button! Yeah! That will do it! And lots of fun color options.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Jan 23, 2014)

honestly i don´t know why i should read or listen to that guy.
he is as clueless about photography as the next guy on the street.

his "reviews" are useless... except for those who like the three stooges movies too.

i don´t get why some watch his videos.
when you have seen one you have seen all.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jan 23, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> honestly i don´t know why i should read or listen to that guy.
> he is as clueless about photography as the next guy on the street.
> 
> his "reviews" are useless... except for those who like the three stooges movies too.
> ...



I think they are entertaining. Does everything about photography have to be so serious and technical all the time?


----------



## emag (Jan 23, 2014)

Kai is simply wong. But I do find his videos entertaining.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 23, 2014)

Ricku said:


> Would be true, if it wasn't for the fact that the A7R trumps the 5D3 and 1DX in FF IQ


Sure, if you don't have to focus on fast-moving subjects. If you do, the 5DIII and 1D X trump the a7R in FF AF tracking. 




Ricku said:


> It is without a doubt the best camera available for my dear L-lenses..


You might be interested in what Roger Cicala (owner of Lensrentals) has to say:

[quote author=Roger Cicala]
When a single camera-lens interface has enough variability to sometimes be visible, adding another large piece of metal with another mount interface seems a recipe for problems….

Putting a great lens on your camera via an adapter might still be better than an average native-mount lens. On the other hand, that great lens certainly wouldn’t be as good as it would be on its native-mount camera.
[/quote]


----------



## msm (Jan 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...
> 
> 
> Ricku said:
> ...


[/quote]

He also says this in a later article:

"An adapter that really messes up laboratory testing results generally has very little to no effect on actual pictures."

Having tested A7R on most of my Canon lenses I can't really see much of these alleged problems in my actual pictures. All lenses I have tested provide a lot more detail and resolution than on my Canon cameras. I would be more worried about AF and IS working poorly on some lenses through the adapter.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 23, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> In regard to...
> "At the risk of stating the obvious, doesn't it rather depend what you intend doing with the combination? I wouldn't want to try shooting birds handheld with a tiny body on a big lens."
> ...
> 
> Great discussion. My personal opinion is that the slr market is severely hindered by our pre-conceived notion that a camera should look like an slr. In the future, I'd anticipate this model to be broken.


 
Do you remember when digital cameras first hit the market? Manufacturers tried to differentiate digital cameras by the shape. After all, digital cameras were new technology and should have a distinctive design so that others knew that your camera was digital and you were cool! 
When they started producing digital cameras that looked like a traditional camera, and added that REAR LCD for instant gratification, sales really took off. It didn't take long for everyone to change their designs to look like a conventional film camera and have a rear LCD.

Maybe its time for a innovative shape, but who is going to bet their company on it? Of course, there are some for whom a camera body might be a fashion statement, but its questionable as to the size of that market.


Canon








Apple was one of the early ones!





Ricoh






Kodak


----------



## tolusina (Jan 23, 2014)

unfocused said:


> ...Sometimes Nikon and Canon remind me of that 50-year-old guy with a pony-tail and an earring cruising the bars trying to pick up 21-year-olds. ......


Here, let me offer a variation on that theme, a 50 year old that rides a fixie, may fail, and willingly, with the 21 year olds, succeeds just fine with 30 year olds.

Kai's article, however, reads like a guy just returned from a costume party and failed.
He seems to be carrying a grudge over Nikon's Pure Photography videos, I cannot figure why. Nikon's model is out in wild fields somewhere (English Moors?), contemplating his next shot. Kai routinely does the same in his videos except in the wilds of Hong Kong, Amsterdam or wherever. I think he's just jealous of Nikon's model.
The Df is cool, a D610 with a D4 sensor in a retro looking package for half the price of a D4. The next version will look better, the first isn't bad for a first retro effort. 

If the Df being cool needs explaining, you wouldn't understand.

I think Kai is being the fuddy duddy in this article.
---
Canon and Nikon DSLRs are fine machines, both up the state of the art incrementally with each new model. 
I heartily encourage those that are dissatisfied with the current rate of improvement to the state of the art to fully develop, manufacture and market a better product. While you are at it, it better be 100% PERFECT for EVERYONE at all times under all conditions. 
---
I do think it would be cool if Canon and Nikon were to develop and market competing mirrorless cameras that integrated a fully functional smart phone.
---
I do like Kai, generally, and enjoy watching most of his videos.
I'm especially fond of this one...........

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWgnkIq6bds


----------



## Niki (Jan 23, 2014)

in today's market things are moving very fast...


----------



## unfocused (Jan 23, 2014)

tolusina said:


> Nikon's model is out in wild fields somewhere (English Moors?), contemplating his next shot.



Sitting by a campfire in the middle of a field on a pitch black night. I'd love to see the card from his pure photography session.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 24, 2014)

Lichtgestalt said:


> honestly i don´t know why i should read or listen to that guy.
> he is as clueless about photography as the next guy on the street.
> 
> his "reviews" are useless... except for those who like the three stooges movies too.
> ...


That's ironic ... coz the *gist* of your post is: "his reviews are *useless*" and call everyone who watches his reviews as people "who like the three stooges movies" ... now, that you got your feelings off your chest with the above comments, could you please care to contribute something of substance as to what you think about the innovative mirrorless cameras vs the entry level dslrs. Thanks


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 24, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > In regard to...
> ...


Good point


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 24, 2014)

tolusina said:


> Canon and Nikon DSLRs are fine machines, both up the state of the art incrementally with each new model.
> I heartily encourage those that are dissatisfied with the current rate of improvement to the state of the art to fully develop, manufacture and market a better product.



Why, when Fujifilm, Panasonic, Olympus, Sony and even Samsung are doing such a great job.



tolusina said:


> While you are at it, it better be 100% PERFECT for EVERYONE at all times under all conditions.



Why this requirement, when both Canon and Nikon aren't.


----------



## tolusina (Jan 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > Canon and Nikon DSLRs are fine machines, both up the state of the art incrementally with each new model.
> ...


That requirement is for whiners that complain about the current state of affairs. As I posted, I wholeheartedly encourage such whiners to do a better job, their success, or lack of, can then be evaluated according to the volume, or lack of volume, of whining complaints regarding features, options, capabilities, ergonomics, image quality, DR, burst rate etc..
In other words, you want to First World Whine and Complain? Fine,go ahead, then put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise, STFU and learn to appreciate just how marvelous and capable modern cameras are.

To paraphrase Robert Capa who said;
"If your photographs aren't good enough, you're not close enough." 
tolusina says;
If your camera is not good enough for you, your wallet isn't empty enough, you need more gear.
---
As I recall, back in the days of film and manual focus regarding top line cameras, Nikon was pretty much tops, Canon a close second, Pentax a distant third. 
Somewhere along the line to the present, Canon and Nikon switched positions, Pentax lost the way.
There is enough distinct and superior about Canon's products that the marketplace, that'd be us, has put Canon on top, a position they've earned.
Even Scott Kelby has finally figured it out.
Nikon has some glass, yes.
But Nikon offshores a lot of its manufacturing, really just builds bodies and has some involvement in EXPEED development, then stuffs a Sony sensor inside and calls it good enough.
I just looked for the 'Made in' labels on my Nikon and Canon gear, here's what I found;
Two Nikon bodies and one lens Made in Thailand, one lens from China, one Speedlight made in Japan. A Nikon mount Tamron lens Made in Japan. 
One Canon body, two (identical) Speedlights, one lens, one flash remote all made in Japan, pancake 40 made in Malaysia.
Canon proudly offers a fairly complete, comprehensive and very competent system, they build where they live (mostly~).

You mention Fujifilm, Panasonic, Olympus, Sony and even Samsung, you forgot Pentax.
Seriously? None of them even begin to approach the market space that is Canon's, not even close. They are much more mass market devices, decidedly down market.
Whatever FF offerings there may be that attempt, or appear to attempt, entering the Canon defined market space, I've no interest in cobbling together those with various aftermarket goodies, then show up with a cobbled set to a high dollar wedding assignment, corporate client or studio portrait shoot.

Reminds me of the day I was at some scenic spot with my 6D, guy shooting with his phone tells me he can do anything with his phone that I can do with my 6D. Oh please, just stop. Same guy probably believes Earth is only 4K years old, just ignorant.

To answer Kai's question, remember? The topic of this thread?
Canon is very much on top of their game, at a peak of their prime. It's Canon's game. They've established the rules of the game and excel, Nikon puppies along behind. 

Fujifilm, Panasonic, Olympus, Sony and even Samsung, Mark Zuckerberg loves ya!

---
All that ^^ said, I'd still like to see Canon and Nikon come out with cameras that incorporate a fully integrated smart phone, I think there's a Samsung in that direction, an Android Galaxy Camera, doesn't look to be a phone though, not all that camera wise either.






.


----------



## Badger (Jan 24, 2014)

How about we take the sensor from the Sony A7R and slap it into an SLR body? 

At the end of the day, its all about ending up with the best picture possible but many of us are so comfortable with the SLR form factor that any other form, makes us uncomfortable. We also "look" less than professional if we show up with a "smallish" camera that looks like the same camera everyone else has


----------



## Woody (Jan 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> The insistence by Canon to slap IS into basically any new lens is proof of this assumption. This also means that they have been spending a lot of dinero on perfecting this technology, instead of simply binning it in favour of new ideas.



Does the latest and best mirrorless from Sony, the 36 MP A7R, come with in-body stabilisation? NO

Does the upcoming Sony 70-200 f/4 lens feature OSS? YES

So much for new ideas from Sony...


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 24, 2014)

tolusina said:


> tolusina says;
> If your camera is not good enough for you, your wallet isn't empty enough, you need more gear.



No, I want a camera that isn't still stuck in the 1990's.



tolusina said:


> As I recall, back in the days of film and manual focus regarding top line cameras, Nikon was pretty much tops, Canon a close second, Pentax a distant third.



Back when I started with photography, Canon was non-existent. It was all Asahi and Nikon. Oh, and Minolta.



tolusina said:


> Even Scott Kelby has finally figured it out.



Well, it sure took him long enough. Guess I'm smarter than him, because I switched to Canon nearly twenty years ago.



tolusina said:


> You mention Fujifilm, Panasonic, Olympus, Sony and even Samsung, you forgot Pentax.



No, I didn't. Pentax, just like Nikon and Canon, is still dicking around with the basic SLR design from the 1960's.



tolusina said:


> None of them even begin to approach the market space that is Canon's, not even close.



A study of biological mass extinctions shows that the larger animals are the ones who croak, not the little fellows. IMO, Canon and Nikon have reached the stage where they are so afraid of failure that they will actually fail due to inaction. Pentax is just stuck in tradition. (All are classic examples of the Peter Principle.)



tolusina said:


> Reminds me of the day I was at some scenic spot with my 6D, guy shooting with his phone tells me he can do anything with his phone that I can do with my 6D. Oh please, just stop.



Well, I know a few professional photographers with impressive cameras and lenses, who should rather start selling shoes or something.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 24, 2014)

Woody said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > The insistence by Canon to slap IS into basically any new lens is proof of this assumption. This also means that they have been spending a lot of dinero on perfecting this technology, instead of simply binning it in favour of new ideas.
> ...



With sensors doing ISO12800 easily and still increasing, why do we need IS in sub-100mm lenses? Just chase up the sensitivity. Huh?

As for Sony and "in-body stabilisation" ... well, maybe they didn't include it to keep the cost down. But, interestingly, Panasonic seems to be switching to an "in-body" system, as it works much better for video.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Pentax, just like Nikon and Canon, is still dicking around with the basic SLR design from the 1960's.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With all due respect (uh oh), a couple of things. Firstly, I've heard a fair bit of 'DSLRs are an old/dead/dead end/outdated design' talk. And no doubt for some purposes, they are inappropriate. But I've yet to see a better system proposed for some things (my pet area being long focal length wildlife photography). And while I suspect inertia has played a role in the relatively static nature of camera design recently, I also believe there must be good design reasons why DSLRs are still popular, with both designers and consumers. I look forward to seeing new designs if they are better, but I won't hold my breath.

And as for the mass extinction metaphor, oh dear. What relevance does the size vs survivability of species have to do with something entirely different, companies? I think this is a rather too laboured analogy to say anything. In any case, huge numbers of smaller organisms (wherever your size cutoff happens to be) died out in mass extinctions (and do so in regular extinctions). Most crinoids and brachiopods, and all trilobites and ammonites (some of which were large, but many of which were small) have gone extinct. In the human corporate world, it doesn't seem to me that smaller companies do better than large ones, either in terms of providing better products or services (both types do both), or surviving recessions (= mass extinctions?).


----------



## tolusina (Jan 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> …....No, I want a camera that isn't still stuck in the 1990's........
> 
> ….... Pentax, just like Nikon and Canon, is still dicking around with the basic SLR design from the 1960's.....


 
Well, there you go then, sounds like you are volunteering, you're it. You make it, whatever it is you want.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 24, 2014)

tolusina said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > …....No, I want a camera that isn't still stuck in the 1990's........
> ...



I have better things to do with my dinero. But I leave you with this ...

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident. - Arthur Scopenhauer (1788-1860)


----------



## Woody (Jan 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> With sensors doing ISO12800 easily and still increasing, why do we need IS in sub-100mm lenses? Just chase up the sensitivity. Huh?



Just because you see no value in adding IS to sub-100 mm lenses does not mean others have no use for it.



Sella174 said:


> As for Sony and "in-body stabilisation" ... well, maybe they didn't include it to keep the cost down.


Or maybe they do not know how to do it for a 36 MP FF sensor? Also the point of making 70-200 f/4 OSS is... ???


----------



## tolusina (Jan 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> I have better things to do with my dinero. But I leave you with this ...


And like most individuals, likely insufficient dinero and other necessary resources.
And when in this so common condition, one will experience much lower stress levels by accepting what one is unable to change.

There are at least a few upstarts making market share for themselves, Red and Blackmagic come to mind. They've grabbed the horns, dove right in.



Sella174 said:


> .....All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident. - Arthur Scopenhauer (1788-1860)...


Not sure how this is relevant to the current topic.
Are you agreeing with Kai somehow, that Canon and Nikon are past their prime?
How does that synch with the true fact that currently marketed cameras are the very best that has ever been? They have more and better everything and incrementally continue to improve with each new release.
Are you thinking, wishing, thinking consumers have some right to demand an entirely new paradigm?




.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 24, 2014)

Woody said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > With sensors doing ISO12800 easily and still increasing, why do we need IS in sub-100mm lenses? Just chase up the sensitivity. Huh?
> ...



Canon makes four 70-200mm lenses, an IS and a non-IS version of each. It gives the user a choice.

Canon is updating their non-L primes to IS versions only. No choice. The user pays for IS whether or not it is required. Why?



Woody said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > As for Sony and "in-body stabilisation" ... well, maybe they didn't include it to keep the cost down.
> ...



Possibly. Also, some form of IS is expected by the demographic Sony is targeting ... so possibly marketing?


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 24, 2014)

tolusina said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > I have better things to do with my dinero. But I leave you with this ...
> ...



In my chosen profession, which is not photography, I'm considered an "upstart" in the business. So that's where my dinero is going.



tolusina said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > .....All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident. - Arthur Scopenhauer (1788-1860)...
> ...



Quite relevant. For example, you're in stage two ... violently opposing a shift towards mirrorless.



tolusina said:


> How does that synch with the true fact that currently marketed cameras are the very best that has ever been? They have more and better everything and incrementally continue to improve with each new release.



Ever used a Canon EOS 3 film camera? If you have (which you'll probably admit, but I don't believe you), you'll know that when Canon went DSLR, everything went backwards at least 5 years.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 24, 2014)

tolusina said:


> Well, there you go then, sounds like you are volunteering, you're it. You make it, whatever it is you want.



Rules of the consumer market are other way round. 

I, the (potential) customer know, what I want. Very preciely, since I am an experienced customer. Any company able to build something meeting all or most of my expectations may show me what they got and nicely ask me whether I am willing to buy. 

So to get 'em camera makers going, here's what I want: 

a mirrorless interchangable lens camera
not bulkier or heavier than the Sony A7R 
clean, non "retro" styling and UI. 1 wheel front, 1 wheel back, 1 multifunction ring around lens mount, 1 locked mode dial, no top display, 1 shutter release, 1 on/off switch, 1 Back-AF button, 4 buttons top right for ISO, Drive Mode, Metering mode, AF-mode]
nice and strong mag-alloy body shell, IP 67 ingress-protected against dust and liquids
with a 36x24mm sensor and assorted electronic circuitry yielding
30+ MP and image quality at ISO up to 1600 as good as or better than Nikon D800 
IQ at ISO 3200-12800 as good as or better than EOS 6D
AF-performance, star-up, shot-to-shot-times and frame rate (6fps) at least as good as 5D III
an EVF that is one notch better in resoultion and lag than the one in Sony A7/R
fully working Eye Control Focus 2.0 - allowing control of hybrid PD/CD-AF system in EVF
100% mechanics-free, absolutely silent and totally vibration-free shutter
WiFi allowing full remote control and capture over iGadgets, Android-devices and other WiFI enabled gear
wireless RT radio flash commander built in including 2nd curtain sync and control over speedlite zoom reflector
pop-up fill flash built in
truly useful AF-assist light projecting near-infrared laser grid as found in Sony DSC F-808
GPS logger built in
fully articulated 300+ dpi 3+" touchscreen display at back, fully visible even in direct, strong sunlight
all liveview-controls and playback controls as context-aware soft keys on touch screen
menu system like 5D III
500+ shots with one battery charge
in-body-stabilizer working at least as good as Oly's OMD1's 
at a launch price of max. 2499 Euros [2999 USD]
plus chargeable options: full-HD video @ 500 USD 
4k 120fps video ... @5000 USD extra charge 
direct upload to facebook, flickr, twitter, instagram, Canon image gateway, NSA-cloud server ... @ 99 USD/monthly subscription charge .. per service
soundfile with mirrorslpa/shutter noise ... as low as 1,99 [meek and feeble EOS 1000D sound] up to 9,99 [1D-X or thunder-like Nikon F3 slap] - per download

plus a starting lineup of well-performing. small, light and affordable native short flange-distance lenses:
3 fix focals as small as possible, as good and as cheap as the existing EF 40/2.8: 
20mm/4.0
40mm/2.8
85mm/2.8
Plus one good, but also compact and reaonably priced walkaround standard zoom 24-70/4.0. 
and an EF lens adaptor letting me use my existing EF lenses without any compromise in functionality or IQ whatsoever
All of the new lenses AF-only, no manual focus gear, no manual focus ring, but with independently certified IP67-grade sealing.

Everything possible using today's technology. As soon as CaNikon are going to offer products like these, the ratio of mirrorless vs. DSLRs will turn around in a few years. And camera makers will be saved from extinction one more time, as 99.9% of serious photographers will upgrade from their fat old mirrorslappers of yesteryear to 21st century cameras. ;D 8)


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 24, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Rules of the consumer market are other way round.
> 
> I, the (potential) customer know, what I want. Very preciely, since I am an experienced customer. Any company able to build something meeting all or most of my expectations may show me what they got and nicely ask me whether I am willing to buy.
> 
> ...





You're list of mirrorless requirements gets longer and longer over time. By the time these requirements are satisfied, I'm sure you'll add more and berate SonCaNikon for not meeting them.

And no, not everything on that list is possible with today's technology, especially with battery technology being a limiting factor. There is nothing on the horizon that is better than Li-ion (size, weight, cost). It's basic chemistry. And yet, you want more processing power to handle more MP, a higher frame rate AND 500+ shots in the same envelope as a A7R?


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 24, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> So to get 'em camera makers going, here's what I want ...



If Canon brought THAT to market right now, I'd be buying my first camera in nearly five years. Hey, make that two of 'em babies. As it stands, based on the rumours, that upcoming Fujifilm X-T1 looks so inviting with its weather-sealed body.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > So to get 'em camera makers going, here's what I want ...
> ...


It does look pretty cool and if it's as quick & responsive as their touting, it should be an interesting camera. It's not exactly cheap, though.


----------



## Cinto (Jan 24, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/22/sugar-battery-green-powered-gadgets-three-years
New batteries types may be coming pretty soon.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 24, 2014)

Cinto said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/22/sugar-battery-green-powered-gadgets-three-years
> New batteries types may be coming pretty soon.



Interesting, but there is no way that it will be available in 3 years. When in college, I remember the rage was in using peizos as an way to generate bio-energy or using micro-engines to power laptops using gasoline. There was money in that type of research but those ideas have largely gone nowhere.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 24, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> photographers will upgrade from their fat old mirrorslappers of yesteryear to 21st century cameras. ;D 8)


That comment reminded me of this 2 year old video from Digitalrev (only from 4:52mins to 6:42mins) ... cheers.
Before, someone posts any hate/confrontational comments, please note that this is just for entertainment and NOT meant to bash DSLR cameras or sing glory songs about mirrorless cameras - coz each of them have their own place, time & purpose... peace. 
DSLR vs Mirrorless - which is better?


----------



## Woody (Jan 24, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Canon is updating their non-L primes to IS versions only. No choice. The user pays for IS whether or not it is required. Why?



(a) To save on design cost. (b) The old non-IS version remains available. (c) The new IS version is optically superior, has extra functionality and no weight penalty. So, why not?


----------



## tolusina (Jan 25, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > Well, there you go then, sounds like you are volunteering, you're it. You make it, whatever it is you want.
> ...




Oh, I know, I know. Kind of like, "Hey, where's my flying car already?"
I guess you're not buying a camera this year then.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 26, 2014)

Woody said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is updating their non-L primes to IS versions only. No choice. The user pays for IS whether or not it is required. Why?
> ...



(a) All those primes are pretty basic designs, which have mostly been perfected since the 1970's. If Canon can design the 200-400mm lens, then a 35mm f/2 is junior designer stuff. (b) AFAIK, the old "ugly ducklings" are discontinued. (c) The IS versions are optically superior to their respective predecessors, but see my reply (a).

"So why not?" Because Canon is "forcing" me to pay for features that I do not want ... I have no choice.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 26, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



Can't you just buy the old versions? They're still widely available, either new or secondhand. They're not forcing you to pay for anything if you don't buy the products you're complaining about.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 26, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Can't you just buy the old versions? They're still widely available, either new or secondhand. They're not forcing you to pay for anything if you don't buy the products you're complaining about.



Look at my gear-list ... 8)

My point is that I am a user of Canon gear, hence I will most probably buy more Canon gear. However, this will only happen if Canon produces what I require and not then try to load the price through (for me personally) unnecessary features as well. If Canon doesn't entice me into purchasing their new products, then it is less revenue for them. However, that's their problem (as well as that of their shareholders) and personally I don't care: my current gear suffices for now and other manufacturers are starting to make very enticing and quality offers for the wholesale clearing of my wallet.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 26, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Can't you just buy the old versions? They're still widely available, either new or secondhand. They're not forcing you to pay for anything if you don't buy the products you're complaining about.
> ...



Well... that's how most customer-business relationships work. They produce products, we buy them if they suit are needs or desires, or else we don't. I'm sure Canon thinks they have sound reasons for doing what they do, and any one person's requirements will never be met perfectly - it's not a bespoke service.

I personally welcome IS, and would happily see it in every lens if that were possible. You could look at it like film versus digital: non-IS lenses are older technology, and there's no reason a company should produce both older and newer forms. We don't expect Canon to produce new film cameras, so why non-IS versions of each lens? I'm sure people could be found who want both, but they have to look at the bigger picture.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> ...Canon is "forcing" me to pay for features that I do not want ... I have no choice.



Don't buy the lens. Or buy the non-IS version used. That's two choices right there...


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 26, 2014)

scyrene said:


> Well... that's how most customer-business relationships work. They produce products, we buy them if they suit are needs or desires, or else we don't. I'm sure Canon thinks they have sound reasons for doing what they do, and *any one person's requirements* will never be met perfectly - it's not a bespoke service.



Well, it depends on how influential that one person is in influencing the purchases of many others.



scyrene said:


> I personally welcome IS, and would happily see it in every lens if that were possible. You could look at it like film versus digital: non-IS lenses are older technology, and there's no reason a company should produce both older and newer forms. We don't expect Canon to produce new film cameras, so why non-IS versions of each lens?



Actually, I would have loved and gladly paid for the level of IS that Canon offers today, back when I was still shooting film. But, alas, IMO, IS, just like the ol' mirror-box, has in certain aspects been made redundant by digital sensor technology.



scyrene said:


> I'm sure people could be found who want both, but they have to look at the bigger picture.



Or either. Yes, I agree, Canon isn't looking at the bigger picture.



neuroanatomist said:


> Don't buy the lens. Or buy the non-IS version used. That's two choices right there...



Why should I settle for 25-year old lens designs if I want a non-IS version? But seriously, I have a third choice ...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 26, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don't buy the lens. Or buy the non-IS version used. That's two choices right there...
> ...


Buy the IS lens, turn off the IS and you have a newly designed non IS lens ... problem solved ;D


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 26, 2014)

Yes, it seems being forced into paying for features one doesn't need is the philosophy of the current consumer model.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 26, 2014)

I want a camera that does not have "green box mode". I don't use it. I don't want to pay the extra money for having it. Canon spent a lot of time and money developing "green box mode" and as far as my purposes go, it is a complete waste.

I don't care that 99 percent of Canon cameras are Rebels and I don't care that 95 percent of those cameras are used almost always in "green box mode". Those people are not real photographers and Canon should not cater to them. I want Canon to ignore the mass market that keeps the lights on at the factory and keeps the company profitable. I want them abandon their revenue base and all economies of scale and to produce exactly what I want and at a lower price.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 26, 2014)

Yes, sarcasm, OK.

How about a person purchases a first DSLR, for example a 700D with kit zoom. This person now wants to start exploring the wonderful world of primes, only to discover that, unless settling for basically 20-year old designs, the lenses (bar two) cost more than what was paid for the camera. The potential, world-class photographer never buys a prime, sticks to the kit zoom, discovers that an iPhone takes better pictures, and chucks DSLR photography completely.

In the end, who loses? Only Canon and its shareholders.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 26, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Yes, sarcasm, OK.
> 
> How about a person purchases a first DSLR, for example a 700D with kit zoom. This person now wants to start exploring the wonderful world of primes, only to discover that, unless settling for basically 25-year old designs, the lenses (bar one) cost more than what was paid for the camera. The potential, world-class photographer never buys a prime, sticks to the kit zoom, discovers that an iPhone takes better pictures, and chucks DSLR photography completely.
> 
> In the end, who loses? Canon.


In a lot of ways I agree with you.... As with most things, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. My best friend is an amazing photographer and has staggering ability. Lately, most of her shooting is with an iPad.... but when the conditions get challenging or that extra level of quality is needed, out comes the Canon and the L-glass. 

As to lenses, the quality of all the new lenses has been moving up. The IQ of these kit lenses is probably higher than that of expensive lenses of 20 years ago.... the quality of the new Lglass is staggering... Back in the days of film there was no such thing as a lens with all the lines of the MTF chart clustered at the top...

As to the big jump in price going up from kit lenses, that's where you get hit by a double whammy. The precision and materials are better and that costs more money. There is less demand for primes and Lglass than kit lenses, so economies of scale suffer... and that gives you a whopping price increase.

That said, Tamron just came out with a 150-600 which makes everything I just said wrong.....

Sigh.... there are no easy answers...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 26, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Yes, sarcasm, OK.
> 
> How about a person purchases a first DSLR, for example a 700D with kit zoom. This person now wants to start exploring the wonderful world of primes, only to discover that, unless settling for basically 20-year old designs, the lenses (bar two) cost more than what was paid for the camera. The potential, world-class photographer never buys a prime, sticks to the kit zoom, discovers that an iPhone takes better pictures, and chucks DSLR photography completely.
> 
> In the end, who loses? Only Canon and its shareholders.


Whaaaaat?  ???  ???  ??? ... I cannot believe you actually said:
_"The potential, world-class photographer never buys a prime, sticks to the kit zoom,* discovers that an iPhone takes better pictures, and chucks DSLR photography completely"*_*  ???  ???  ???

So now we are claiming that the "potential world class photographer" does not want to buy an older prime because there is no newer version without IS (even though the older version it a great lens) ... you seriously need to check out the magnificent images made with the older "cheap" prime lenses mounted on "cheap" Canon rebel cameras.*


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 26, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> ...



(a) You cannot buy what is not sold anymore, and not everyone is willing to buy used gear. (b) Why should someone settle for a 20-year old design from Canon, when others are offering up-to-date technology? (c) I'm not dishing the "ugly ducklings" - in fact, I constantly use two of 'em - but again point (b) is asked.

Question: Would you be happy using just that old, micro-motor 35mm on your 5DIII camera?


----------



## dak723 (Jan 26, 2014)

I can only speak for myself, but after having had an original Canon Digital Rebel for a decade, I was in the market for a new camera. I am not a pro, but a serious amateur that has sold a few photos in local summer festivals. I have not gone beyond 8" x 12" in size, so my 6MP rebel has been good enough for all these years. After renting a number of cameras, I decided on a 6D because of the potential to do large prints (up to 30" wide) for the place I work. Some things that I liked about it compared to my original rebel were the electronic level and the ability to save some custom settings. What I didn't like about it was the size and weight, the lesser zoom and lesser DOF than my crop sensor camera. But it is great for landscapes!

One of the cameras that I had rented was the new mirror-less Olympus EM-5, I liked the smaller size (especially when paired with the reasonably small 75-300mm zoom, 150-600mm equivalent). It also had a electronic level that could be always on - a definite advantage over the 6D's level. It also has the ability to save 4 custom menu settings and lots of other nice features and settings, including in-camera IS. While I didn't ultimately buy the EM-5, when the EM-1 came out, I bought that along with the 75-300mm zoom and their 14-54mm four thirds lens. 

I saw that Canon now has the always-on electronic level on the 70d, but I didn't think that was reason enough to purchase that camera as I was looking for something smaller and lighter than the 6D for my other camera. I looked at the SL-1, but as others have mentioned, Canon just won't put it's more advanced features into their lower end cameras. So, no electronic level or saved custom settings (as far as I can remember). Plus, a definite negative when it comes to Canon, in my opinion, is the lack of mid-level lenses. You seem to have basically cheaper kit lenses or extremely expensive L's. Those lenses are becoming even more expensive as Canon adds IS to their lens line-up. With the Olympus, I have in-camera IS and the lenses are comparatively cheaper because of that. 

In terms of IQ, when I rented the various cameras, there was little to differentiate them at the print sizes I am likely to use - aside from the FF 6D, which clearly had the advantage. The smaller sensor Olympus cameras - at least in my opinion - were the equal of the Canon crop sensors cameras. The Olympus lenses I have are not their highest pro-level, but their mid-level lenses, but, so far, the 14-54mm lens seem as good (if not better) than the Canon 24-105mm L. To buy a zoom lens longer than 300mm for Canon will break the bank and be far heavier than I would want. The small Olympus 75-300mm (150-600mm) has no real equivalent in Canon's world.

I have no idea how successful mirror-less cameras will be and how they will affect Canon and Nikon, and I really don't care too much as long as Canon and Olympus stay in business! But, for me, Olympus mirror-less proved to be a better alternative than the current lineup of Canon crop-sensor DSLRs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I want a camera that does not have "green box mode". I don't use it. I don't want to pay the extra money for having it. Canon spent a lot of time and money developing "green box mode" and as far as my purposes go, it is a complete waste.



Well, there is an easy solution to that problem – just buy a 1-series camera!


----------



## dolina (Jan 26, 2014)

People shouldnt fear change but embrace it. ;D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 27, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> (a) You cannot buy what is not sold anymore, and not everyone is willing to buy used gear. (b) Why should someone settle for a 20-year old design from Canon, when others are offering up-to-date technology? (c) I'm not dishing the "ugly ducklings" - in fact, I constantly use two of 'em - but again point (b) is asked.
> 
> Question: Would you be happy using just that old, micro-motor 35mm on your 5DIII camera?


*Answer: * If I cannot afford the newer lens, and can only afford the "micro-motor 35mm" on my 5DIII camera, yes! 

Also, if "others are offering up-to-date technology", it is not that difficult to switch without spending too much money ... I sold some of my Nikon gear to get a Sony a7, because Nikon and Canon were not offering a FF mirrorless camera. We make choices based on what is *important* to us, *if having a newer prime lens is very imporatnt to me, I will not make excuses about how the world is not fair (or how a certain company's decision to not make the lens I need has made me quit from being a "potential world class photographer"), instead I'll work hard and find a way to save enough money to afford the new lens*. We live in 2014, if there is one plentiful thing, the photography world has right now, it is choice.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jan 27, 2014)

I agree - nothing wrong with micro motors! I've still got two at home - a 100mm f/2.8 macro and the ubiquitous 50mm f/1.8. While the 50mm doesn't get much use any more, its still fine optically when not used wide open. The 100mm macro is an excellent lens and I don't think the current "L" version is much sharper (if at all?). The later macro lenses have some operational improvements, but the image quality of the initial lens is still as good as it gets.

By its nature, photography is very gear orientated, and its easy to believe the fallacy that "only the latest and greatest is good enough". But you'd be surprised how much good gear is already out there, and how cheaply some of it sells used. Lack of access to affordable, quality alternatives to new "L" lenses is perhaps the last thing holding back our potential world class photographer.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 27, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> We make choices based on what is *important* to us ...



Quite correct. However, the subject of this thread is whether or not Canon and/or Nikon are "past their prime". Personally, I have no qualms about emigrating to another manufacturer; however, a company such as Canon (and Nikon) should take note of why people are leaving. Remember, they want to sell their products to us, and with all the current and future choices from so many manufacturers, they'll be stupid not to be attentive as to our desires.

You mention selling your Nikon gear to purchase the Sony camera, right? Nikon should be saying to itself: "If we hadn't been sitting on our duffs, but instead made our own A7(r) camera - which, by the way, we have the technology to do, but lacking only the desire - this person would now have been buying MORE of our products, instead of selling them. We missed an opportunity and lost a verified, guaranteed, money-in-the-bank buyer."



Hillsilly said:


> By its nature, photography is very gear orientated, and its easy to believe the fallacy that "only the latest and greatest is good enough". But you'd be surprised how much good gear is already out there, and how cheaply some of it sells used. Lack of access to affordable, quality alternatives to new "L" lenses is perhaps the last thing holding back our potential world class photographer.



I agree that for photographers who have been in the Canon world for fifteen-plus years, the old micro-motor primes have proven themselves as good do-ers and most of these/us own a few of them. However, nobody who is now and today entering the Canon camp is - or should be - satisfied with "ancient" technology being passed of as sufficient, no matter how proven it is. This is basic consumer psychology.

The problem, which Canon has created for itself, IMO, is that they offer no clear and painless growth path for the budding photographer who is on a budget.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 27, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > We make choices based on what is *important* to us ...
> ...



FYI, I only sold "some" of my Nikon gear (to be precise, D7100+18-300, that too because I had bought them at a huge discount), I did not sell all of my Nikon gear. The only reason I sold it is because I like to buy new stuff that appeal to me and I could not afford to buy it without selling some of the gear that I already have ... definitely not because I think Canon or Nikon make inferior/old tech products. Canon & Nikon cannot and will not make business decisions/product announcements on every single person who buys a Sony or some other competitors product - that would just be plain stupid. Your whole point was about _new tech at cheaper rates else the potential world class photographer will end up using only iPhone, due to lack of choice and what not_ ... which fortunately is not the reality and is a pure figment of your imagination.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 27, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Your whole point was about _new tech at cheaper rates else the potential world class photographer will end up using only iPhone, due to lack of choice and what not_ ...



Not quite, but let's just leave it there.


----------



## jrista (Jan 31, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> The discussion on mirrorless is a great example of why the term slr is increasingly inappropriate. If you stuck a mirrorless mechanism in the 1dx, would it not be an slr? And, on the other hand, if you took the existing 1dx shutter mechanism and installed it into a rifle-shaped mount that had balancing weights to adjust for different lenses, would it not be an slr?



Um...the answer to both questions is: No! 

The 1D X is ONLY an SLR so long as it is an SLR: Single-Lens Reflex. That implies a very specific design with rather specific construction to support the notion that the camera is a single-lens reflex camera...a camera that reflects light from a single lens to the viewfinder, allowing the operator "through the lens" framing. Take away the mirror box, and no matter what you end up with, it will never be an SLR. It'll be something else. A mirrorless is called a mirrorless, or an ilc, because it quite simply is NOT an SLR, and never will be because it can't be.



[email protected] said:


> Great discussion. My personal opinion is that the slr market is severely hindered by our pre-conceived notion that a camera should look like an slr. In the future, I'd anticipate this model to be broken. Right now, some people think of it as a shutter mechanism, as the name implies. Most people think of it as the big "camera-shaped" hunk of metal and plastic that makes it look professional-ish. I don't think the shape is at all optimized, however, for taking pictures, except for the use of very small lenses.



As others have pointed out earlier in this thread, when digital SLRs first hit the market, they took on a variety of different forms and shapes. All of those shapes failed, and the DSLR took over.

Timeless designs don't become timeless for no reason. The basic SLR design has persisted for decades. Many, just as you are now, probably proclaimed just the same things when the film SLR was first phasing into the DSLR. Obviously some companies even tried to mix things up a bit. The the SLR design is timeless. The earliest forms of SLR came onto the scene, what, in the 1920's? That is about NINETY YEARS. That's a really long time for the same basic camera design to persist.

Why does it persist, though? I mean, as early as the late 30's/early 40's SLRs had taken on the form they still have today. The general concept of an interchangeable lens camera that allowed through the lens composition was solidified by the 40's at the latest. It persists today because it is the most convenient design. Your comment above, that "the model is broken", is either entirely naive, or simply baiting. Well, sorry for taking the bait, but the SLR design is the farthest thing from being broken. It persists because it is the best form people have found to assist them in serious photography.

Modern DSLR's, particularly from Canon, are highly ergonomic. Their shape fits the hand ideally. Their weight nicely balances against the average size of DSLR lenses. Their button placement allows for optimal efficiency when changing settings during operation, allowing for procedural memory to support operation without the operator ever taking their eye away from the viewfinder! The modern DSLR body is really the pinnacle of camera body design. It persists because it's the best. Not because it is broken. 

"Most people" aren't photographers. Most people don't really care about photography...they care about snapshots and visual chit-chat and instagram. The DSLR wasn't designed for most people. It was designed for photographers. So long as photographers persist, the DSLR will persist. It best solves the problem of critical photography for critical photographers. Perhaps someday someone will simply remove the mirror from the DSLR, and replace the pentaprism with an EVF...but will leave the general DSLR body design alone. I predict that the first company to do that will be the hero of the critical photographer (for a while). I predict Canon will do it best, and maintain their dominance in the market of providing critical equipment for critical photographers.

Everyone else? The snapshotters (and also the critical photographers who want something in addition to their DSLR...so basically everyone), will go with whatever is most convenient..._damn the quality_, _damn the capabilities_...they just want something that will snap photos and do instagram. Having 36mp and extensive DR doesn't mean squat to the snapshotter...they are going to obliterate all that such fancy technology has to offer anyway when they pass it through one of those (sorry, gotta say it) hideous filters for exhibition on instagram. 

Sony, as the original article that the OP quoted says, makes "cool technology", but has rather bland packages that they put that cool technology into. For a critical photographer, the technology is important, but the package is more important. The A7/r is an intriguing technological advancement...sensor wise and due to the fact that it's mirrorless...but it's package kinda sucks. Everyone, even Fred Miranda, has mentioned how it doesn't really handle AF all that well (even with Zeiss lenses), and that functionally it isn't on the same playing field as Canon and Nikon. And it's small. That might be nice if the most important thing for you is portability...but it would still be better if that amazing sensor was packaged in a better body. I'd take a Canon 5D III style DSLR body with a Sony Exmor in it every time over the A7/r. (Hell, I'll still take the 5D III with it's 22.3mp Canon sensor over the A7/r!) The bigger body is one of the things that makes the 5D III so appealing...it is an ergonomic masterpiece packed full of exceptional technology in addition to the sensor, built on nearly 90 years of refinement of the best camera body known to man.


----------



## moreorless (Feb 2, 2014)

unfocused said:


> I think the article raises some good points.
> 
> Sometimes Nikon and Canon remind me of that 50-year-old guy with a pony-tail and an earring cruising the bars trying to pick up 21-year-olds.



The trouble for Kai is though that the 50 year old guy is successful and loaded so gets all the girls whilst the 21 year old hipster goes home alone. ;D

To be honest the article and Kai's Df review to me are the point where I really lost interest in hearing him preach the mirrorless gospel, so much hypocrisy given his own comments about camera's like the Fuji's in the past. The reality is that outside of comedy video's he's pushing the same kind of agenda I could read from fan boys on any number of forums, "mirror bad" "mirrorless good".

I'd actually say the problem Sony have is that they seem to pay rather too much attension to the Kai's of this world who might be very vocal on the net but make up a very small part of the market. This viewpoint seems to fit far better into Sony's corporate focus as a whole to me, they've always pushed the boat technically but have also always been very "gadget" focused. The camera business is very different from a lot of other area's though as your dealing with users who expect products without serious flaws as well as continued support of systems.

The latest photography gadget might get more attention in the short term but it'll soon be forgotten when the next one is released whilst the 5D mark 3 will carry on selling.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 3, 2014)

moreorless said:


> The latest photography gadget might get more attention in the short term but it'll soon be forgotten when the next one is released whilst the 5D mark 3 will carry on selling.



Carburettors.


----------



## jrista (Feb 3, 2014)

moreorless said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I think the article raises some good points.
> ...



+10k!


----------



## tolusina (Feb 3, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Carburettors.


You spelled Carburetors wrong  ........

Carburetors and Twin Lens Reflex cameras have both seen their day and have long been supplanted by Fuel Injection and SLRs.
As Fuel Injection systems have incrementally improved and evolved to the point where current EFI systems bear little _apparently_ in common with the earliest systems, so have SLRs evolved into the almost magical DSLRs currently available.

In answer to Kai's question and the thread subject, "_Canon and Nikon - Past Their Prime?_ ", the answer is no, at least regarding the state of the art of top level imaging gear, DSLRs.

Sure enough, they are failing among the Facebook set. I do wish they'd step up in that lower end market so they will be able to continue to develop, produce and market ever more marvelous DSLRs.
---


moreorless said:


> The trouble for Kai is though that the 50 year old guy is successful and loaded so gets all the girls whilst the 21 year old hipster goes home alone. ;D .........


This ^^, and, in his own words, Fancy dress parties are hateful
Gee, so sorry Kai that you had such a lousy time at that fancy dress party that you felt the need to create such a poor analogy between dress parties and the imaging market.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 4, 2014)

tolusina said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Carburettors.
> ...



British English, aka Queen's English ...


----------



## Ivan Muller (Feb 4, 2014)

I wish Canon made a A7R equivalent. I wish they made an affordable 36+mp camera... But look at the numbers and the current economic climate and one will perhaps have a better understanding why they do what they do. Just look at Amazons top seller list and one will see what sells. Canon is not a small niche seller, because they just cant or wont, it doesn't really matter what the reason is, its just a fact...but the world is changing. I can now buy a Sony that will fit all my Canon lenses, I can buy a Sigma lens that is better and cheaper than a Canon...so whats there to complain about?

I just got a 6D last year and no matter what anyone says its a superb camera that gives fantastic image quality, handles well, and is relative small and affordable with tried and trusted ergonomics, image quality etc etc...just the camera I like using on paid assignments, with a wide variety very high quality lenses and accessories. It might not be as cute and daring as a A7R but I know it will bring home the bacon, just like the 5d2 did and my other ones before that...if we buy enough A7R's maybe they will change but in the meantime its not like I don't have choices right now...


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 4, 2014)

Ivan Muller said:


> But look at the numbers and the current economic climate and one will perhaps have a better understanding why they do what they do. Just look at Amazons top seller list and one will see what sells. Canon is not a small niche seller ...



Well, I can't really agree with you. The Olympus E-M1, Sony A7 and A7R, and the Fujifilm X's sell very well; plus the Fujifilm X-T1 and Olympus E-M10 are really climbing the pre-order ladder at Amazon; plus the upcoming Panasonic Lumix 4K camera is probably going to be the definitive video ILC camera for quite a while. It is also interesting to note that the top-selling DSLR on Amazon is the (old) EOS 600D (or Rebel T3i); not the 700D or 100D or 70D or 6D camera. I wonder why?

Niche products? Yes, well, unless Canon dominates the emerging mirrorless market now, they might find that their own mirrored products are the niche products of the future ... which, incidentally, their EOS 1DX camera already is, as has all their 1-series cameras always have been in the past.



Ivan Muller said:


> I can now buy a Sony that will fit all my Canon lenses.



Yip, this is the killer. From this point forward Canon can no longer rely on their excellent lenses to sell their cameras. The cameras must now sell themselves, alone. Plus, add to the mix what you said about Sigma lenses, which now places even more strain on the ability of the camera to sell itself to consumers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Ivan Muller said:
> 
> 
> > I can now buy a Sony that will fit all my Canon lenses.
> ...



Perhaps…if you assume that the Sony mirrorless bodies meet your needs outside of the sensor. Do they focus fast? Do they track moving subjects well? How's the battery life? 

I don't plan on using my 600mm f/4L IS II with a Sony a7R to shoot birds and wildlife anytime soon...


----------



## jrista (Feb 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Ivan Muller said:
> ...



Ditto.

Although, I might use my wide angle lenses to shoot landscapes with an A7r... It's the only really compelling option I see with that camera with Canon lenses. More resolution and more DR are the top two features that most affect IQ for landscape photography (well, maybe a TS lens is better, but thats the lens, not the sensor.) As much as I love Canon's high ISO performance and 600mm lens for wildlife and birds...I still want them to deliver a camera that will kick ass on the landscape front...and I'm still waiting...


----------



## moreorless (Feb 4, 2014)

Ivan Muller said:


> I wish Canon made a A7R equivalent. I wish they made an affordable 36+mp camera... But look at the numbers and the current economic climate and one will perhaps have a better understanding why they do what they do. Just look at Amazons top seller list and one will see what sells. *Canon is not a small niche seller, because they just cant or wont*, it doesn't really matter what the reason is, its just a fact...but the world is changing. I can now buy a Sony that will fit all my Canon lenses, I can buy a Sigma lens that is better and cheaper than a Canon...so whats there to complain about?
> 
> I just got a 6D last year and no matter what anyone says its a superb camera that gives fantastic image quality, handles well, and is relative small and affordable with tried and trusted ergonomics, image quality etc etc...just the camera I like using on paid assignments, with a wide variety very high quality lenses and accessories. It might not be as cute and daring as a A7R but I know it will bring home the bacon, just like the 5d2 did and my other ones before that...if we buy enough A7R's maybe they will change but in the meantime its not like I don't have choices right now...



This is a much more realistic debate rather than the typical gearhead hipster self delusion that his latest niche gadget purchase will make or break the photography industry.

Nikon and Canon do seem to have clearly diverged here over the last year. You could argue the G1X is a bit of a niche camera I spose but besides that Canon have as you say stuck to the big sellers were as Nikon have released the likes of the Df, the Coolpix A and the AW1.

These cameras are all definitely niche but I'd say there is an argument that niche sales are becoming more important in a saturated market. The issue is IMHO making sure that you don't invest too much in a niche product, when your building an entire camera system with multiple lenses and bodies it needs to be more than a niche seller to make a profit.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Ivan Muller said:
> ...





jrista said:


> Ditto.
> 
> Although, I might use my wide angle lenses to shoot landscapes with an A7r... It's the only really compelling option I see with that camera with Canon lenses. ...



Typical response from someone who only sees the present.


----------



## jrista (Feb 4, 2014)

Sella174 said:


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



But the A7r IS the "present". When the A8r comes along in "the future" with better AF or some such, we'll discuss the merits of that *then*, in the proper context.  Otherwise, it's all just speculation and hearsay, without any basis in fact.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2014)

jrista said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Typical response from someone who only sees the present.
> ...



+1

Besides, we all know "the future" is a fixed lens camera with ultrahigh resolution sensor and uber advanced image stabilization that shoots video with frame grabs for stills.

Canon showed us "the future" back in 2010, with their concept Wonder Camera.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 4, 2014)

Ivan Muller said:


> I wish Canon made a A7R equivalent. I wish they made an affordable 36+mp camera... But look at the numbers and the current economic climate and one will perhaps have a better understanding why they do what they do. Just look at Amazons top seller list and one will see what sells.



Products that don't exist, will (typically) not show in amazon's sales stats, correct? So by looking at those stats, we only get some information how well existing products sell, but do not glean any information on how new products may sell. 

But to speculate a bit, just imagine for a moment, there WAS a Canon FF mirrorless camera available for sale at amazon today. Same 36 MP sensor, same specs as Sony A7R, same price [USD 2298 / € 2069] ...  


now what sales rank would such a "Canon A7R" likely occupy in amazon's list? 
and if there was also a "Canon A7" FF sensor MILC @ USD 1698 ... what rank might that one be at 
better or lower than the Sony A7 and A7R 

Do you think, it would qualify as a "niche" prduct only selling in very small numbers? Or might it be a top 10 seller?  8)


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 4, 2014)

The funny thing about this is the perception issue:

Canon and nikon being the old men putting on a hip costume and saying some buzz words they heard on TV, Pretty Rad man. 

So what, Canon and nikon aren't the cool guys. If were going to personalize it like this, I'd say it like this --- if you want a good beer, you find the cool guy. If you want the sexy outfit, you find the cool girl shop. But if you want your taxes done, do you go to the 26 year old with a leather jacket and a motorcycle, or do you go see the 55 year old guy wearing a sweater vest and glasses????

LOL!! If you need a heart transplant, do you care if your doctor is cool and knows the hip buzzwords of the day, or, do you want a freaking surgeon! 

Being "cool' works for some professions, but, for my pro camera needs, I will take the praqgmatic financially conscious geeks!! thank you very much!


----------



## jrista (Feb 4, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Ivan Muller said:
> 
> 
> > I wish Canon made a A7R equivalent. I wish they made an affordable 36+mp camera... But look at the numbers and the current economic climate and one will perhaps have a better understanding why they do what they do. Just look at Amazons top seller list and one will see what sells.
> ...



I honestly think the answer to that question would depend on what OTHER features the camera ALSO offered. You only mention sensor capabilities. I think that is one of the great fallacies of camera fanatics today: They only ever look at the sensor.

The Canon 5D II and 5D III both have been exceptional sellers. The 5D II, at the time of it's release, had the worlds best DSLR sensor. However, I don't think that was the primary reason it sold...the primary reason it sold was it's integrated video capabilities. The 5D II MADE DSLR cinematography a reality on the grand scale it now exists today. THAT is what made the 5D II sell. The sensor was really just an added benefit, and secondarily it attracted a lot of landscape photographers. 

The 5D III brings to the table the best suite of DSLR features you can really find in a professional grade DSLR these days. Lots of megapixels, excellent AF, reasonably good frame rate, excellent IQ, wonderful ergonomics, quiet shooting that actually lives up to the name, etc. So, what happens if we have the option of adding the Exmor 36.3mp sensor to it as an alternative to the 22.3mp sensor? Does it sell better? Probably. Again, I think that would particularly attract landscape photographers, although there are already a whole hell of a lot of landscape photographers who already use it...so actual growth in sales from additional landscape photographers probably wouldn't be statistically significant. It might attract some studio photographers as well, however it's the same old debate...do studios generally prefer MFD these days? Maybe an uptick in sales for studios. But...it's already largely saturated in other markets. It already is one of the best wedding cameras money can buy. It's already used by wildlifers and bird photographers. It's already used by low-budget DSLR cinematographers. It's already used by almost everyone who demands the best quality and will only settle for FF except those who went with a D800, and except those on a very tight budget...where the 6D and 7D fill in.

I really don't see the 5D III gaining significant sales numbers if it suddenly had it's 22.3mp sensor swapped out for a 36.3mp sensor. If Canon were to suddenly offer a mirrorless high res, high DR camera with the same kinds of features and functionality of the 5D III, I think it would sell about as well as the 5D III...but because it was a COMPLETE solution with all the features and functionality people expect from Canon wrapped in an ergonomically exquisite package, not _just _a cool sensor wrapped in an "eh" package with "eh" features. 

There is more to cameras than the sensor. Canon knows this. THAT is why Canon sells more cameras than anyone else.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 4, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> The funny thing about this is the perception issue:
> 
> Canon and nikon being the old men putting on a hip costume and saying some buzz words they heard on TV, Pretty Rad man.
> 
> ...


Good one! Well said.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 4, 2014)

Badger said:


> How about we take the sensor from the Sony A7R and slap it into an SLR body?
> 
> At the end of the day, its all about ending up with the best picture possible but many of us are so comfortable with the SLR form factor that any other form, makes us uncomfortable. We also "look" less than professional if we show up with a "smallish" camera that looks like the same camera everyone else has



isn't that the d610 and d800????---

I firmly believe that once this whole, make it smaller thing is dropped then canon and nikon can do what i bet they actually want to do ---make a mirrorless option that fits with their current ecosystems of lenses ---. 

It's funny that many say slr's are dying, but what i see is a mirrorless market that has no identity. Oh we want to be smaller, but not really small, we want to be user friendly for all, but not really, we want to be as good as an slr but need 10 more years to make appropriate lenses, but dang it to do that we're making something the size of an A7, which isn't all that much smaller than an slr, snor does it really weigh significantly less than an slr, and once you toss the adaptor on there and use standard lenses, it's the same size and barely and less weight.

Even for travel, if i still have to have a camera bag and multiple lenses and batteries then how does that size factor really help? Eventually the market will figure this out and either drop the whole idea of mirrorless or, integrate into the existing ecosystem.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 4, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Badger said:
> 
> 
> > How about we take the sensor from the Sony A7R and slap it into an SLR body?
> ...


I partly agree with you, except for I've what I've marked in Red font ... to me those comments suggest that you have not used an a7 or the a7R with or without an adapter. I have been using a7+metabones adapter+EF primes for over a month now and I can tell you that *there is a significant weight and size difference between my 5D MK III and the a7 with the adapter*. One of the best things about the a7/a7R is how quick and accurately it focuses even with manual lenses, using focus peaking. I prefer Canon eco-system and the Sony a7/a7R only compliments it ... people who travel a lot and still like to carry some of their good lenses will understand and appreciate the size/weight advantage the Sony a7/a7R provides.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 4, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Badger said:
> ...



No, i have not used either of the new sony's yet as no one that I know of in my area has one! That and, i don't have 2k in disposable funds to try it out.

My travel analogy is still valid. Yes, your bag may be lighter, but, 1 body and 2 lenses is still going to take the bulk of your carry on luggage space (A7 plus batteries plus adaptor plus a 24-70 and a 70-200 for instance) That's the bottleneck if you ask me. In terms of space in my carry on, you can easily swap out the A7 for my 6d (while the 5d3 may be larger than the a7, the 6d is a lot closer!) and it leaves pretty close to the same footprint. 

My point is you still have 1 full bag dedicated to photography. that's the problem as i see it with mirrorless. for some that little bit of size and weight makes a difference, but to the masses - a compact camera with no interchangeable lens is always going to be smaller. A camera you can fit in your pocket and need nothing extra is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay smaller than anything that requires a bag to store extra stuff like lenses in. 

the only way i can relate this is if i consider my farily recent honeymoon and what gear I brought. I went pretty minimal - 6d, 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, and a flash, charger, batteries. Would the A& have really changed what I could fit in my bag? Not really.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> the only way i can relate this is if i consider my farily recent honeymoon and what gear I brought. I went pretty minimal - 6d, 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, and a flash, charger, batteries. Would the A7 have really changed what I could fit in my bag? Not really.



That, and after getting the camera and adapter, you'd have needed to buy a new flash for this 'compatible with Canon lenses' body. Oh, and you'd have needed to buy the Sony charger, too, because it's an optional accessory.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 4, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > [/color]
> ...



Specs readers will not understand the weight & size of A7 series and Fuji mirrorless. I have stopped discussing/debating with specs readers. It doesn't do any good for both parties. 

It's true that A7 series is not a pocketable camera, but it's SO MUCH smaller and lighter to walk around with. The BEST part being much smaller size camera is we don't look like a "photographer" on the street. Especially when you in another country.

For oversea travel, I'm good with just A7r + Zeiss FE 55mm + Zeiss FE 24-70 IS.

I understand you brother ....did I mention stay with native Zeiss FE lenses ;D

Photos below show Zeiss FE 55mm size Vs some of Canon popular primes and zoom. From left to right - 50L, zeiss 55mm, Canon 85L II and Canon 24-70 II. The weight is HUGE diff.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > the only way i can relate this is if i consider my farily recent honeymoon and what gear I brought. I went pretty minimal - 6d, 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, and a flash, charger, batteries. Would the A7 have really changed what I could fit in my bag? Not really.
> ...



I have plenty more space for that ;D ;D ;D

I'm following your footstep John. I'm working on my walk-in camera closet. 
Spot lights are installed, just waiting for glass door guys to install frameless doors. I will post some pictures when it done.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 5, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...


Congratulations on your recent honeymoon. 8)
Obviously, whatever "travel analogy" you feel "valid" is valid for your personal circumstances ... but it may or may not hold true for others. Also I was not talking about "compact cameras with no interchangeable lens" or the "masses", I am referring to a Full Frame mirror less camera with interchangeable lenses that makes a significant difference in weight, and occupies less space, for people like me who travel but still want to carry a camera that delivers the IQ equal to or better than a full frame DSLR in a light package.
Here are two images of how I carry the Sony a7 with Metabones adapter+EF 50 or EF 85 lens (or the native ZEISS FE 24-70 f/4 or Sony FE 28-70 lens) and a Sony flash+additional batteries, in a LowePro Rezo TLZ 10 bag hooked up to my waist, (without the flash of course) while I check-in at airports and no ones stopped me (did this twice already) ... my 5D MK III and a 50 or 85mm lens would NEVER fit in the same space and it would also weigh more. Is the a7 camera as versatile as my 5D MK III, obviously not ... but it has a specific purpose and it fulfills that specific purpose for people like me better than my 5D MK III.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > the only way i can relate this is if i consider my farily recent honeymoon and what gear I brought. I went pretty minimal - 6d, 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, and a flash, charger, batteries. Would the A7 have really changed what I could fit in my bag? Not really.
> ...


Ofcourse you have to buy a new flash if you want to use one, I don't know of any other full frame mirror less camera that can take Canon flash with full TTL (or equivalent) function. Yes, one has to buy the "Sony charger, too, because it's an optional accessory". But if I go with my 5D MK III (or even a 6D) + 24mm or 50mm or 85mm, I still need to carry a Canon flash (if I want to use one) + the battery charger ... so its not like the issue of space/weight (of flash+charger) suddenly appears for the a7/a7R and disappears for 6D or 5D cameras. 
The space/wight advantage is still with Sony a7/a7R (yet providing great image IQ) for those of us who travel with their camera gear as hand luggage on business or short trips and still want the full frame goodness. I fly very often on scheduled airlines for business trips and on choppers to our offshore rigs ... for people like me every inch of space saved is a great help ... when I fly on scheduled airlines I can hook up my Sony a7+metabones adapter+an EF prime lens (or the native ZEISS FE 24-70 f/4 lens) + 2 extra batteries to my waist (in a LowePro REZO TLZ 10) and no one at the airport stops me for carrying it (and I still get to carry my 5D MK III+16-35 f/2.8 L II+70-200 f/2.8 L IS II+2X extender+MBP+ chargers+HDD+2 trousers + 2 shirts in the hand luggage (which are used to wrap my camera gear ... essentially giving me 2 full frame camera bodies and the coverage from 16mm to 400mm zoom rage (with an additional prime lens like an EF 20/24/28/35/40/50/85 etc in the LowePro pouch) ... I recently did this twice in the last 10 days ... to Bahrain and Abu Dhabi, but without the 2x extender) ... but I cannot have the same luxury with my 5D MK III (or even a 6D), due to the bigger bulge (as one has to carry it in a bigger bag). Once again, can the a7/a7R do everything a 5D MK III can, of course not! and its not meant to.


----------



## moreorless (Feb 5, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Badger said:
> 
> 
> > How about we take the sensor from the Sony A7R and slap it into an SLR body?
> ...



The logical fallacy at the centre of a lot of this argument from the mirrorless size tends to be....

Mirrorless performance may one day equal DSLR performance = Everyone wants a small camera

The idea that mirrorless tech could be used for anything but size saving seems to have passed many people by.

What I think you need to consider as well is which format sizes are actually going to benefit more from a smaller flange distance. In this reguard ASPC seems much more obvious than FF to me, the overall smaller size of the lenses is the most obvious point but your also dealing with a format where DSLR's use a legacy flange distance that's longer than needed for ASPC mirrors and a smaller sensor that causes fewer problems with light angles.

I look at the Sony FE system relative to say the Fuji X system and specs wise it looks like Sony have had to trade away low light/dof performance in order to get lens size down and even then your generally looking at larger lenses. The 35mm F/2.8 is the only lens that makes the A7 really small and your actually losing performance relative to the Fuji 23mm 1.4 there.

Besides larger format lenses generally being larger I think the other problem for Sony is that digital has been shown to be far less forgiving than film when it comes to smaller flange distances on larger formats. Extreme light angles hitting digital sensors cause problems and the larger the sensor the more extreme the light angles become. Leica already had this problem with many lens designs and their flange distance is 10mm longer than Sony's. I look at the FE lens lineup and to me its notable how long they look relative to similar DSLR designs, I'm guessing the product of having to correct light angles. In seems to me that you could effectively just be trading shorter flange distance for longer lenses.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 5, 2014)

When I check-in at the airports this is how I carry my Sony a7+Metabones adapter+50 f/1.4mm (or 85 f/1.8) lens (or native 24-70)+2 extra batteries in the LowePro Rezo TLZ 10 ... I've done this in two round trips (i.e. 4 check-ins) without anyone stopping me.
Excuse the image composition/quality ... they are made with a mobile phone and in the first image I had to bend forwards to see what I was shooting (due to that angle, the LowePro pouch looks much bigger in this image) ... my first "selfie" posted on the internet :-[


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 5, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I firmly believe that once this whole, make it smaller thing is dropped then canon and nikon can do what i bet they actually want to do ---make a mirrorless option that fits with their current ecosystems of lenses ---.



Isn't that exactly what I've been saying all along, huh?



neuroanatomist said:


> That, and after getting the camera and adapter, you'd have needed to buy a new flash for this 'compatible with Canon lenses' body. Oh, and you'd have needed to buy the Sony charger, too, because it's an optional accessory.



It's called upselling; and is also exactly what I've been saying all along.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 5, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > I firmly believe that once this whole, make it smaller thing is dropped then canon and nikon can do what i bet they actually want to do ---make a mirrorless option that fits with their current ecosystems of lenses ---.
> ...


I would much rather buy a Canon/Nikon full frame mirror less that is equal or better than the Sony ... but until that day arrives, I'll play with the Sony a7 instead of waiting for CanNikon to come up with one. Meanwhile my EOS-M+2 lenses+adapter+flash and the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC have gone up on sale (hopefully, they will be sold before the end of this month) to make way for a Sony a7R to be used exclusively with the EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 5, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> ...



I see that the Metabones adapter is nearly the same length as the 50mm lens! Wow, that really indicates how much thinner the A7 is against EOS cameras. IMO, this also illustrates the wrong perception created by _only_ comparing the front view of the various cameras.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 5, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


The Metabones adapter is half the length of the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens ... here this will give you a better view:


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 5, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> The Metabones adapter is half the length of the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens ...



Wow, that is a lot of camera that's not there anymore!


----------



## Ruined (Feb 5, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



Why are you comparing the Zeiss FE 55mm f/1.8 to the much faster Canon 50mm f/1.2L? If anything, you should compare it to the Canon f/1.8 which is actually significantly smaller than the Zeiss f/1.8.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 5, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> I would much rather buy a Canon/Nikon full frame mirror less that is equal or better than the Sony ... but until that day arrives, I'll play with the Sony a7 instead of waiting for CanNikon to come up with one.



Really like your pictures that show nicely, "why and how SMALL SIZE does matter"  and sharing your purchasing decisions and your reasons behind them. Plus real-life experience using the gear. Thanks! 8)

Personally, I'll probably sit on the fence somehwat longer until "MY really right" FF-MILC comes along. If that happens to be too far out ... well, then I might just wait until the A7R PLUS SonyZeiss 24-70 becomes available where I live. ;D


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 5, 2014)

moreorless said:


> The logical fallacy at the centre of a lot of this argument from the mirrorless size tends to be....
> Mirrorless performance may one day equal DSLR performance = Everyone wants a small camera
> The idea that mirrorless tech could be used for anything but size saving seems to have passed many people by.
> 
> ...



* angle of incident light (short flange distanze, lage sensor) - yes it is a problem. Yes, it can be solved, as Leica has demonstrated. Can it be solved for 10mm less flange distance, at far lower cost (than Leica) and still giving excellent image quality - I believe(!) yes, and I believe (!) it will be proven soon enough 

* Once Mirrorless cameras will finally be "really right", i.e. "solid state" with no moving parts whatsoever inside [=no mechanical, but global electronic shutter] will have a LOT of advantages over (D)SLRs beyond bulk and weight. Here are the ones I am interested in:


*100% vibration-free operation* = benefits to image quality, especially "when it counts" = in challenging capture situations 

*100% silent operation* possible = ability to get any images or the images you really want in many capture situations e.g. concerts, churches, theaters, candids 
*flash X-sync down to 1/8000s* ... or whatever shortest exposure time will be = images possible, that are currently totally unthinkable 
*higher image quality* - no misalignment of optical axis and sensor/focus plane possible - provided lens mount is solid and precise
*lmore bang for the buck* - significantly fewer parts, no moving parts = significantly lower cost to makers, due to easier assembly, precision-alignment, quality control = lower prices for cameras possible (!)
*higher reliability* = no more mechanical defects possible, only electronic issues = significantly less failure in use, significantly shorter repair-turnarounds ... just swap out a circuit board, finished. No re-alignment of components required 
much *faster cameras* possible ... fps as high as we want them possible - only limited by procssing power and bandwidth - and those follow Moore's law, so we'll have plenty, very soon  
*better information at time of image capture* - thanks to EVFs - which will continue to fast-evolve from "just acceptable in early 2014" to "absolutely mind-boggling" in the near future

And I am sure, we are still missing a few. 


* Relative lens size 
does NOT scale 1:1 linear with sensor format! Not on SLRs. Not on MILCs.
Yes, 1" < mFT < APS-C < FF lenses. But with "really right" designs, the difference is rather small (ceteris paribus). 
And beyond approx. 135mm physical focal length there is NO difference, since only the size of the entry pupil dictates size of the lens at the the end of the day. As evidenced by existing tele-lenses (mFT, FT, APS-C) and by the fact, that longer tele-lenses are not made for smaller than 135 ("FF") image circle. 

That's why I expect some APS-C mirrorless systems to be around for a few more years, until everything gives way to FF. Anybody "really into" photography - whether professionally or as an enthusist/amateur - will get FF MILCs [sized very compact or as large and heavy as a current pro-DSLR for those who prefer "large and heavy"], everybody else only interested in "snapping a few" will use their mobile devices ... which will get better and better IQ in extremely small form factors [think Google glass ]. The middle-ground will disappear. But again, thats only my expectation, no fact (yet).


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 5, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Really like your pictures that show nicely, "why and how SMALL SIZE does matter"  and sharing your purchasing decisions and your reasons behind them. Plus real-life experience using the gear. Thanks! 8)
> 
> Personally, I'll probably sit on the fence somehwat longer until "MY really right" FF-MILC comes along. If that happens to be too far out ... well, then I might just wait until the A7R PLUS SonyZeiss 24-70 becomes available where I live. ;D


Thanks for the kinds words AvTvM ... personally, I trust Canon more than any other company for my camera gear and would really like to buy a FF mirror less if and when they do release one.
Anyway, in my earlier image I noticed that the 50mm f/1.4 lens's barrel was slightly extended, also the lens cap and the B+W Xs-Pro filter was on it ... so here are two images one with the barrel fully retracted (when lens focuses at infinity) and one with the barrel fully extended (when the lens focuses at its minimum distance) ... also the lens cap and the filter are removed ... I think this gives a better picture of the Metabones adapter's length in comparison to the EF 50mm f/1.4. 
You will also notice that my composition/arrangement skills are vastly improved from my previous image ;D
Peace


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 5, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> ... personally, I trust Canon more than any other company for my camera gear and would really like to buy a FF mirror less if and when they do release one.



Exactly! Which is the reason why we keep moaning about mirrorless on a dedicated Canon forum.

Anyhow, so the 50mm f/1.4 performs adequately on the A7 with the adapter? This is very significant, because it provides a nice stepping-stone until one purchases the Zeiss 55mm lens ... semi-painless transition to another brand, depending on how much Sony has built their line-up of lenses by the time Canon releases an A7R equivalent camera.

Mmmmm ... I cannot but wonder if Sony hasn't been "funding" the Metabones adapter for just this purpose.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 5, 2014)

Ruined said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



I wasn't comparing, just to show Zeiss FE 55mm real life size for those interested.

PS. those are the only small lenses I have in my Canon bag, unless you want to see Zeiss FE 55mm stands next to Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II and Canon 400mm f2.8 IS II ;D


----------



## MLfan3 (Feb 5, 2014)

I hate him but I have to admit in this case he is right , spot on nailed it extremely well.


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 5, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> ... unless you want to see Zeiss FE 55mm stands next to Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II and Canon 400mm f2.8 IS II ;D



Please, please, please, with sugar on top?????


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 5, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > ... personally, I trust Canon more than any other company for my camera gear and would really like to buy a FF mirror less if and when they do release one.
> ...


+1



Sella174 said:


> Anyhow, so the 50mm f/1.4 performs adequately on the A7 with the adapter?


The IQ of EF 50mm f/1.4 (with the Metabones adapter on the a7), is just as good, if not better, as when its mounted on my 5D MK III ... but it does not auto focus ... however, the focus peaking on the a7 makes focusing very quick ... I am not a person who likes manual focusing or manual lenses but after having used focus peaking on a7, I just love it ... it is incredible how fast you can actually focus *accurately*! 



Sella174 said:


> Mmmmm ... I cannot but wonder if Sony hasn't been "funding" the Metabones adapter for just this purpose.


Ha ha ha ;D ;D ;D ... I don't know if they are "funding" them but Sony does give away the Metabones adapter (of your mount choice) for *free* in Australia with every purchase of the a7 or the a7R (at least that was the offer when I was there a month ago).


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 5, 2014)

MLfan3 said:


> I hate him but I have to admit in this case he is right , spot on nailed it extremely well.


 ;D ;D ;D ... I know he can be annoying but hate is a bit too strong ;D ... for me watching Kai's vids are more for entertainment and for a little of the unusual stuff that does not get covered by the other reviewers.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 5, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...


Those are some awesome prime lenses you got there. Unfortunately, I've always been a lazy photographer, so pretty much stick with zoom lenses and never got into using prime lenses much (with the exception of the 100 L IS macro lens), the 3 small primes (40 / 50 & 85) that I have always been used more as "back-up" lenses ... but recently I got hooked to the focus peaking function in Sony a7, now I'm hooked to primes ... in fact, I am quite seriously considering to get the EF 14mm f/2.8 L II lens to go with an a7R that I plan on getting in the next month or so ... but I am torn between that setup and a Sony NEX6 (crop framed mirrorless camera) + 10-18mm f/4 lens ... my thought behind that consideration is to have a small size camera permanently mounted with an Ultra wide angle lens + the a7 with 24-70 f/4 lens (arriving on Sunday) + 5D MK III with 70-200 f/2.8 L II & EF 2x III extender ... that kind of setup (with a reach of 12mm to 400m) makes my travelling a lot more simple and I don't have to think about which lens to carry and which one to leave behind etc etc ... choices! choices! choices! the more you have the more difficult it gets :-\ :-\ :-\


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 5, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> + the a7 with 24-70 f/4 lens (arriving on Sunday)



oh, excellent! please let us know how well (or not) it performs, once you had a chance to put it through its paces. IQ, AF, etc. - plus size-comparison pic vs. EF 50/1.4 that most of us are familiar with ... maybe in a separate thread, to make it easier to find. Thanks! 8)


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 5, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Rienzphotoz said:
> ...



I rented Canon 14mm II, it's very nice lens. Keep in mind, there is no screw-on filter :-\ otherwise, you would see this lens under my signature.

I have Zeiss FE 24-70 f4 on pre-order as well. I believe shipment in US got delay until late Feb.

Enjoy your toys and let us know how you like it. My A7R will arrive this friday. I will post some photos with Zeiss FE 55mm 

Below is one of few photos I took with A7 + Zeiss 55mm @ f1.8. straight out from camera, Zero edit, only resize to post here.


----------



## moreorless (Feb 6, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> * angle of incident light (short flange distanze, lage sensor) - yes it is a problem. Yes, it can be solved, as Leica has demonstrated. Can it be solved for 10mm less flange distance, at far lower cost (than Leica) and still giving excellent image quality - I believe(!) yes, and I believe (!) it will be proven soon enough



Ultimately Leica solved the problem by redesigning lenses, this generally ment making them larger, I'd guess either having a less recessed rear element or a more telecentric design. Bare in mind of course that your not just talking expensive lenses with Leica(the cheaper Zeiss M lenses are generally larger) but also lenses that do not have to deal with AF and in camera aperture control. Just look at the difference between the Nikon 50mm 1.2 and the Canon 50mm 1.2 to see the difference just AF can make.



> * Once Mirrorless cameras will finally be "really right", i.e. "solid state" with no moving parts whatsoever inside [=no mechanical, but global electronic shutter] will have a LOT of advantages over (D)SLRs beyond bulk and weight. Here are the ones I am interested in:
> 
> 
> *100% vibration-free operation* = benefits to image quality, especially "when it counts" = in challenging capture situations
> ...



You seem to be doing exactly what I said in my post, listing many possible advantages of mirrorless in the future and then putting that towards the idea that everyone wants a very small body. 



> * Relative lens size
> does NOT scale 1:1 linear with sensor format! Not on SLRs. Not on MILCs.
> Yes, 1" < mFT < APS-C < FF lenses. *But with "really right" designs*, the difference is rather small (ceteris paribus).
> And beyond approx. 135mm physical focal length there is NO difference, since only the size of the entry pupil dictates size of the lens at the the end of the day. As evidenced by existing tele-lenses (mFT, FT, APS-C) and by the fact, that longer tele-lenses are not made for smaller than 135 ("FF") image circle.



My guess is that lens size saving will be harder to achieve in FF not only because light angles become more of a factor but because more effort has already been put into downsizing FF designs. You look at a lot of the recent L updates and shaving size/weight has been part of it because your talking about lenses large enough to unbalance even FF bodies. ASPC and 43 DSLR's didn't ever really have this pressure, the higher end models are generally not far off FF bodies in size so balance was likely far less of an issue with their design.

Looking specifically at m43 and 43 I view the switch from DSLR to mirror less as actually less important than the switch in emphasis of lens design. Oly's 43 DSLR's really weren't designed at all to be size savers and instead looked to pack more performance into lenses a similar size to larger formats in order to equal them.



> That's why I expect some APS-C mirrorless systems to be around for a few more years, until everything gives way to FF. Anybody "really into" photography - whether professionally or as an enthusist/amateur - will get FF MILCs [sized very compact or as large and heavy as a current pro-DSLR for those who prefer "large and heavy"], everybody else only interested in "snapping a few" will use their mobile devices ... which will get better and better IQ in extremely small form factors [think Google glass ]. The middle-ground will disappear. But again, thats only my expectation, no fact (yet).



Not sure I see that happening anytime soon, I think FF will become a larger part of companies profits as the lower end of the market is squeezed harder for price but ASPC will likely remain the larger market. The difference in sensor price becoming insignificant still seems along way away and you'd still be left with the difference in lens size/price.

You look at Reinz vacation setup for example, just a 50mm and 85mm lens is not something I see most people who are "really into" photography being happy with. Personally I'd want coverage at least from 16mm-200mm and possible longer depending on where I was visiting, likely some of it fast.

With the setup I look to La Palma a few weeks ago for example my D800 was only a small part of the weight, Nikon 16-35mm VR, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Nikon 80-200mm, Nikon 50mm 1.8. That's roughly 2.5 kg in lenses(not to mention the tripod and filters) that I wouldn't expect to be any smaller with a mirrorless system which most of them wouldn't balance on well anyway.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 6, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I rented Canon 14mm II, it's very nice lens. Keep in mind, there is no screw-on filter :-\ otherwise, you would see this lens under my signature.


Yeah, the "no filter" issue is what makes my decision very hard to make ... I have history of wrecking one lens and very nearly destroying the front element of my EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II lens, (you can see the damage at the top of that lens in the below image ... thankfully the B+W XS-Pro filter saved it) ... I move, in a lot of confined areas on our offshore rigs and the risk of getting the front element is high ... if I buy the $2500 EF 14mm f/2.8 L II lens, I'm pretty sure I'll keep it at home when I go on our rigs ... but with the 10-18mm f/4 lens, (which is also image stabilized) with a filter on, I'd feel a lot more confident + on the a7/a7R it works as 12-16mm full frame lens. But for the sake of having a dedicated & small body for the 10-18mm f/4 I am considering the NEX 6 or a5000 ... again the darned choices make the selection process a bit difficult 



Dylan777 said:


> Below is one of few photos I took with A7 + Zeiss 55mm @ f1.8. straight out from camera, Zero edit, only resize to post here.


Cool 8) ... I take it that the cute model is your daughter?


----------



## Sella174 (Feb 6, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> I have history of wrecking one lens and very nearly destroying the front element of my EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II lens, ... I move, in a lot of confined areas on our offshore rigs and the risk of getting the front element is high ...



Just a silly comparison ... http://camerasize.com/compact/#312.20,521.31,ha,t


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 6, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > I have history of wrecking one lens and very nearly destroying the front element of my EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II lens, ... I move, in a lot of confined areas on our offshore rigs and the risk of getting the front element is high ...
> ...


Interesting ... by the way, that 7-14mm f/4 lens is supposed to be very good ... I heard a lot of good things about that lens ... but its kind of ironic that such a small lens has such a long name i.e. Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f/4 Asph


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 6, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Cool 8) ... I take it that the cute model is your daughter?



Yes...that is my 5yrs  Very active - ballet, indoor swimming, painting and piano. My wife and I are quite busy with the kids in the weekend.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 6, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Cool 8) ... I take it that the cute model is your daughter?
> ...


Impressive 8) 8) 8)


----------

