# Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 30, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/07/canon-to-make-a-big-splash-at-photokina-cr2/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/07/canon-to-make-a-big-splash-at-photokina-cr2/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>*UPDATE*

</strong>The something “big” teaser from Canon India turns out to be a photo contest. <a href="https://www.facebook.com/canonindia/photos/p.798948450135433/798948450135433/?type=1&theater" target="_blank">See it here</a>.</p>
<p>We’re told there are tons of new DSLR products coming for Photokina this September. The announcement for the new stuff should happen on September 4th or 5th, depending on where you are in the world. Our source has mentioned a DSLR body as well as a host of lenses for various budgets.</p>
<p><strong>What will be announced?

</strong>First up, the successor to the EOS 7D will be announced. We’re told that there’s “a lot of the 1D X” in the new camera. As well as some revolutionary sensor technology.</p>
<p><strong>What about lenses?

</strong>We’re getting more confirmations that the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS will be replaced by a new version with a rotating zoom instead of the push/pull design that the lens currently uses. It looks like <a href="https://www.facebook.com/canonindia/photos/a.131759853520966.14154.128718407158444/797938930236385/?type=1&theater" target="_blank">Canon India is teasing a new “big” lens</a> on their Facebook page.</p>
<p>The following lenses I’d rate as [CR1], as they’re the first time I’ve heard about them for Photokina this year.</p>
<p>We’re told that at least one EF-S lens is possible, most likely a replacement to the EF-S 18-200. The lens could be replaced with an 18-300 IS STM.</p>
<p>Another lens we’re told to expect is targeted at the EOS 6D user. It will be a “cheaper version of the 28-300L” lens. Canon is lacking a big range non L zoom for full frame cameras.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 30, 2014)

Will the EF-S lens have weather sealing? I'm concerned about it getting water inside from the 'big splash'. I believe we'll see a 7DII. Nothing other than a bona fide Canon press release will make me believe in an updated 100-400L. 8)


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 30, 2014)

Look forward to: 1D X II + 100-400


----------



## traveller (Jul 30, 2014)

If they were talking about a camera, why would they state "Get your _camera_ ready"? My guess -a new online photo sharing service


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 30, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Look forward to: 1D X II + 100-400



I'm looking forward to people selling off their 1dx for pennies on the dollar... so yeah, bring in the 1dx mkii


----------



## SwampYankee (Jul 30, 2014)

The single most interesting thing is going to be the sensor in the new camera. I want to know if Canon is going to compete with Sony or keep putting lipstick on their current sensor technology. This will help me decide where my future camera dollars are going to be spent.


----------



## eric_ykchan (Jul 30, 2014)

Maybe a white 7D XD


----------



## Etienne (Jul 30, 2014)

A lot of 1Dx in the 7DII ... Interesting!

This is exciting and worrying .. if it's too good, I might have to open my wallet ... again :-\
or maybe put the 5DIII up for sale.


----------



## rajivsubs (Jul 30, 2014)

traveller said:


> If they were talking about a camera, why would they state "Get your _camera_ ready"? My guess -a new online photo sharing service



I think it means Get your camera ready, so that you can to sell it and upgrade to the 7D MKII.


----------



## Maui5150 (Jul 30, 2014)

SHOCKED... Surely the T6i must be looking on the Horizon...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 30, 2014)

traveller said:


> If they were talking about a camera, why would they state "Get your _camera_ ready"? My guess -a new online photo sharing service



They are hinting at a new big lens. It might be a new 100-400L. 

My existing one is not up for sale - Yet


----------



## RGF (Jul 30, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Look forward to: 1D X II + 100-400


+100


----------



## RGF (Jul 30, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> The single most interesting thing is going to be the sensor in the new camera. I want to know if Canon is going to compete with Sony or keep putting lipstick on their current sensor technology. This will help me decide where my future camera dollars are going to be spent.



I hear you brother. No new sensor and I buy a Sony A7R


----------



## sanj (Jul 30, 2014)

traveller said:


> If they were talking about a camera, why would they state "Get your _camera_ ready"? My guess -a new online photo sharing service



You have a point!


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 30, 2014)

sanj said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > If they were talking about a camera, why would they state "Get your _camera_ ready"? My guess -a new online photo sharing service
> ...



How about "get your camera ready ... for a new lens"???


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 30, 2014)

Bring ... it ... on. 8)


----------



## Marauder (Jul 30, 2014)

The more "1DX" they put into the 7D Mark II, the more I will like it! 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 30, 2014)

Two years ago, I was salivating for a new 100-400L. Now, I'm not sure I'll buy one even if it comes out. I recently sold my 100-400 due to lack of use. The 70-300L delivers excellent IQ and is a very convenient size for travel. When I need a longer focal length, I use the 600/4L IS II. 

But, I hope Canon releases a new 100-400L - when the current was my primary birding lens, I was very happy with it.



Marauder said:


> The more "1DX" they put into the 7D Mark II, the more I will like it! 8)



What if most of what the 1D X they put in the 7DII is retail cost?


----------



## TrabimanUK (Jul 30, 2014)

But how big? Will I need my 10-22 to take a phot of it or will my 24-70 suffice?


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 30, 2014)

Marauder said:


> The more "1DX" they put into the 7D Mark II, the more I will like it! 8)



I want it to have both more and less than the 1Dx.


More video performance (dual pixel, hybrid viewfinder) and a better sensor per unit of area.
Less size and weight (no integrated grip), much less cost.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Two years ago, I was salivating for a new 100-400L. Now, I'm not sure I'll buy one even if it comes out. I recently sold my 100-400 due to lack of use. The 70-300L delivers excellent IQ and is a very convenient size for travel. When I need a longer focal length, I use the 600/4L IS II.
> 
> But, I hope Canon releases a new 100-400L - when the current was my primary birding lens, I was very happy with it.
> 
> ...


Ah Neuro.... you can be evil 

I expect the camera to be somewhere in the $2500 range.... so yes, I do expect that a bit of the 1DX price will be included


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> I expect the camera to be somewhere in the $2500 range.... so yes, I do expect that a bit of the 1DX price will be included



I expect to buy it for under $2,000, even if that's not until 2015.


----------



## dgatwood (Jul 30, 2014)

rajivsubs said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > If they were talking about a camera, why would they state "Get your _camera_ ready"? My guess -a new online photo sharing service
> ...



I think you mean the Canon 0D MF camera. After all, the 7Dmk2 won't be big.


----------



## quod (Jul 30, 2014)

RGF said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > The single most interesting thing is going to be the sensor in the new camera. I want to know if Canon is going to compete with Sony or keep putting lipstick on their current sensor technology. This will help me decide where my future camera dollars are going to be spent.
> ...


Yep, me too.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 30, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Look forward to: 1D X II + 100-400
> ...



Don't expect dollar for pennies. It's 1d series.


----------



## NancyP (Jul 30, 2014)

Hey neuroanatomist, do you handhold your 600mm f/4 L II IS? 
I am looking forward to the unveiling of the 7D2, not so much to the new 100-400, as I shoot with the 400 f/5.6L "toy lens" - handheld of course. I love the portability. I don't see myself shooting with the 1DX anytime soon, so if the 7D2 gets an AF algorithm or two from the 1DX, I will be happy. I moved up from the 9 point, no adjustment 60D to the 11 point, some minimal adjustment 6D (a waste, I tend to manual focus all my landscapes and macros). I am really curious about the "new sensor". I do hope that the 7D2 is a big improvement over the 7D.


----------



## Sabaki (Jul 30, 2014)

It's a 37mm Extension Tube. Mark 1


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 30, 2014)

RGF said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > The single most interesting thing is going to be the sensor in the new camera. I want to know if Canon is going to compete with Sony or keep putting lipstick on their current sensor technology. This will help me decide where my future camera dollars are going to be spent.
> ...



Post of the day right there. So good. Thank you.

I love this forum.

- A


----------



## dgatwood (Jul 30, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> It's a 37mm Extension Tube. Mark 1



It's a *waterproof* 37mm extension tube. Mark 1. That way it can make a big splash at Photokina... well, a little splash, anyway.


----------



## tron (Jul 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Two years ago, I was salivating for a new 100-400L. Now, I'm not sure I'll buy one even if it comes out. I recently sold my 100-400 due to lack of use. The 70-300L delivers excellent IQ and is a very convenient size for travel. When I need a longer focal length, I use the 600/4L IS II.
> 
> But, I hope Canon releases a new 100-400L - when the current was my primary birding lens, I was very happy with it.
> 
> ...


 ;D ;D ;D Now, I believe they can also increase the fps a little (say 9 or 10) and use a similar to 1Dx AF system. I believe they will use dual digic just like in their 7D so this is doable. 
If the 7D2 will indeed include a revolutionary sensor then I guess it will be a very high quality ... teleconverter itself


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 30, 2014)

NancyP said:


> Hey neuroanatomist, do you handhold your 600mm f/4 L II IS?



Reasonably often, yes. I walk/hike with the lens carried on a BR strap, and shoot as I walk. I usually have a monopod clipped to my belt, so if I'm going to be stationary for a while I'll use that to support the lens. That sort of thing is primarily spring/summer/fall. In winter, when I'm shooting raptors, I usually pick a spot and set up the tripod and gimbal head.


----------



## Marauder (Jul 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Two years ago, I was salivating for a new 100-400L. Now, I'm not sure I'll buy one even if it comes out. I recently sold my 100-400 due to lack of use. The 70-300L delivers excellent IQ and is a very convenient size for travel. When I need a longer focal length, I use the 600/4L IS II.
> 
> But, I hope Canon releases a new 100-400L - when the current was my primary birding lens, I was very happy with it.
> 
> ...



LOL Then I'll be checking Kijiji for a second hand 1D IV or 5D Mark III!!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 30, 2014)

I wonder if the new sensor technology is a cropping function like that of Nikon.

A reasonably sized 28-300 makes sense. 

I almost hope the 100-400 will not be updated so I have an excuse to save up for a 300mm f/2.8 ???


----------



## bcflood (Jul 30, 2014)

Does Canon usually announce entry-level products at Photokina? I'm curious if they will be bringing out a more competitive Rebel to counter the recent entry-level Nikon refreshes. 

I am excited about hearing what a new 7D II would bring.


----------



## crashpc (Jul 30, 2014)

Get your cam ready to get sold.... Nah! And I thought I'll be the first and original...


----------



## emko (Jul 30, 2014)

bcflood said:


> Does Canon usually announce entry-level products at Photokina? I'm curious if they will be bringing out a more competitive Rebel to counter the recent entry-level Nikon refreshes.
> 
> I am excited about hearing what a new 7D II would bring.



I am excited too i want to see what they do with the 7D II and hopefully it is something revolutionary and gets pushed to the FF cameras like the 5d4.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 30, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> I wonder if the new sensor technology is a cropping function like that of Nikon.



Nikon DX lenses have the same flange distance as non-DX lenses, so they can be mounted on FX bodies without the mirror ever hitting the lens. This is why the crop mode works just fine on FX bodies.

EF-S lenses, or at least some of them, have a shorter flange distance than EF lenses. Therefore mounting EF-S lenses on FF bodies would be safe if either the mirror is locked up prior to mounting the lens and making the camera work like a mirrorless, or disabling the camera if it wasn't. I don't see that happening.


----------



## ewg963 (Jul 30, 2014)

Marauder said:


> The more "1DX" they put into the 7D Mark II, the more I will like it! 8)


+10000000000000000000000000


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 30, 2014)

emko said:


> bcflood said:
> 
> 
> > Does Canon usually announce entry-level products at Photokina? I'm curious if they will be bringing out a more competitive Rebel to counter the recent entry-level Nikon refreshes.
> ...



Yes, but this doesn't preclude EF lenses being 'cropped'. Would be nice as a type of digital TC. However knowing Canon's marketing policies, it's almost definitely not going to happen.


----------



## Marauder (Jul 30, 2014)

ewg963 said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > The more "1DX" they put into the 7D Mark II, the more I will like it! 8)
> ...



;D


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 30, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> emko said:
> 
> 
> > bcflood said:
> ...



I'm always lost with crop-mode on Nikon FX to DX. Unless you want to shave your RAW file size (cough D800 cough), why crop in-camera like that? Why not crop in post?

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 30, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Yes, but this doesn't preclude EF lenses being 'cropped'. Would be nice as a type of digital TC. However knowing Canon's marketing policies, it's almost definitely not going to happen.



A 'digital TC'? Nope. Canon has very nice optical TCs they'll happily sell you for a few hundred bucks. It's likely Canon will put f/8 AF into the 7DII, the better to induce people to buy a TC to go with their 100-400L...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 30, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> The single most interesting thing is going to be the sensor in the new camera. I want to know if Canon is going to compete with Sony or keep putting lipstick on their current sensor technology. This will help me decide where my future camera dollars are going to be spent.



Yes, although I will give them until the 3D/5D4 next year, just in case they don't quite go full IQ hog for the 7D2.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 30, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Two years ago, I was salivating for a new 100-400L. Now, I'm not sure I'll buy one even if it comes out. I recently sold my 100-400 due to lack of use. The 70-300L delivers excellent IQ and is a very convenient size for travel. When I need a longer focal length, I use the 600/4L IS II.
> ...



I can be more evil.
It will be a 70D with the "EOS 70D" emblem replaced with "EOS $3500USD" on the bodies ;D.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 30, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Yes, but this doesn't preclude EF lenses being 'cropped'. Would be nice as a type of digital TC.



A digital TC is an increase in pixel density, not a crop. However, the 7D replacement will almost certainly be a "digital TC" compared to the 1DX - maybe as much as a 2x.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 30, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> I wonder if the new sensor technology is a cropping function like that of Nikon.



They need a crop function in their full frame not in their APS-C as much (although there could be some use since some wildlife is way, way out there). That would scarcely be revolutionary sensor tech though! It's trivial, they could do it now if they wanted to with beyond ease with any body they have out if they wrote the firmware for it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 30, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if the new sensor technology is a cropping function like that of Nikon.
> ...



WHy not? The main point of the cropping is not to use DX lenses but to get more processing throughput and use up less storage when shooting distance limited stuff.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 30, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > emko said:
> ...



Note that D800 goes from 4fps FF to 6fps crop mode. Less pixels to push equals the same CPUs and all can drive more fps. And as well, did you notice how much less storage space an APS-C cropped D800 RAW takes than a FF D800 file? If you are shooting distant wildlife and such why do you need to store all that dumb wasted boundary pixel stuff?? It stuffs up HDs, makes backing up take longer, fills up CF cards faster, clogs up the camera's buffer more quickly and makes it flush less quickly.

So:
saves you money and time and clutter of having more HD around
gives you better camera buffer performance
potentially gives you more fps

they all sound like excellent and legit reasons to me


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 30, 2014)

1600mm f/2.8 EF-S

first


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 30, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I'm always lost with crop-mode on Nikon FX to DX. Unless you want to shave your RAW file size (cough D800 cough), why crop in-camera like that? Why not crop in post?
> ...



Great answer, thanks. I didn't think about buffer/framerate.

- A


----------



## slclick (Jul 30, 2014)

I love my current gear lineup but I know I have issues with g.a.s. so deep down I'm hoping there will not be anything on the horizon that piques my interest.However, thinking selflessly, for the rest of you lunkheads, I hope Santa brings you everything you asked for.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 30, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Great answer, thanks. I didn't think about buffer/framerate.



Buffer, frame rate, and file sizes are all good reasons for an in-camera crop on high-pixel-count bodies, even if they are crop bodies already. Extra "magnification" or "reach" are not valid reasons.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 30, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if the new sensor technology is a cropping function like that of Nikon.
> ...



I was suggesting it would be a croppable full-frame camera


----------



## Etienne (Jul 30, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > emko said:
> ...



In Camera cropping is necessary for video, so you don't lose resolution if you want a tighter shot.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > traveller said:
> ...



Looking at the teaser... new 50mm?


----------



## bcflood (Jul 30, 2014)

slclick said:


> I love my current gear lineup but I know I have issues with g.a.s. so deep down I'm hoping there will not be anything on the horizon that piques my interest.However, thinking selflessly, for the rest of you lunkheads, I hope Santa brings you everything you asked for.



Thanks, but Santa would have to get a second job to fulfill all my wishes ;D


----------



## surapon (Jul 30, 2014)

Dear Friends :
"“a lot of the 1D X” in the new camera 7D MK II. "---Money/ Cost = $3500 US Dollars= in 7D MK II ???
Surapon


----------



## candyman (Jul 30, 2014)

Something BIG...sure....


A 800mm f/5.6 IS USM with built-in 1.4 TC ;D


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Great answer, thanks. I didn't think about buffer/framerate.
> ...



+1


----------



## dgatwood (Jul 30, 2014)

Antono Refa said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if the new sensor technology is a cropping function like that of Nikon.
> ...



To be pedantic, the flange distance is the same, but the lens sticks out farther beyond the flange. A FF mirror box design could work around it, but it would be somewhat more complex.


----------



## Old Sarge (Jul 30, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but this doesn't preclude EF lenses being 'cropped'. Would be nice as a type of digital TC. However knowing Canon's marketing policies, it's almost definitely not going to happen.
> ...


Which would really please me a lot.


----------



## JonAustin (Jul 30, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> If you are shooting distant wildlife and such why do you need to store all that dumb wasted boundary pixel stuff?? It stuffs up HDs, makes backing up take longer, fills up CF cards faster, clogs up the camera's buffer more quickly and makes it flush less quickly.



I would love a crop function on my 5DIII. Most of the time, I shoot in mRAW (10mp). I only switch to full RAW (22mp) when I lack the reach I need, and then crop in post. But I would _much_ rather have the ability to crop in-camera, rather than waste all the storage space (both in-camera and after transfer).

On the lens front, I'm eager for the 100-400 II, and hopeful that its reviews will be along the lines of the excellent new 16-35/4IS. It would make an excellent companion to my 24-105 when hiking. (I'm on my 2nd 24-105, and a refresh would be welcome there, as well!) If the 100-400 II isn't announced, or if its reviews fall short, I'll just get a 1.4x III for my 70-200 II, live with the shorter reach, and continue to crop in post.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 30, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> I would love a crop function on my 5DIII. Most of the time, I shoot in mRAW (10mp). I only switch to full RAW (22mp) when I lack the reach I need, and then crop in post. But I would _much_ rather have the ability to crop in-camera, rather than waste all the storage space (both in-camera and after transfer).



+1


----------



## slclick (Jul 30, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> JonAustin said:
> 
> 
> > I would love a crop function on my 5DIII. Most of the time, I shoot in mRAW (10mp). I only switch to full RAW (22mp) when I lack the reach I need, and then crop in post. But I would _much_ rather have the ability to crop in-camera, rather than waste all the storage space (both in-camera and after transfer).
> ...



I really cannot imagine shooting in anything other than full RAW. Maybe I'm different than some because I do print large on occasion but I'd rather carry cards than switch modes during a shoot. I now wait to be schooled by those who tell me I'm missing the point. I can take it.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Jul 30, 2014)

It should be the 100-400L since "BIG" is written in red... So no EF-S or non-L-6D-targeted lens...


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 30, 2014)

slclick said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > JonAustin said:
> ...



The biggest I've printed is 80x120cm on canvas, and that was from 10 mp. I'm really happy with the results.

Coming from a 40D I've never felt the need for more megapixels so I've stuck to that resolution. 99.99% of my photo's get viewed on a monitor anyway and for that purpose I even process my raws to jpg's with 1920 pixels long edge which is fine.

I must note that I almost never crop, and if I do that on occasion it will be only minor edge crops to remove a disturbing feature on the edge. If the composition isn't right without cropping, the whole photo gets binned.


----------



## docsmith (Jul 30, 2014)

I know all the speculation is for the 100-400L, but, if I am going to think BIG.... EF 800 mm f/5.6

Just sayin'

I've been thinking about it, and my kit has been updated to the point where I think I'll only be interested in the 100-400 II if it works very well with the 1.4 tc or if the IQ/AF/IS are just outstanding. But the 2x tc with the 70-200 ii has become my travel combination and the 70-200 II has become my short telephoto lens. As a result, I only use the 100-400L for local birding trips (@ 400 mm). A new lens would have to be good enough to expand that niche to justify the expected cost differential.


----------



## Sabaki (Jul 30, 2014)

BIG...1kg 12/14-24 f/2.8...she's a BIG gal???


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 30, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



Hopefully that is spring 2015.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 30, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Great answer, thanks. I didn't think about buffer/framerate.
> ...



Actually that brings up a good counter point though, for video, it actually DOES offer extra reach/mag as valid reasons as well. That is something it's about time they did well for video mode. 

Although for still it doesn't.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 30, 2014)

slclick said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > JonAustin said:
> ...



You are missing the point. The point here is some distant wildlife or whanot and where you don't care about the frame borders and would always cut them off before printing or whatnot anyway.

For other stuff I always shoot full RAW and don't bother with sRAW/mRAW which are not 100% true RAW anyway.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 30, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> If the composition isn't right without cropping, the whole photo gets binned.



Wow really? A lot of scenes don't look best at 3:2 or 2:3 though and what if it does look best at those ratios but you just didn't or were not able to frame tight enough, even the most amazing shot is junked?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 30, 2014)

docsmith said:


> I know all the speculation is for the 100-400L, but, if I am going to think BIG.... EF 800 mm f/5.6
> 
> Just sayin'
> 
> I've been thinking about it, and my kit has been updated to the point where I think I'll only be interested in the 100-400 II if it works very well with the 1.4 tc or if the IQ/AF/IS are just outstanding. But the 2x tc with the 70-200 ii has become my travel combination and the 70-200 II has become my short telephoto lens. As a result, I only use the 100-400L for local birding trips (@ 400 mm). A new lens would have to be good enough to expand that niche to justify the expected cost differential.



I doubt it since they made it sound somewhat more like a lens for everyone.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 30, 2014)

slclick said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > JonAustin said:
> ...



The point is, keeping 20MB per image of nothing but blue sky is wasteful. It's common for me to be shooting at 640mm-equivalent (400mm on 1.6-crop) and still need to crop 2x or more (meaning, 3/4 or more of the pixels are not part of the final image). I'd rather save the space and have a deeper raw buffer. In fact, I shoot JPEG in these cases largely because of buffer limitations.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 30, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> I must note that I almost never crop, and if I do that on occasion it will be only minor edge crops to remove a disturbing feature on the edge. If the composition isn't right without cropping, the whole photo gets binned.



You must shoot a lot of very slow or stationary subjects. It's simply impossible to reliably and accurately frame many of the subjects I shoot, which are often moving as fast as 60 degrees per second relative to me. Shooting those with a 3 degree total field of view, it's hard enough just to keep them in the frame much less to make sure they are perfectly framed.

Essentially, I crop every image I shoot, at least a little.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 30, 2014)

28-300mm non L for the 6D ? Really ?

Much prefer a 20-135mm or 24-200mm, keep it under £500 and I might even buy one ;-)


----------



## Cariboucoach (Jul 30, 2014)

For a year I've eyed the 28-300L because of the convenience of the range, but the $2500 is too much. I can find them used for less but what I want to know is the IQ really up to L standards?

I suppose the other option is getting a 24-70 and a 70-300. If I go that route, the question becomes which 24-70. Tamron f/2.8, the Canon f/4, or a used Canon f/2.8, which are all in the same ballpark price wise.

BUT... if they come out with a good and less expensive 28-300 I would probably go that way.


----------



## docsmith (Jul 30, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > I know all the speculation is for the 100-400L, but, if I am going to think BIG.... EF 800 mm f/5.6
> ...



Good point....but maybe Canon is just hoping that everyone will shell out $14k for a lens ;D


----------



## NancyP (Jul 30, 2014)

Thanks, neuroanatomist, from the bottom of my cingulate gyrus....


----------



## Joes Dad (Jul 31, 2014)

Just guessing here - but something "Big" I think means big megapixel. That is why the 1D is shown but the place for the "X" or "insert letter here" is shadowed. If it was a 7D, it wouldn't make sense to show the 1D in the teaser.


----------



## pwp (Jul 31, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> The single most interesting thing is going to be the sensor in the new camera.


Absolutely...

The rest of the 7D2 feature set is fairly predictable, but new sensor tech is truly something that would make me sit up and take notice.

-pw


----------



## MichaelHodges (Jul 31, 2014)

Looking forward to the new lens reveal. When I see "big" I'm assuming a wildlife lens.

-------------

http://michaelhodgesfiction.com/


----------



## JonAustin (Jul 31, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I really cannot imagine shooting in anything other than full RAW. Maybe I'm different than some because I do print large on occasion but I'd rather carry cards than switch modes during a shoot. I now wait to be schooled by those who tell me I'm missing the point. I can take it.
> ...



The point for me is that I've never printed larger than 13x19", and the 5DIII's mRAW resolution of 3960x2640 is enough to output at more than 17x26", assuming 150 ppi. If I ever needed / wanted to output larger than that, I could change to full RAW almost instantaneously at the flip of a switch.

I don't know about sRAW and mRAW not being "100% true RAW," I just know that they open in LR & PS like any other RAW files I've used. I realize that there is downsampling going on inside the camera before the image is written to sRAW or mRAW format, and I've tried without success to research the downsampling algorithm, or identify any attendant detrimental aspects.


----------



## JonAustin (Jul 31, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> I must note that I almost never crop, and if I do that on occasion it will be only minor edge crops to remove a disturbing feature on the edge. If the composition isn't right without cropping, the whole photo gets binned.



Then you're either much better at composition that I am, or you must toss a lot of images! Even with the 5DIII's superimposed grid lines (which I always have turned on), I'm constantly rotating images slightly in post to correct horizons, etc. And I almost always crop at least a bit for optimum composition. 

Perhaps it's the non-destructive tools in LR that have "encouraged" me to work in this fashion. But my style of shooting is to concentrate on focus, depth of field and exposure, and then to "capture the moment," knowing that I can easily adjust for the other stuff in post.

_[Below: one of my luckier shots, moment capturing-wise, after rotating & cropping!]_


----------



## dsut4392 (Jul 31, 2014)

Haydn1971 said:


> 28-300mm non L for the 6D ? Really ?
> 
> Much prefer a 20-135mm or 24-200mm, keep it under £500 and I might even buy one ;-)



L or non-L, just make it _smaller_, that's of equal importance to making it cheaper.

Both of your suggestions sound nice in themselves, but are missing the point of a lens like this: a one (or two) lens travel kit with reach.

The current kit options I see as realistic to cover the bases for travel all need three lenses:
(wide prime or 16-35 or 17-40) + 24-70 + 70-300
(wide prime or 16-35 or 17-40) + 24-105 + 100-400

With a 28-300 that isn't an absurdly heavy and obscenely expensive beast, a two lens kit becomes realistic:
(wide prime or 16-35 or 17-40) + 28-300

20-135 would be a different sort of lens altogether and is too close to 24-105 to make a marketing case for it in addition to the current lineup. As a replacement for 24-105L it would be a great general purpose walk-about lens, but it doesn't solve the problem (for me) of making my travel kit smaller.

24-200 is certainly something I would consider, if they get the size, IQ and price right. I used to be happy with a maximum of 200mm back in the film days. But in the current day and age, with only 200 at the long end they would likely lose much of the target market because to get the reach we have come to expect, we would need to add another long lens (e.g. 300/4= weight, $$). 
Similarly with only 24 at the wide end, many people (like me) would still want wider and would be buying this as something to pair with the 16-35/4. So giving up some at the wide end in exchange for more reach makes sense IMO. Having that much overlap with a 16-35 would needlessly add size, complication and cost while likely reducing IQ.


----------



## HaroldC3 (Jul 31, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> The single most interesting thing is going to be the sensor in the new camera. I want to know if Canon is going to compete with Sony or keep putting lipstick on their current sensor technology.



Yep and we'll see if it's not evolutionary like the 70D sensor.


----------



## Cheryll (Jul 31, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> </strong>First up, the successor to the EOS 7D will be announced. We’re told that there’s “a lot of the 1D X” in the new camera. As well as some revolutionary sensor technology.</p>
> <p><strong>What about lenses?



The EOS 7D is not interesting for me. I wondering you told not the 5Dmk4 announced at 4 Sept. How longer we must wait for this camera?

To the question- yes Canon can make a big splash. Can! but we have not one detail from this new super sensor. We need first specs from the performance from this sensor and second pictures preferably in difficult situations as low light (noise and low light performance) and frontlighting (DR performance).


----------



## Harry Muff (Jul 31, 2014)

Whenever a country that isn't Japan makes a bold statement like this, it turns out to be something crap like a special white edition camera or something.













Just the cheap artwork alone makes me think this is a big nothing. Wait for Canon Japan to fire up their marketing department before getting too excited.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 31, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> The point for me is that I've never printed larger than 13x19", and the 5DIII's mRAW resolution of 3960x2640 is enough to output at more than 17x26", assuming 150 ppi. If I ever needed / wanted to output larger than that, I could change to full RAW almost instantaneously at the flip of a switch.



I don't like to print less than 300PPI.
And prefer even 540PPI if I can get it.




> I don't know about sRAW and mRAW not being "100% true RAW," I just know that they open in LR & PS like any other RAW files I've used. I realize that there is downsampling going on inside the camera before the image is written to sRAW or mRAW format, and I've tried without success to research the downsampling algorithm, or identify any attendant detrimental aspects.



They already been de-Bayered into a weird format with some info even beyond just resolution lost and you are stuck with their quick and dirty de-bayer and scale.


----------



## nicku (Jul 31, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> <div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><glusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/07/canon-to-make-a-big-splash-at-photokina-cr2/"></glusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/07/canon-to-make-a-big-splash-at-photokina-cr2/">Tweet</a></div>
> <p>We’re told there are tons of new DSLR products coming for Photokina this September. The announcement for the new stuff should happen on September 4th or 5th, depending on where you are in the world. Our source has mentioned a DSLR body as well as a host of lenses for various budgets.</p>
> <p><strong>What will be announced?
> 
> ...



more like APS-H 1D....


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jul 31, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > If the composition isn't right without cropping, the whole photo gets binned.
> ...



It's one of the limitations I've set myself, and it's a risk I'm willing to live with. On the subject of limitations, I think it's good to have some - it improves my photography (one reason why I'm increasingly preferring prime lenses).




Lee Jay said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > I must note that I almost never crop, and if I do that on occasion it will be only minor edge crops to remove a disturbing feature on the edge. If the composition isn't right without cropping, the whole photo gets binned.
> ...



I do a lot of motorsports. Almost none of these are cropped:

http://www.mrsfotografie.nl/auto-motorsport/


----------



## Efka76 (Jul 31, 2014)

I really do not expect from Canon something super new or super mega new technology  Take a look back to history: I remember all big expectations related to 6D. There were many wishlists but in reality Canon produced significantly crippled FF camera, which AF does not even match old 7D 

Now I really expect that after 5 years Canon will launch 7DII, which will have 70D sensor, slightly more megapixels (expect 24 MP), slightly higher FPS, GPS and WiFi. That's it  Do not expect significant revolutions in sensor. If there were such revolutions, there would be a leak of information already. For example, Sony announced curved sensor technology, which will be implemented in their future models.

Canon made revolution few years ago. Currently it is a stagnant company, which still focuses significant aattention to dying P&S market. Product cycle for semi-pro and pro products is very long and shows that Canon does not sufficiently invest in R&D as other companies. Canon started loosing in the following areas:

1) Mirrorless market - they loose to Fuji, Olympus, Sony;
2) Sensor technology - loosing to Sony;
3) Lenses - starting to loose to Sigma and Tamron as these 2 companies started producing high quality lenses, which match or in some cases exceed qulity of Canon lenses (e.g. Sigma 50 mm 1.4 Art, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC) for affordable price.

From financial perspective Canon is doing quite OK, even better than other companies, as they still have big loyal customer base, however, in technology companies if you loose momentum you can loos all business very soon.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jul 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nothing other than a bona fide Canon press release will make me believe in an updated 100-400L. 8)



The new Tammy 150-600 might put more pressure on Canon to come up with a new 100-400, which is good news for Canon users. Besides better AF performance of the native Canon system in action shooting and a wider 100 mm starting focal length which some may prefer, it is hard to find any other good argument to prefer Canon's telezoom over Tamron's. The Sigma x- 500 mm "Bigma" zooms weren't so far a real alternative for those who are serious about quality (not so stellar IQ on the tele end, aperture drops to f=6.3 minimum already at about 200 mm) but the Tamron obviously changes the game in this market segment. People complain how hard it is to get a copy, Tamron seems to be a bit surprised by the huge demand for this lens.


----------



## jonjt (Jul 31, 2014)

Efka76 said:


> I really do not expect from Canon something super new or super mega new technology  Take a look back to history: I remember all big expectations related to 6D. There were many wishlists but in reality Canon produced significantly crippled FF camera, which AF does not even match old 7D
> 
> Now I really expect that after 5 years Canon will launch 7DII, which will have 70D sensor, slightly more megapixels (expect 24 MP), slightly higher FPS, GPS and WiFi. That's it  Do not expect significant revolutions in sensor. If there were such revolutions, there would be a leak of information already. For example, Sony announced curved sensor technology, which will be implemented in their future models.
> 
> ...



I definitely think it's reasonable to expect a major improvement in sensor performance, for all the reasons you specified. Their architecture is old and they are getting beat by a bunch of other manufacturers. Members here have detailed Canon's deficits while also detailing the changes Canon _could_ make to improve their sensors. 

Canon has to at least match their competitors if they are going to stay relevant over the next 5 years. I'm interested to see what this 7DII brings, if only to see what the 5DIV be able to provide.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jul 31, 2014)

Efka76 said:


> Canon started loosing in the following areas:
> 
> 1) Mirrorless market - they loose to Fuji, Olympus, Sony;
> 2) Sensor technology - loosing to Sony;
> ...



The word is "lose".


----------



## pknight (Jul 31, 2014)

justaCanonuser said:


> The new Tammy 150-600 might put more pressure on Canon to come up with a new 100-400, which is good news for Canon users. Besides better AF performance of the native Canon system in action shooting and a wider 100 mm starting focal length which some may prefer, it is hard to find any other good argument to prefer Canon's telezoom over Tamron's. The Sigma x- 500 mm "Bigma" zooms weren't so far a real alternative for those who are serious about quality (not so stellar IQ on the tele end, aperture drops to f=6.3 minimum already at about 200 mm) but the Tamron obviously changes the game in this market segment. People complain how hard it is to get a copy, Tamron seems to be a bit surprised by the huge demand for this lens.



I have had the 100-400 for about a decade, and I recently bought (after a 14-week wait) the Tamron 150-600. My experience is consistent with most reviews, that it is as good as the 100-400 between 150 and 400mm, and much better  from 401-600mm. Actually, the 600mm shots I am getting are as good (sharpness, detail) as what I get at 400mm with the Canon, with more pixels on-target. AF performance is perhaps not quite up to the Canon, but any difference is not enough to make up for having 600mm.

A new 100-400L was what I was waiting for, but no longer. I suspect that if it is ever actually produced it will cost _at least_ more than twice the $1069 price tag of the Tamron, and it will still stop at 400mm. 

It is great that Canon and Nikon are finally getting some pressure on the lens front. This lens gets you to 600mm for about $12,000 less than Canon, but it really isn't competing with that lens. It is certainly going to cut into the potential sales of any 100-400 replacement, however.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 31, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Efka76 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon started loosing in the following areas:
> ...


but loos is ok


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 31, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> They already been de-Bayered into a weird format with some info even beyond just resolution lost and you are stuck with their quick and dirty de-bayer and scale.



Which is why I'd really like to see lossy and reduced DNG as a raw option in Canon cameras. While they are still de-Bayer'd, they are much, much better than Canon's mraw and sraw, for multiple reasons.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 31, 2014)

pknight said:


> A new 100-400L was what I was waiting for, but no longer. I suspect that if it is ever actually produced it will cost _at least_ more than twice the $1069 price tag of the Tamron, and it will still stop at 400mm.



I think it will stop at 560mm, with a 1.4x TC attached, and likely be better at 560mm f/8 than the Tamron is at 600mm f/8. From what I've seen of tests, the Tamron really needs to be stopped down to f/8 at 600mm or there isn't much advantage over what you get at 400mm from the same lens.

So, it'll be 100-400/4.5-5.6 and 140-560/5.6-8 versus 150-600/5-8. And I'll bet the Canon will focus faster, be smaller and lighter, and have better handling and IS. And at twice the cost, of course.

But, we'll see if it happens or not soon enough.


----------



## pknight (Jul 31, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> pknight said:
> 
> 
> > A new 100-400L was what I was waiting for, but no longer. I suspect that if it is ever actually produced it will cost _at least_ more than twice the $1069 price tag of the Tamron, and it will still stop at 400mm.
> ...



I use my Tamron at f/8 (stopped down 2/3 stop), and the results are very good. At least as good as what I get with the 100-400, but subjectively better in many cases because of the additional pixels on-target. I am not sure that a 100-400 with a 1.4 TC will beat it. There would have to be some major improvements over the current 100-400 + TC performance for this to be a viable option. As far as IS, Tamron's VC (vibration control) is excellent. I do agree that Canon focusing will likely be faster and it that the Canon will be lighter. But if I have to spend at least twice as much for the lens, plus more for a decent TC, it just doesn't add up, for me. I suspect that the same will be true for many birders on a budget. There will be, however, great deals on used samples of the current 100-400 regardless.


----------



## tron (Jul 31, 2014)

Big splash could be the sound of a new big zoom waterproof camera dropping into the water ;D


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 31, 2014)

slclick said:


> I really cannot imagine shooting in anything other than full RAW. Maybe I'm different than some because I do print large on occasion but I'd rather carry cards than switch modes during a shoot. I now wait to be schooled by those who tell me I'm missing the point. I can take it.



If I get a bump in fps speed... maybe... if not, no thanks. Give me a bigger rock so I can make my sculpture rather than a smaller rock that I have to fit my vision into.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 31, 2014)

pknight said:


> I use my Tamron at f/8 (stopped down 2/3 stop), and the results are very good. At least as good as what I get with the 100-400, but subjectively better in many cases because of the additional pixels on-target. I am not sure that a 100-400 with a 1.4 TC will beat it. There would have to be some major improvements over the current 100-400 + TC performance for this to be a viable option. As far as IS, Tamron's VC (vibration control) is excellent. I do agree that Canon focusing will likely be faster and it that the Canon will be lighter. But if I have to spend at least twice as much for the lens, plus more for a decent TC, it just doesn't add up, for me. I suspect that the same will be true for many birders on a budget. There will be, however, great deals on used samples of the current 100-400 regardless.



I think even the current 100-400L with 1.4x is quite good optically, at least in the center. I've used mine for moon shots with stacked 1.4x TCs and it's still very good optically even with the 18MP crop sensor behind it.

So, to me, the question is, are you willing to pay double for a lens that's smaller and lighter, has better handling, has better AF, and can get to the 100-150mm range versus the Tamron, if the optical quality is better over the 150-400 range and just as good over the 400+ range at f/8? I think many - myself included - would be willing to do that. In fact, this possibility is the very reason I have not bought the Tamron. If the Tamron were as good at 600mm wide open as it is at 400mm wide open, that would be another story. But it's not.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 31, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> pknight said:
> 
> 
> > I use my Tamron at f/8 (stopped down 2/3 stop), and the results are very good. At least as good as what I get with the 100-400, but subjectively better in many cases because of the additional pixels on-target. I am not sure that a 100-400 with a 1.4 TC will beat it. There would have to be some major improvements over the current 100-400 + TC performance for this to be a viable option. As far as IS, Tamron's VC (vibration control) is excellent. I do agree that Canon focusing will likely be faster and it that the Canon will be lighter. But if I have to spend at least twice as much for the lens, plus more for a decent TC, it just doesn't add up, for me. I suspect that the same will be true for many birders on a budget. There will be, however, great deals on used samples of the current 100-400 regardless.
> ...


As a happy owner of the Tamron, let me say this:

I agree! Over the 150-400 range, the Tamron as a bit better than the 100-400 and obviously, from 400 to 600 there is no comparison. When I bought it I did not believe that an updated 100-400 would be coming out any time soon and so I bought and have enjoyed many many great pictures that I would not have got without it. 

The current 100-400 is substandard for IQ in the Canon lens lineup. If the improvements in quality are anything like the quality we see in the 70-200's, then the new one will be a kick-ass lens with IQ and AF that blows the Tamron away in the 150-400 range and quite possibly will out-resolve the Tamron at 600mm WITHOUT a teleconverter.


----------



## Marauder (Jul 31, 2014)

pknight said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > pknight said:
> ...



Just wondering, how do you find Servo AF accuracy (and speed) with the Tamron?


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 31, 2014)

Big ? 

4k comes to the C100/C300, or

8k comes to 1D-C MkII / C500 ?


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 31, 2014)

I'll have a good laugh if they roll out a new Rebel and a 18-300 f/4.5-5.6 STM lens 

Okay, my wallet will laugh, but I'll cry with the rest of you :'(


----------



## AJ (Jul 31, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> The single most interesting thing is going to be the sensor in the new camera.



I disagree. I think the 7D2 will be all about 4k video. There will be new digic chip(s) to make that happen.


----------



## JonAustin (Jul 31, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I don't like to print less than 300PPI.
> And prefer even 540PPI if I can get it.



I don't know what kind of printer you're using, but I've tested output at every resolution from 100 to 600 ppi, and without a magnifying glass, I don't see any perceptible difference



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> They already been de-Bayered into a weird format with some info even beyond just resolution lost and you are stuck with their quick and dirty de-bayer and scale.



Whatever. The images still look great.


----------



## rame5hra0 (Jul 31, 2014)

According to Thom Hogan, the sensor is unlikely to all that revolutionary, but merely a reworking of dual pixel technology with improvements mainly in autofocus. Not so much in IQ.  :
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-photokina-prognosis.html
_"I think that’s likely more dual-pixel focus ability, only better integrated into the calculation engines this time. In other words, I expect the sensor change is mostly about focus performance, especially with video and Live View". _


----------



## JonAustin (Jul 31, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> ... I'd really like to see lossy and reduced DNG as a raw option in Canon cameras. While they are still de-Bayer'd, they are much, much better than Canon's mraw and sraw, for multiple reasons.



I'd like to hear more!


----------



## pknight (Jul 31, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> I think even the current 100-400L with 1.4x is quite good optically, at least in the center. I've used mine for moon shots with stacked 1.4x TCs and it's still very good optically even with the 18MP crop sensor behind it.
> 
> So, to me, the question is, are you willing to pay double for a lens that's smaller and lighter, has better handling, has better AF, and can get to the 100-150mm range versus the Tamron, if the optical quality is better over the 150-400 range and just as good over the 400+ range at f/8? I think many - myself included - would be willing to do that. In fact, this possibility is the very reason I have not bought the Tamron. If the Tamron were as good at 600mm wide open as it is at 400mm wide open, that would be another story. But it's not.



Well, the existence of the Canon lens you describe is, at this time, pure fantasy.  We don't know what the new lenses are going to be, nor what they are going to cost. I suspect that if there is a new 100-400, it will be closer to $3000 than $2000. I have seen what my Tamron can do at 600mm, and for me any marginal improvement in IQ would not be worth the cost, even at $2000. Of course, your preference is perfectly valid for you, and I respect it.


----------



## pknight (Jul 31, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Just wondering, how do you find Servo AF accuracy (and speed) with the Tamron?



I may be a bit slower. There were some AI Servo problems with early samples (achieving focus, not maintaining focus) that have apparently been addressed by firmware updates in later samples. Compared to the 100-400 I do not see any evidence of decreased accuracy. The 100-400 is no gem in that regard, in my experience.


----------



## Marauder (Jul 31, 2014)

pknight said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Just wondering, how do you find Servo AF accuracy (and speed) with the Tamron?
> ...



Quite right. I use the 100-400 and the 7D and AF is generally good, but not always. I'm glad to hear they've addressed the AF accuracy issue as it's the one thing that worried me regarding the Tamron as a possible addition to my kit.  Thanks for taking the time to answer!


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 31, 2014)

Efka76 said:


> Canon made revolution few years ago. Currently it is a stagnant company, which still focuses significant aattention to dying P&S market. Product cycle for semi-pro and pro products is very long and shows that Canon does not sufficiently invest in R&D as other companies. Canon started loosing in the following areas:
> 
> 1) Mirrorless market - they loose to Fuji, Olympus, Sony;
> 2) Sensor technology - loosing to Sony;
> 3) Lenses - starting to loose to Sigma and Tamron as these 2 companies started producing high quality lenses, which match or in some cases exceed qulity of Canon lenses (e.g. Sigma 50 mm 1.4 Art, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC) for affordable price.



Losing is a tough way to put it. Being #1 means you have many mouths to feed -- not just enthusiasts and pros in a forum. I'm truly curious to see what chunk of Canon's business folks like us in this forum (and like-minded shooters _not_ in this forum) actually represent to them. 5%? 10%?

Also, advances in one small segment of the photography world does not make Fuji, Olympus, Sony, Sigma and Tamron the 'team to beat'. _It means that they have had success in one small segment of the photography world._ That's all. 

And lest we forget, the company arguably most revered (of late) for its innovation and 'firsts in the industry' -- Sony -- can't seem to understand photographers well enough to produce a top-to-bottom well thought out camera that is free of non-trivial flaws. They seem predisposed to come up with something cool and useful (that I might want!), shoot it out to the market half-cocked, and under-deliver. What's worse is that they don't seem to learn from this, and they just shoot out another version in record time with similarly iffy results. 

So it's more than who is on a roll or has the best team or most innovative pipeline -- I want the company that _most consistently satisfies its customers_. Bleeding edge innovation isn't my driver. Saying I have one more stop of dynamic range than my friend with a Nikon isn't my driver. Believing I have the best camera that has ever been made isn't my driver. I want a camera/system that does exactly what I want it to do. Canon may be slow, but they have never let me down with what they have delivered.

- A


----------



## Ale (Jul 31, 2014)

rame5hra0 said:


> According to Thom Hogan, the sensor is unlikely to all that revolutionary, but merely a reworking of dual pixel technology with improvements mainly in autofocus. Not so much in IQ.  :
> http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-photokina-prognosis.html
> _"I think that’s likely more dual-pixel focus ability, only better integrated into the calculation engines this time. In other words, I expect the sensor change is mostly about focus performance, especially with video and Live View". _



I wonder if we'll see some new application for dual-pixel focus, e.g. some kind of (semi-)automated micro-adjustment.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 31, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Efka76 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon made revolution few years ago. Currently it is a stagnant company, which still focuses significant aattention to dying P&S market. Product cycle for semi-pro and pro products is very long and shows that Canon does not sufficiently invest in R&D as other companies. Canon started loosing in the following areas:
> ...


When I jumped ship from Olympus to Canon, the choice was Canon or Nikon. Canon had the lenses that I liked and when it came to the user interface, there was no comparison...Canon let me do what I wanted easily, Nikon had me diving into menus... I went Canon

As things stand today, for my purposes everything about the Canons is superior to the Nikon and Sony offerings except for the sensors and I expect the gap to narrow drastically or even disappear soon.

Look at the clues...

Clue #1: Canon sensors are inferior to Nikon/Sony. Everyone knows that. You can bet that the people at Canon know that too.
Clue #2: Canon executives have hinted that something big or revolutionary is coming. 
Clue #3: The 7D2 has been delayed for "production reasons".. We know it isn't just making another copy of the 70D sensor with a few more or less pixels.. it has to be something else.
Clue #4: The delay is NOT DPAF. It is here and in production in the 70D. Being a lower cost camera and stocked and sold in general consumer stores, it is a safe bet that 70D sales will exceed that of the 7D2 AND the entire FF lineup. A bit more for a 7D2 will not matter.
Clue #5: Canon has sensor fabrication facilities that work on much finer lithography than the APS-C and FF sensors of today. Pick up a Canon P/S camera for proof....
Clue #6: P/S sales are declining and this means extra capacity is opening up on those finer lithography production lines...
Clue #7: We know that by going to row or column A/D on the sensor that they could drastically drop noise and increase the DR of their sensors. You can bet that Canon knows this too.

My bet is that the delays in 7D2 production are due to moving the A/D onto sensors with finer lithography. This has to happen at some point and now is the logical time. I would expect a rapid refresh of the FF lineup after this.


----------



## Skulker (Jul 31, 2014)

Marauder said:


> pknight said:
> 
> 
> > Marauder said:
> ...



The bad press that the 100-400 gets puzzles me a bit. I've had one for years First I used it on a 30D now its on a 1Dx. While I'd be the last to say its one of the best, I do own a 300 F2.8, I still find I can get good images with it and use it a fair bit. The top images was taken years 8(?) ago with the 30D the lower one last weekend with the 1Dx. The lens has been used and abused including being dropped on occasion and sometimes got quite wet. 

I will be quite happy to consider a 100-400 MK2 if it should appear. Until then the Mk1 will be in use.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jul 31, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Efka76 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon made revolution few years ago. Currently it is a stagnant company, which still focuses significant aattention to dying P&S market. Product cycle for semi-pro and pro products is very long and shows that Canon does not sufficiently invest in R&D as other companies. Canon started loosing in the following areas:
> ...



-10 for use of sound logic....you know that has no place here!!!! lol


----------



## jrista (Jul 31, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Efka76 said:
> ...



+100

Excellent analysis. I think you've really zeroed in on something here, and tied together a lot of the various bits and pieces of rumors and news from Canon. (Particularly the bit about declining load on their fabs that use a smaller lithography process due to declining P&S sales...I'd never thought of that!) I think it paints a pretty hopeful picture about Canon's sensor future.

(BTW, on a side technical note...there won't ever be row-parallel ADC. Rows are activated, then all the columns for the active row are read. Then the next row is activated and the process repeated down the vertical height of the sensor. That's how sensors, both CCD and CMOS, have been designed for decades. So they will either go with CP-ADC, or they will keep the ADC off die...there wouldn't ever be a RP-ADC though.)


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jul 31, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Efka76 said:
> ...



Correct me here if I am wrong with this conclusion --- but in all the posts i have read here regarding the internals of a camera body --- heat is a factor in the quantity of noise, which would harm sharpness and overall IQ. 

Correct me if I am wrong yet again, but, is it conceivable that canon bodies could improve IQ by finding more ways to reduce heat inside the camera body? Just tossing ideas out there...


----------



## Marauder (Jul 31, 2014)

Skulker said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > pknight said:
> ...



I'm certainly not intending to give the 100-400 bad press. I love it and use it more than any other long lens in my kit. It's also the most expensive lens I've ever bought, as I'm on a budget. 

My interest in the Tamron is for an alternative with a longer reach--not as a replacement. I just want to ensure that the AF is comparable to the 100-400 first. I already know the IQ is similar, at least up to 500--and up to 600 even, if stopped down to F8 or so. 

I'm interested in the 100-400 II, but we'll have to see on price. I'm even more interested in the 7D II, and I can't afford both, at least not at the same time. 

Regarding the 7D II, although I'd enjoy seeing IQ improvements and the new information that there is new sensor tech in it makes that more plausible than before, it was NEVER the driving consideration for me. The features that most interest me are an improved AF (especially with Server accuracy and speed) and improved speed. Although the current 7D's 8fps is nothing to sneeze at, getting 10 (or the sometimes hinted 12) per second would be a bonus. But it's a killer AF that is what MOST intrigues me--something like the superb 61 point system derived from the 1DX/5D III.


----------



## jrista (Jul 31, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


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



Heat can cause two forms of noise: "Amplifier glow", which is really just IR radiation increasing temperature, and dark current noise. Dark current is always flowing through the circuitry of a sensor, and it sometimes causes the release of an electron into a potential well (i.e. a photodiode). The rate at which dark current causes the release of free electrons is dependent on temperature, it effectively doubles every 5.8°C.

Neither of these forms of thermally-affected forms of noise are really a problem for most still photography. The exposure times are usually too short for enough dark current or incident IR radiation to affect the release of additional free electrons. In the case of dark current, CDS units on each column (or possibly each pixel) are reset along with the pixels, and accumulate charge for the same duration as the pixels are exposed. When each column is read out, the CDS unit charge accumulation is subtracted from all the pixels in the given column. For shorter exposures, this can effectively eliminate dark current noise. CDS units usually have a limited capacity, and for longer exposures, or exposures long enough at very high ISO, they may not be able to entirely subtract the dark current noise from the image signal. This is usually only a problem for things like astrophotography, where exposures might be many minutes long.

The use of per-column CDS units (which is usually the case...I believe even Sony Exmor sensors use a per-column digital CDS unit, since it's actually part of their CP-ADC) can actually cause vertical banding. A better approach would be per-pixel CDS units, that are reset along with each of their paired pixels, and accumulate dark current specifically for each pixel. That would eliminate the possibility that CDS units introduce vertical banding (per-column banding, really), but it does increase the complexity of the sensor. I've seen one or two patents that cover per-pixel CDS...it's been a while, but I want to say one of them was a Canon patent. I honestly can't remember.

Anyway, there are sources of thermal noise. On very hot days, your camera will absorb more ambient heat, and that can increase noise a bit, especially at higher ISO. However for the most part, I don't think that significant investment in reducing sensor temperature is going to improve most still photography IQ. The current levels of read noise at lower ISO settings completely swamp any amount of dark current. At higher ISO settings, Canon sensors are already competitive, as they are limited by physics, although a small improvement might be made buy increasing Q.E. from the ~49% average to say ~60%.


----------



## Skulker (Jul 31, 2014)

Marauder said:


> Regarding the 7D II, although I'd enjoy seeing IQ improvements and the new information that there is new sensor tech in it makes that more plausible than before, it was NEVER the driving consideration for me. The features that most interest me are an improved AF (especially with Server accuracy and speed) and improved speed. Although the current 7D's 8fps is nothing to sneeze at, getting 10 (or the sometimes hinted 12) per second would be a bonus. But it's a killer AF that is what MOST intrigues me--something like the superb 61 point system derived from the 1DX/5D III.



If I was in the market for a 7D Mk2 (and I'm not) an improved AF with improved higher ISO performance would be of interest.

It will be interesting to see if there is something new about the sensor tech that comes out, if that's what is going to happen. Lets hope its not just a loads of mega pixies video camera. ;D


----------



## pknight (Jul 31, 2014)

Skulker said:


> The bad press that the 100-400 gets puzzles me a bit. I've had one for years First I used it on a 30D now its on a 1Dx. While I'd be the last to say its one of the best, I do own a 300 F2.8, I still find I can get good images with it and use it a fair bit. The top images was taken years 8(?) ago with the 30D the lower one last weekend with the 1Dx. The lens has been used and abused including being dropped on occasion and sometimes got quite wet.
> 
> I will be quite happy to consider a 100-400 MK2 if it should appear. Until then the Mk1 will be in use.



Neither was I trying to knock the 100-400. I have used it more than any lens I have owned, and have frequently sung its praises. I have many excellent photos from four different bodies using this lens. I was just saying that it misses focus on occasion, and that the Tamron is no worse in this regard.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 1, 2014)

Jackson_Bill said:


> rame5hra0 said:
> 
> 
> > According to Thom Hogan, the sensor is unlikely to all that revolutionary, but merely a reworking of dual pixel technology with improvements mainly in autofocus. Not so much in IQ.  :
> ...



Agreed. Sadly a totally different source was also claiming that the big sensor news for the 7D2 is some sort of revolutionary ultra crazy fast no hunt PDAF AF. Certainly nice, but man it's been years since they bothered to improve low ISO quality. I'd be more excited about 4k top quality and 1080p RAW for video and much improved low ISO DR for stills (and further tweaking at high ISO).


----------



## Lee Jay (Aug 1, 2014)

JonAustin said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > ... I'd really like to see lossy and reduced DNG as a raw option in Canon cameras. While they are still de-Bayer'd, they are much, much better than Canon's mraw and sraw, for multiple reasons.
> ...



http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0520987423/adobe-expands-dng-format-with-inclusion-of-smaller-lossy-dng-option


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 1, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Jackson_Bill said:
> 
> 
> > rame5hra0 said:
> ...



The 7D is a sports/wildlife body, not a maximum IQ body. I'd love a big IQ boost in the 7D2, and might buy one if it had it in addition to the expected performance improvements. At this point I'm contemplating a refurb 6D.


----------



## Ale (Aug 1, 2014)

One camera store here in Finland seems to be pretty confident that the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II will be annouced at Photokina (or maybe even before that) as they already have the lens availabe for pre-order (1995 euros):

http://www.digitarvike.fi/canon_ef_100-400mm_f45-56l_is_ii_ennakovaraus

The spec list seems to be almost direct copypaste of the same list that Canonrumors had in one post considering the lens some time ago.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 1, 2014)

Ale said:


> One camera store here in Finland seems to be pretty confident that the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II will be annouced at Photokina (or maybe even before that) as they already have the lens availabe for pre-order (1995 euros):
> 
> http://www.digitarvike.fi/canon_ef_100-400mm_f45-56l_is_ii_ennakovaraus
> 
> The spec list seems to be almost direct copypaste of the same list that Canonrumors had in one post considering the lens some time ago.



I'm saving my pennies...


----------



## Omni Images (Aug 1, 2014)

Nooooooooo ... that may spell the end of any hope of a new 400F5.6 prime ... I maybe will begrudgingly buy it though.
About the only thing it had over the 400 prime is the shorter focusing distance .... and of course IS
Still a big heavy dog to lug around, and not really needing a zoom for what I want.
Pls Canon after 20 years a new version 400 F5.6 is a MUST, it's your oldest lens ... make it with a shorter close focus distance, 1.5 would be nice like the 300f4, 3.5m is a joke and IS of course.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 1, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



A case in point. I took this shot yesterday. Equipment used: Sony NEX-6, Metabones NEX-FD Speed booster, Sigma FDn 70-210mm 3.5-4.5 APO. Manual everything (save the white balance). And no cropping. 

Note that I had to go to this event straight from work and had no room for my DSLR + 70-200L so for portability sake I decided to take the NEX and a couple vintage lenses instead.


----------



## pknight (Aug 1, 2014)

Ale said:


> One camera store here in Finland seems to be pretty confident that the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II will be annouced at Photokina (or maybe even before that) as they already have the lens availabe for pre-order (1995 euros):
> 
> http://www.digitarvike.fi/canon_ef_100-400mm_f45-56l_is_ii_ennakovaraus
> 
> The spec list seems to be almost direct copypaste of the same list that Canonrumors had in one post considering the lens some time ago.



That is US$2671 as of this morning's exchange rates. About what I expected. We'll see.


----------



## Lightmaster (Aug 1, 2014)

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5505614787/canons-something-big-is-a-photography-competition-oh-well


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 1, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5505614787/canons-something-big-is-a-photography-competition-oh-well


LOL, but Photokina is a mere 6 weeks away at least!


----------



## Steve (Aug 1, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> A case in point. I took this shot yesterday. Equipment used: Sony NEX-6, Metabones NEX-FD Speed booster, Sigma FDn 70-210mm 3.5-4.5 APO. Manual everything (save the white balance). And no cropping.



That is a good example - you clipped the front of the car. If you had shot wider you could have got all of the car and then cropped for better composition in post.

I can understand _how_ you could shoot motorsports with the "no cropping" limitation, I just don't understand _why_ you would. Cropping is one of the major tools of photography. Not using it is like a finish carpenter not using a chisel or planer and justifying it by saying he gets his cuts right the first time (but throws away a lot of good wood). 

There's this weird trend in online photography discussion groups where mediocre photographers embrace some sort of artificial limitation regime like "no cropping" or "primes only" because of the belief that it's purer photography or something. Like, I get that sometimes it might be a good idea to set a temporary artificial limit in order to break a bad habit but making those limits SOP is nonsense, imo. Knowing how to appropriately use all of the tools available to you is what makes you a better photographer, not arbitrarily throwing out some of the tools from the bag. See also "I don't use photoshop/shoot RAW, I get it right in camera" or "I don't need a flash, I prefer natural light"


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 1, 2014)

Steve said:


> There's this weird trend in online photography discussion groups where mediocre photographers embrace some sort of artificial limitation regime like "no cropping" or "primes only" because of the belief that it's purer photography or something. Like, I get that sometimes it might be a good idea to set a temporary artificial limit in order to break a bad habit but making those limits SOP is nonsense, imo. Knowing how to appropriately use all of the tools available to you is what makes you a better photographer, not arbitrarily throwing out some of the tools from the bag. See also "I don't use photoshop/shoot RAW, I get it right in camera" or "I don't need a flash, I prefer natural light"



Due to the rate at which I generate photo's, I'm trying to streamline my workflow - trying to frame the shot right first time is part of that, and accepting that parts of the subject may be cut off is a part of that too. Yes sometimes that leads to 'imperfect framing' but sometimes it also leads to interesting shots that I would not have framed that way if I weren't limited to a specific FOV. 

So yes I agree the framing here is not 'perfect'. But 'perfect' can sometimes also be 'boring'. However, given the limitations I set on this instance I assure you that my technique is improving every time - I challenge you to get the same or better results with the same kit, only then you may imply I'm a 'mediocre' photographer. What I'm saying is that everyone has their own style, and if setting limitations is part of that, all the better. I sometimes like to use difficult equipment to steepen my learning curve.

FWIW with this setup you really don't want to crop too much (if at all) because the high iso's, mediocre optics and motion blur + imperfect alignment of the focal plane due to having to pre-focus manually, all lead to less effective resolution. So cropping to get the framing right means you may have to ditch the photo entirely due to poor residual resolution. A lot of these shots are framed rather tightly. For those that allow it, I will apply a little edge cropping if required. Like I said, this photo (and the entire series of that day) were shot using manual: iso, aperture, shutter speed, focus. No IS, no AF. Oh and FWIW the NEX-6 has an electronic viewfinder, so no OVF without time delay to help frame the shot either. Fortunately there's little shutter lag to speak of so at least that's a help.

Edit: for the attached shot, zooming was also out of the equation: Equipment used: Sony NEX-6, Metabones NEX-FD Speed booster, _Canon FL 135mm f/2.5_. Manual everything (save the white balance). And no cropping


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2014)

Steve said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > A case in point. I took this shot yesterday. Equipment used: Sony NEX-6, Metabones NEX-FD Speed booster, Sigma FDn 70-210mm 3.5-4.5 APO. Manual everything (save the white balance). And no cropping.
> ...



This is a tangled knuckleball of sensibilities and issues you are throwing to us. (But it's a fun pitch to swing at, I admit. )

For me, natural light vs. flash is about (a) how much effort and how many variables do I want to control, (b) how much gear I want to carry, and (c) how deliberate vs. spontaneous I want the shot to be. My answers to those three questions are (a) little effort / keep it simple, (b) less gear, and (c) usually spontaneous. So natural light shooting is what I strongly prefer. 

For getting it right in-camera vs. cropping, that's a question of whether you enjoy working within the limitations of your gear (the guy who brings one lens and moves his feet) or if you see limitations as unacceptable constraints that will be eliminated with more lenses, more post-processing, etc. Crudely, and likely unfairly, I think the first group wants to puff up their chest and show how competent they are at thinking on their feet and netting difficult shots under tough constraints, and the second group giggles at that and either changes lenses or just crops the shot. One viewpoint is proud and determined and the other is pragmatic and efficient. Neither are right and neither are wrong.  

As for post-processing, I think it strongly depends on what you shoot and how much time you want to spend shining up your work rather than collecting more images. With controlled lighting, consistent sort of subjects, etc. getting it right in-camera is a small matter of dialing it in. But I don't go to 'shoots' where my environment is scripted. I happen to shoot my life around me, and my subjects are moving, impatient, and inconsistently lit. So I shoot JPEG + RAW, and I screen with JPEGs and process the 3-5% best RAW shots individually. That lets my photographic reality be tamed to the point where I get the most out of my shots at a fraction of the work needed to process them all.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2014)

Steve said:


> There's this weird trend in online photography discussion groups where mediocre photographers embrace some sort of artificial limitation regime like "no cropping" or "primes only" because of the belief that it's purer photography or something.



Ouch, I missed the word in red above. Your point is well made (and I welcome the discussion that follows your comment re: purists vs. pragmatists), but there's no need for that kind of tone or implication. This is a respectful place. People who don't have the same sensibilities as you are not sub-par human beings -- _they are just people with different sensibilities._

Further, I think if you went to that person's website (www.mrsfotografie.nl), you'd see far from mediocre work on display.

- A


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 1, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Further, I think if you went to that person's website (www.mrsfotografie.nl), you'd see far from mediocre work on display.



Cool! Thank you ahsanford!   

- M


----------



## Steve (Aug 1, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> Due to the rate at which I generate photo's, I'm trying to streamline my workflow - trying to frame the shot right first time is part of that, and accepting that parts of the subject may be cut off is a part of that too. Yes sometimes that leads to 'imperfect framing' but sometimes it also leads to interesting shots that I would not have framed that way if I weren't limited to a specific FOV.



Ok you do realize that I'm not arguing against framing properly in camera, right? When its possible, I certainly try to frame correctly in camera. Its just that an arbitrary, blanket ban on cropping doesn't make any sense except in cases where you don't know how to frame and are trying to learn. If a picture would look better with a crop, it should be cropped and going 'nope, not gonna' because *vague reasons* is weird and doesn't improve the picture. There is nothing interesting about a poorly framed picture just because you chose not to crop it. Whenever I see someone online talking about how they don't crop, its like they all assume everyone else is just firing away randomly and somehow using the magic of cropping to make nice photos. 

ahsanford: do you have a blanket ban on using photoshop or flash? I don't normally carry a flash for the stuff I do but I made an effort to learn how to use it and it comes in very handy sometimes. When I'm shooting with my Fuji XE1 (for which I have only one lens - the 35 1.4) I usually shoot jpeg because I don't generally feel I need to process the shots much but I certainly shoot RAW 100% with my 1D4 for birds and RAW+jpeg for sports. The point is, putting arbitrary limits on the tools available doesn't make sense if the goal is good photos. Shooting with my XE1 is limiting because of the single prime lens and because I usually only shoot jpeg but I'm not married to those limitations. I'll crop shots if it makes them look better and I'll process them if it makes them look better. I just cannot fathom why anyone would look at a shot and say "I know this would be better if I did this and that but I'm not going to abandon _~*my principles*~_"

Also, I suppose the wording makes it seem that way, but I did not mean to refer to mrsfotografie as mediocre. I was referring to the trend I have been seeing and its normal adherents. I apologize for coming across that way.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 1, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > There's this weird trend in online photography discussion groups where mediocre photographers embrace some sort of artificial limitation regime like "no cropping" or "primes only" because of the belief that it's purer photography or something.
> ...


Panning the camera is a simple skill. All you have to do is move the camera for side to side.... Yet in the real world it is really hard to get right and takes lots and lots of practice to get right. My first impression of the Motorsport photos was that they are far more colorful than I thought, and my second impression was "this guy knows how to pan".

Personally, I am not into motor sports.... But having viewed those pictures I realize that it would be a great subject for photography, both from a technical and from an artistic viewpoint. Good job! You are looking at mediocre in the rear view mirror!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 1, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Panning the camera is a simple skill. All you have to do is move the camera for side to side.... Yet in the real world it is really hard to get right and takes lots and lots of practice to get right. My first impression of the Motorsport photos was that they are far more colorful than I thought, and my second impression was "this guy knows how to pan".
> 
> Personally, I am not into motor sports.... But having viewed those pictures I realize that it would be a great subject for photography, both from a technical and from an artistic viewpoint. Good job! You are looking at mediocre in the rear view mirror!



Thank you Don, actually the trick for good panning is to anticipate and start following the subject even before looking through the viewfinder. It helps to know in which part of the arc you want to press the shutter release. Take the photo then follow through. I don't play golf but I assume there are similarities in technique.



Steve said:


> If a picture would look better with a crop, it should be cropped and going 'nope, not gonna' because *vague reasons* is weird and doesn't improve the picture.



Cropping is not forbidden ;D For you and for the sake of this discussion, I've now clipped the car on the left too (by cropping), giving even tighter framing and possibly a more 'balanced' shot. However now I'm missing the tension generated by the original framing, a little imperfection may be just a little more interesting. 

FWIW this is a Formula One car, passing by at roughly 15 meters distance at some kind of ludicrous speed.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 1, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> e rear view mirror!
> Cropping is not forbidden ;D For you and for the sake of this discussion, I've now clipped the car on the left too (by cropping), giving even tighter framing and possibly a more 'balanced' shot. However now I'm missing the tension generated by the original framing, a little imperfection may be just a little more interesting.
> 
> FWIW this is a Formula One car, passing by at roughly 15 meters distance at some kind of ludicrous speed.


When you look at the full picture and the cropped picture, the car in the full picture looks like it going faster


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 1, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > e rear view mirror!
> ...



Thanks, I think you're right about that - I couldn't quite put my finger on why I prefer the non-cropped picture but that's a pretty good explanation.

By the way, I just published the entire album, here: http://www.mrsfotografie.nl/auto-motorsport/racing-day-city-demo-assen/ You can start a slideshow by clicking the link below the thumbnails. Edit: The Red Bull Formula One car is driven by Jean-Éric Vergne.

And thank you everyone, I think it's fun how far we've strayed off-topic in this thread ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2014)

Steve said:


> ahsanford: do you have a blanket ban on using photoshop or flash? I don't normally carry a flash for the stuff I do but I made an effort to learn how to use it and it comes in very handy sometimes. When I'm shooting with my Fuji XE1 (for which I have only one lens - the 35 1.4) I usually shoot jpeg because I don't generally feel I need to process the shots much but I certainly shoot RAW 100% with my 1D4 for birds and RAW+jpeg for sports. The point is, putting arbitrary limits on the tools available doesn't make sense if the goal is good photos. Shooting with my XE1 is limiting because of the single prime lens and because I usually only shoot jpeg but I'm not married to those limitations. I'll crop shots if it makes them look better and I'll process them if it makes them look better. I just cannot fathom why anyone would look at a shot and say "I know this would be better if I did this and that but I'm not going to abandon _~*my principles*~_"



No hard ban on either.

I'm not a huge fan of hard rules either, but I do _like_ natural light for my aforementioned list of reasons. That said, I finally picked up a flash last year because friends were more and more asking me to take portraits or mill about at large family events, and I lost my pop-up flash when I migrated to FF. I'm also fooling around with touristy 'landscape portraiture' and backlit subjects are a mess without some help from a flash.

I use Photoshop principally to bring in my RAW shots through ACR and save them as JPEGs. I only do this for my 3-5% of best/keeper shots, and I do not spend more than 3 minutes editing a shot. I almost never perform surgery with masks and curves in PS. I recognize getting better at PS help me make a good shot great, but I rarely have the patience for it and I almost never print my work. (Note: I am not a professional photographer.)

Agree with your comment against dogmatic 'I would never...' rules on photography. I am hard-pressed to think of my personal 'I would never' photography rules, but if you twisted my arm, they would be...


I would never shoot street photography of homeless/indigent folks, nor will I capture scenes of outright suffering. I'd sooner put the camera down and help those folks. (Goodness knows, there are enough photojournalists cataloging the world's difficulties these days, anyway.)
I would never use a flash for concert photography, because I'd like to shoot another concert someday. 
I would never shoot macro of arachnids. (In fairness, that's not dogma -- that's _phobia_.)

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> And thank you everyone, I think it's fun how far we've strayed off-topic in this thread ;D


Given that Canon India's 'Big Splash' _turned out to be a photo contest_, can you blame us for going off-topic? 

Link: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=10196

- A


----------



## slclick (Aug 1, 2014)

11 pages of comments, now that's funny.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 1, 2014)

I think we are off topic because in reality, nobody knows what is going to happen at photokina, so why not have some fun on the trip....


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 1, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Given that Canon India's 'Big Splash' _turned out to be a photo contest_, can you blame us for going off-topic?
> 
> Link: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=10196
> 
> - A



That's funny, I missed that announcement! ;D



Don Haines said:


> I think we are off topic because in reality, nobody knows what is going to happen at photokina, so why not have some fun on the trip....



For sure, I like this forum because it's fun, and I learn lots from my fellow photographers as we go along 



Steve said:


> .. I did not mean to refer to mrsfotografie as mediocre. I was referring to the trend I have been seeing and its normal adherents. I apologize for coming across that way.



It's all right, I like that you triggered a really good discussion 



ahsanford said:


> For me, natural light vs. flash is about (a) how much effort and how many variables do I want to control, (b) how much gear I want to carry, and (c) how deliberate vs. spontaneous I want the shot to be. My answers to those three questions are (a) little effort / keep it simple, (b) less gear, and (c) usually spontaneous. So natural light shooting is what I strongly prefer.



+1



ahsanford said:


> For getting it right in-camera vs. cropping, that's a question of whether you enjoy working within the limitations of your gear (the guy who brings one lens and moves his feet) or if you see limitations as unacceptable constraints that will be eliminated with more lenses, more post-processing, etc. Crudely, and likely unfairly, I think the first group wants to puff up their chest and show how competent they are at thinking on their feet and netting difficult shots under tough constraints, and the second group giggles at that and either changes lenses or just crops the shot. One viewpoint is proud and determined and the other is pragmatic and efficient. Neither are right and neither are wrong.



Both viewpoints apply depending on the occasion or venue:

Netting those difficult shots under tough constraints is a personal challenge for me and can be lots of fun if it's ok that I might miss some shots, the quality is not quite up to par, or I may even come home empty handed. If the results are good despite the limitations, that makes me feel great because usually I'll have learnt something from the exercise.

But when every shot counts I'm definitely going for the reliability and flexibility of my Canon DSLR system. It's sensible to be pragmatic and efficient when required


----------



## tkgeoff (Aug 1, 2014)

Long time lurker, first time post!

To go back on topic a bit to Photokina... no one thinks a new 6d is going to come out right? I'm thinking about forking out for it but I have a tendency to buy things before new versions are just released. 

I know it was only released 2 years ago and most of the talk is about the 7d MKII, but has Canon ever been able to pull off a complete upset/surprise, aka no one saw it coming?

Just for the record, I don't want to wait for Photokina because I'm going on a backpacking trip in two weeks so I was hoping to have it for that if I can manage!

Thanks!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 1, 2014)

tkgeoff said:


> Long time lurker, first time post!



Welcome!!! 



tkgeoff said:


> Just for the record, I don't want to wait for Photokina because I'm going on a backpacking trip in two weeks so I was hoping to have it for that if I can manage!
> 
> Thanks!



Rule of thumb: if you need it now, get it now. FWIW I don't see a new 6D coming out for quite some time yet.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2014)

tkgeoff said:


> Long time lurker, first time post!
> 
> To go back on topic a bit to Photokina... no one thinks a new 6d is going to come out right? I'm thinking about forking out for it but I have a tendency to buy things before new versions are just released.
> 
> ...



Welcome, and fair question. I'd say the odds for a new 6D / 'entry'-level FF rig are very, very low:


Though never a certainty, Canon's full frame life-cycle/refresh timing has been running about 4 years or so based on 5D and 1Ds/1DX timing (see handy timeline from Northlight), so the 6D is only about halfway to a refresh. That's for staying 'in-family' with a refresh. Canon, could, conceivably launch a new brand/trim-level of FF camera out of the blue, but the odds of that are astronomically low based on zero chatter whatsoever about that and high stock levels of their current FF bodies. 
The 6D has been well-received (despite some features being somewhat nerfed compared to the 5D3), so there isn't a need to pull a 'Nikon D610' quick update to solve a major issue.
If only one non-Rebel body is released at Photokina, everything points to the 7D2 being the one -- see the timeline again (hint: ancient), read about limited stock levels, see all the clearance deals, etc.

So my guess of a new FF body of ANY kind (a 6D, a 5D4, a mythical 0D Mark 12, etc.) is not happening at Photokina. 

- A


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 2, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson_Bill said:
> ...



True, but these specs give it slightly worse performance and the same IQ for a higher price ;D with just GPS and WiFi added in to spice it up after five years of development (OK and the video AF from the 70D).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 2, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:
 

> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Oh you cropped it all right. Cropped of the front wing . Shooting a trace looser and cropping if need be makes it easier to not crop off the front wing ;D.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 2, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > The 7D is a sports/wildlife body, not a maximum IQ body. I'd love a big IQ boost in the 7D2, and might buy one if it had it in addition to the expected performance improvements. At this point I'm contemplating a refurb 6D.
> ...



I don't believe these specs: as noted earlier, they're worse than the original 7D firmware series. The 7D2 will have equal or better performance, but I don't expect a huge IQ boost. I'd sure like to be wrong; if so I might even buy one in the $2k range.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 2, 2014)

tkgeoff said:


> Long time lurker, first time post!
> 
> To go back on topic a bit to Photokina... no one thinks a new 6d is going to come out right? I'm thinking about forking out for it but I have a tendency to buy things before new versions are just released.
> 
> ...


The most optimistic and unrealistic scenario is that at photokina, Canon announces some new magic technology that makes the sensor on the 7D2 have another half stop of sensitivity and they can drop the noise by 2 stops.. If they were able to pull that off, then they would be updating their FF lineup as soon as possible.... but keep in mind "as soon as possible" will involve at least a few months of watching the public reaction to the 7D2, and by the time that's done, if they proceed at a rush, a half year to a year to wait for a new FF body.... and the odds are 5D4 or 1DX2 before a 6D2...

I would be incredibly surprised to see a 6D2 in a year's time. If you want one, get it now. You can miss an awful lot of pictures in a year....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 2, 2014)

Steve said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > Due to the rate at which I generate photo's, I'm trying to streamline my workflow - trying to frame the shot right first time is part of that, and accepting that parts of the subject may be cut off is a part of that too. Yes sometimes that leads to 'imperfect framing' but sometimes it also leads to interesting shots that I would not have framed that way if I weren't limited to a specific FOV.
> ...



I could agree with a no cropping rule at times when you are practicing and trying to polish up tracking skills, as an exercise. But yeah I don't see the point in just a blanket I do not crop, especially when some treat it like some bragging right and that it means they are practicing some higher form of art than the mere pions (not saying that is the case here, but I've seen talk like that), it may have been on DPR were someone was really slamming everyone for cropping and basically calling them all silly posers while he was clearly a real pro since he performed the art all in camera (except surely for all the 10x more shots he had to toss into trashcan ;D secretly on the side).

I could see sticking to 3:2 or 2:3 ratio at times as some challenge to see what you can come up with stuck with that, but I don't get the idea of everything always must be 3:2 or 2:3, I mean so many scenes clearly look better at some other ratio and why give all those shots up or force yourself into a compromise. Again, as an exercise at times I can see trying to stick to some ratio and training yourself to really concentrate and think, but that is something else.


----------



## fragilesi (Aug 2, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Agree with your comment against dogmatic 'I would never...' rules on photography. I am hard-pressed to think of my personal 'I would never' photography rules, but if you twisted my arm, they would be...
> 
> 
> I would never shoot street photography of homeless/indigent folks, nor will I capture scenes of outright suffering. I'd sooner put the camera down and help those folks. (Goodness knows, there are enough photojournalists cataloging the world's difficulties these days, anyway.)
> ...



Another good subject in itself. By the way though I don't feel I am even getting close to the point where banning myself from any particular technique in photography might help me improve, I need all the help I can get. 

Your first rule is interesting and sometimes I have wondered about similar issues. If you saw a crime being committed, is it better to help or take photographs that could help in evidence? If there was an accident of some kind a photo of the scene could be of significant use before things get re-arranged by people helping? How much are you personally able to help realistically anyway in those kind of scenarios?

I'm sure that many people would be naturally averse to someone standing there taking pictures in such situations and I'm sure "ghoul" would soon be uttered but maybe sometimes it could actually be the best thing that you could do?


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 2, 2014)

fragilesi said:


> If you saw a crime being committed, is it better to help or take photographs that could help in evidence? If there was an accident of some kind a photo of the scene could be of significant use before things get re-arranged by people helping? How much are you personally able to help realistically anyway in those kind of scenarios?
> 
> I'm sure that many people would be naturally averse to someone standing there taking pictures in such situations and I'm sure "ghoul" would soon be uttered but maybe sometimes it could actually be the best thing that you could do?


As a first responder, I can assure you that there is a time when it is best to pick up the camera.
Obviously, people come first in any considerations, but in many cases, once the properly trained/equipped people are on scene throwing additional people into the mix, even though they mean well, can be detrimental. There is a time to stand back and let the team work without you.

For example, I was first on the scene of a car accident. One car rolled and had two occupants, one with superficial cuts and the other with more serious bleeding. The driver of the other car appeared to be unhurt. I took control of the scene, had one person call 911 and wait for the ambulance, sent another back to the truck for the first aid kit, and got the bleeding under control while we waited for the ambulance. Fortunately, it looked a lot worse than it was and the police arrived in minutes and the ambulance a minute after that. At which point I was not needed anymore, surrendered the kid to the paramedics and started talking to the police.

While all this was going on, one of the onlookers came over and said that the guy from the other car got into another car and drove away and that she took pictures.... It seems he was driving without a licence and was drunk. Because of her picture they were picked up a few minutes later by another police car on the way to the scene... It went to court... her cell phone pictures convicted him.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Aug 2, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> So my guess of a new FF body of ANY kind (a 6D, a 5D4, a mythical 0D Mark 12, etc.) is not happening at Photokina.



And if the dates of the picture are correct, it seems that the cycles are slowing down. 3 years for 5D, 3.5 years for 5D2 ... so maybe 4 years for 5D3? Same with 50/60/70D or until 1DX... So 5D4 and 1DX2 will be maybe presented at Photokina...2016. 

7D succeccor is possible - maybe an additional type (megapixel monster), but no direct replacement of "long" (lol!) waited cameras..


----------



## mrsfotografie (Aug 2, 2014)

About aspect ratio's: I compose for, and mostly stick to 2:3 or 3:2, natively or cropped. On occasion I do crop to square (1:1), especially with portraits of my cat ;D I stay away from 4:3 or 3:4 except for some product shots that I make of stuff I want to sell online (4:3 is the native aspect ratio of my Canon S90 anyway). My panorama's can be pretty much any aspect ratio depending on the amount of image data available.


----------



## fragilesi (Aug 2, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > If you saw a crime being committed, is it better to help or take photographs that could help in evidence? If there was an accident of some kind a photo of the scene could be of significant use before things get re-arranged by people helping? How much are you personally able to help realistically anyway in those kind of scenarios?
> ...



Thanks, was a bit concerned how people would take my comment but that's exactly the kind of thing I meant. Maybe sometimes the photographer who appears to be a ghoul is actually doing precisely the right thing. I wonder if people's attitudes are framed by the paparazzi who I would have to say often behave appallingly in my view.

I guess each situation has to be judged on its merits. In the above situation my first thought would be to call the emergency services of course but the girl with the camera did everyone a service that day.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 2, 2014)

fragilesi said:


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


The lady who took the pictures is the one that I sent to call 911 (emergency services) and wait by the road and to guide the paramedics to where they were needed. She took the pictures after she did her part....


----------



## fragilesi (Aug 2, 2014)

Don Haines said:


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



Perfect then.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 2, 2014)

davidcl0nel said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > So my guess of a new FF body of ANY kind (a 6D, a 5D4, a mythical 0D Mark 12, etc.) is not happening at Photokina.
> ...



You are correct, Canon is slowing down at refreshing existing brands. I presume this is due to the addition of so many _new_ brands, like Cinema EOS, the tiny SL1, EOS-M, etc.

That is the topic of maaaaany threads on this forum. Does Canon really need 4+ APS-C body price points? What about low/middle/high setup for APS-C and the same for FF? What happened to APS-H? What about a completely stripped down FF model with one AF point? What about an integrally gripped APS-C body? What about that new line of cameras with a pop-up softbox? *I want a pony!*

[...and the montage fades away as the camera refocuses on the narrator...] 

The bottom line is that gear obsessives (myself included) want _their_ swim-lane of the portfolio charts to be better supported and get the new products first. Canon and Nikon folks are never truly happy in that regard. But it could be worse: we could be Sony fanboys that actually _do_ get a ton of interesting new stuff on a regular basis... _but what we get may let us down._ 

- A


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 2, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> That is the topic of maaaaany threads on this forum. Does Canon really need 4+ APS-C body price points? What about low/middle/high setup for APS-C and the same for FF? What happened to APS-H? What about a completely stripped down FF model with one AF point?



IMO, even six is probably too many. They should have one consumer crop body and one pro crop body, plus one pro FF, and optionally one consumer FF. Make the pro model(s) available in your choice of gripped or non-gripped form factors, but with otherwise identical guts. There's just not enough product differentiation to support 6 or more bodies. It drives up R&D costs without providing much customer benefit.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Aug 2, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > That is the topic of maaaaany threads on this forum. Does Canon really need 4+ APS-C body price points? What about low/middle/high setup for APS-C and the same for FF? What happened to APS-H? What about a completely stripped down FF model with one AF point?
> ...



I tend to disagree here. I think there's room for the segmentation of the lines, more room even especially at the top. I look at the 1dx and say, wow, amazing camera, but much of what it can do is beyond the needs a great meany shooters who don't need extremely high fps and extra advanced tracking for fast moving subjects. 1 pro body makes for a jack of all trades body. I know many would love a more dedicated landscape body. Other's don't need the fps but do need the low light capability.


----------



## slclick (Aug 2, 2014)

I can see another studio body (1DXs perhaps as has been speculated time and time again) But Not a landscape body. I guess fps is just too exciting eh?


----------



## scottburgess (Aug 3, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > That is the topic of maaaaany threads on this forum. Does Canon really need 4+ APS-C body price points? What about low/middle/high setup for APS-C and the same for FF? What happened to APS-H? What about a completely stripped down FF model with one AF point?
> ...



As ahsanford noted, we've been over this ground before, repeatedly. The numbers just don't support such assertions, nor do the business strategies. This is Canon we're talking about, not one of the <1% market share companies. Product saturation is a successful, widely-used strategy for driving out competition when you have a large market share. Canon is expanding their lines even while the market is contracting precisely to push small players out of the business completely. Canon currently has eight DSLR lines running, plus one ILC, with three of those nine lines started since 2011. Nikon has seven DSLR lines with substantially lower market share.

Instead of implying that every company is completely stupid, I recommend you reference the earlier discussions including the actual camera sales numbers if you need a clearer picture. I've posted graphs in some. You might also take a close look at the toothpaste section in your grocery store the next time you're there if you want a more concrete example of where the market is going and why.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 3, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> About aspect ratio's: I compose for, and mostly stick to 2:3 or 3:2, natively or cropped. On occasion I do crop to square (1:1), especially with portraits of my cat ;D I stay away from 4:3 or 3:4 except for some product shots that I make of stuff I want to sell online (4:3 is the native aspect ratio of my Canon S90 anyway). My panorama's can be pretty much any aspect ratio depending on the amount of image data available.



I just whip out the crop tool and crop as whatever, be it 3.0001:2 or 4.354:3 or 1.2304555:1 ;D.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 3, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



The fundamental problem is that the alternative forces users to choose between one feature and another. In my experience, when a company does that, they're invariably setting themselves up for failure. Consumers want their choices to be as easy to make as possible. The best way to achieve this, bar none, is to make each product clearly better than the previous one. That way, customers choose between two products based on cost-reward balance, rather than reward-reward balance. If customers have to choose between feature A and feature B when buying a body, this pisses a significant percentage of them off, resulting in lost (or at least deferred) sales.

Mind you, there are certain situations where a camera can't be strictly better than the alternative, such as when choosing between a crop body and a full-frame body. That's why you have to have two distinct product families, one for crop and one for full-frame.

The other problem with the current scheme is the more models you have, the longer it takes to break even on R&D for each model, which means the development cycle is slower. And because a company only has a given number of employees, the more products a company makes, the less they are able to focus on each of them, and the less each product improves. This is a recipe for relative stagnation.

There's really no reason for more than two full-frame bodies. Pull the 5D Mark III's AF system down into the 6D Mark II. Price it slightly above the original 6D's price, but considerably below the price of the 5D Mark III. For the high end, start with the 1DX, pull in the GPS and Wi-Fi features from the 6D, and pull in a handful of software features from the 5D Mark III (e.g. the AI Focus mode) so that it's strictly a superset of the features previously offered by the lower models. Set the price point higher than the 5D Mark III, but lower than the current 1DX. Then you can kill the 5D line entirely. This simplified model lineup should significantly increase sales of high-end gear and should increase overall profit margins as well.

For the crop body models, update the 70D, add GPS, and rename it to T6i. Drop the 70D line. Add GPS and Wi-Fi in the 7D Mark II.


----------



## plam_1980 (Aug 6, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Wow, I guess the new saying will not be "comparing apples and oranges", but "comparing DSLRs and toothpaste"


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 7, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> As ahsanford noted, we've been over this ground before, repeatedly. The numbers just don't support such assertions, nor do the business strategies. This is Canon we're talking about, not one of the <1% market share companies.



Funny you should mention that. The entire collection of DSLR cameras from all manufacturers put together (including Canon and Nikon) come to less than 1% of the camera market once you include all the smartphones, which make up something like 97% of the total camera market. Canon, in total, also represents somewhere on the order of one percent of the camera market.

So yes, the numbers do support such assertions, at least if you look at the bigger picture. Remember that those smartphone vendors are also expanding their lines to smother the smallest players... like Canon and Nikon.




scottburgess said:


> Instead of implying that every company is completely stupid, I recommend you reference the earlier discussions including the actual camera sales numbers if you need a clearer picture. I've posted graphs in some. You might also take a close look at the toothpaste section in your grocery store the next time you're there if you want a more concrete example of where the market is going and why.



Cameras are not toothpaste. The assumption that technology is even slightly similar to commodity goods is precisely what nearly caused Apple to go bankrupt in the 1990s (Pepsi, in their case). Sculley thought that selling a large number of models would result in his products taking up more space on store shelves and would push smaller companies out of the market. The reality was that the exact opposite happened. Customers got confused, and then they got mad. This actually drove customers away, and nearly killed the company. One of the major changes that turned the death spiral around was Steve Jobs cutting out most of those hardware models.

Mind you, Canon's DSLR line isn't as absurd as Apple's was, but it is still out of hand. Right now, on Amazon, I can buy the following models new:

XT
XS
XTi
XSi
T1i
T2i
T3
T3i
T4i
T5
T5i
40D
50D
60D
70D
SL1
SL1-white
6D
7D
5D mark II
5D mark III
1D mark II N
1D mark III
1DX

In other words, just about every DSLR model they've ever made in the last decade is still available new. About half of these are available through Amazon Prime.

This bizarre proliferation of available models demonstrates pretty clearly that Canon's long string of minor updates gives vendors little incentive to deeply discount discontinued products to clear out the channel, resulting in what looks like a market containing two dozen current models. That *can't not* cause customer confusion, particularly when the numbering/naming doesn't necessarily indicate which product is better (or is better for a given user).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> That *can't not* cause customer confusion, particularly when the numbering/naming doesn't necessarily indicate which product is better (or is better for a given user).



You're so right. All that confusion about so many 'current' models (actually, you should check eBay and your list would grow) is a great explanation for why Canon *can't not* have been the dSLR market leader for >10 years. Consumers are clearly idiots, would you believe some of them even think available as Amazon Prime means the same as sold by Amazon?


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > That *can't not* cause customer confusion, particularly when the numbering/naming doesn't necessarily indicate which product is better (or is better for a given user).
> ...



It means they are either sold by or fulfilled by Amazon. My point is not that you can buy them through Amazon marketplace. My point is you can still buy them *new* through Amazon's marketplace (which, by definition, means with a factory warranty). For products discontinued ten years ago, that borders on insane.


----------



## scottburgess (Aug 7, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Funny you should mention that. The entire collection of DSLR cameras from all manufacturers put together (including Canon and Nikon) come to less than 1% of the camera market once you include all the smartphones, which make up something like 97% of the total camera market. Canon, in total, also represents somewhere on the order of one percent of the camera market.


No reason to be so obtuse. By that same logic, smart phones are effectively the only computers and painting canvas. You could include painting canvas as a photographic medium, too. But everyone recognizes that desktop computers, DSLRs, and painting canvas have separate target markets from smart phones despite overlaps in functionality. The discussion was about the number of DSLR models, not an enumeration of every image recording/storing device.



dgatwood said:


> Cameras are not toothpaste. The assumption that technology is even slightly similar to commodity goods is precisely what nearly caused...


The marketing strategy is what was being discussed. Any business text or business person can explain to you why DSLRs and desktop computers and toothpaste are all _mature technologies_ and _mature markets_ today and what those terms mean. These markets all exhibit saturation and incremental technological advances. Reference the graphs I've posted on the DSLR market and the many articles referenced on these forums concerning saturation of the DSLR market. If you don't know what these terms mean, and it is becoming clear that you probably don't, then look them up.



dgatwood said:


> That *can't not* cause customer confusion...


Overwhelming the consumer with choices is _part_ of the marketing strategy as I have noted before. Go look at how many varieties of Colgate and Crest there are, and their respective market shares--and then explain how this widely replicated and successful strategy can't possibly work in a mature market. Or don't, but please stop arguing if you are going to continue ignoring observable proof of what actually works in mature markets.


----------



## Bennymiata (Aug 7, 2014)

*So where's the new announcements?*


----------



## crashpc (Aug 7, 2014)

Bennymiata said:


> *So where's the new announcements?*


Waiting for Photokina, obviously....


----------



## Steve (Aug 7, 2014)

DSLRs and toothpaste are in no way comparable and aren't marketed the same way at all. That's absurd. Toothpaste is a commodity, bought by everybody, that is used up and must be replaced periodically; it has also remained completely functionally unchanged for the last several decades. The only way to differentiate brands is with different colored boxes, flavor additives, and nonsense marketing words plastered on the packaging. That's why toothpaste marketing is such a bewildering confusion - the product is all identical so the companies have to create an illusion of choice in order to stand out. 

DSLRs on the other hand are technology that is constantly changing and improving, are a non-essential luxury item/toy for most, a specialty tool for some and they are marketed as such. There are discrete pricing levels for different demographics with varying levels of disposable income and needs: entry level Rebels, midpoint xxD's, high end full frame, pro level 1 series. There has been some further segmentation with the 7D line for high end crop and the 6D/5DIII that divides full frame into low/high but the general principle is still valid. All of these products are different with pricing that reflects those differences and a presumed customer base. There is literally an order of magnitude difference in the pricing between the t5i and the 1dx and I don't think anyone here would disagree with me when I say these are absolutely different cameras meant for different users.

Canon and Nikon are in no way trying to flood shelves with a confusing array of bs like laundry detergent or toothpaste. The product types are absolutely, fundamentally different, in every conceivable way short of both of them being sold for money in stores. Now, if you want to talk about Pentax and their rainbow colored assortment of DSLRs that might be a different story...

Also, dgatwood, using a list of what cameras are still available new on Amazon isn't helpful. A lot, if not most, of those bodies are discontinued. There isn't much that can be done about old products still being sold by vendors with old stock at ridiculously inflated prices. Even current production lines aren't really indicative of the overall marketing plan or whats being put in front of consumers. Canon still manufactures 1v film cameras but I have yet to see one at a Best Buy. All consumer technology manufacturers put out new, minor upgrades year after year. Its not unique to the camera industry.

That said, I agree to a point that DSLR selection is confusing but I would put that more on the vague naming conventions than too many products. They're not even clearly iterative in some cases (is a 7D better than a 5D?? The number is bigger but not the price???) At least Canon was smart enough to give a name to their entry level line. I'm surprised Nikon hasn't followed suit. But product confusion is a problem in all sorts of hobbies with specialist equipment and a learning curve. Just try buying a modern bicycle with no research and see what you end up with.


----------



## Tugela (Aug 7, 2014)

Steve said:


> Just try buying a modern bicycle with no research and see what you end up with.



A tricycle? With 3 wheels it must be an improvement over a bicycle!!


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 7, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Cameras are not toothpaste. The assumption that technology is even slightly similar to commodity goods is precisely what nearly caused...
> ...



I'm quite familiar with all of those terms. I've been working in the computer industry for fifteen years. What you keep ignoring is the fact that toothpaste is a commodity, which means that any one toothpaste is almost exactly as good as another. They're literally interchangeable. Computers and cameras, by contrast, are not remotely interchangeable, which means that a majority of consumers will go out of their way to buy the specific product that they want, rather than simply settling for whatever is available.

There are two reasons for this:

First, both interchangeable-lens cameras and computers depend on an ecosystem. If I'm running Windows, I can't just grab an iOS tablet and keep doing the same things I was doing before, because none of my software will run. I can't swap out my 6D for a D810, because none of my lenses will work. And so on. There's a much higher barrier to a customer changing to a different manufacturer's products. Making it harder to find your competitor's products might make a difference for first-time purchasers, but makes little difference for long-time users, because they can't feasibly change brands even if they wanted to. So they'll find a way to keep getting the product via Amazon or other channels. The only thing that commodity marketing tricks can do is increase the rate at which product sales move from brick-and-mortar stores to online.

Second, cameras and computers are differentiated by features. There are fairly large differences between, for example, a 5D Mark III and an SL1. People choose one camera over the other based on those features, not based on what happens to be available in the store at the time. They go out of their way to special order cameras online if they can't get them locally, precisely because those features matter. A lot.

Toothpaste, by contrast, isn't differentiated by feature, with the exception of children's toothpastes that are distinguished by the choice of cartoon character on the packaging. And it isn't tied to any sort of ecosystem, so when someone finds their usual variety out of stock, they might try a different store, but if it stays out of stock, they'll try a different brand. In other words, toothpaste sales are nothing at all like technology sales. The marketing strategies that work for commodities like toothpaste or (to a lesser degree) Blu-Ray players simply don't work with computers or cameras.

And even in commodity tech areas like Blu-Ray players, there's a constant drive to differentiate the products from the competition so that people don't pick them like they pick toothpaste. If you can make your product enough better than the competition, people will go out of their way to get your product, ecosystem or no.


----------



## scottburgess (Aug 8, 2014)

Steve said:


> DSLRs and toothpaste are in no way comparable and aren't marketed the same way at all. That's absurd.


No, it's absurd to suggest that because products are different one can't reuse a marketing idea from another product. Again, it is obviously done all the time. Also, technically toothpaste would not really qualify as a commodity because it is specifically differentiated into types for different functions (whitening, cavity fighting, desensitizing, anti-plaque, etc...) and hence a particular toothpaste from a particular manufacturer is not interchangeable blindly with another in the eyes of a purchaser. While common usage of the term is something exchanged in commerce (which applies to most products), the technical usage of commodity is applied to products like oil or electricity or grain which are truly equal regardless of their origin and therefore can be traded on exchanges. Commodities in this sense are mostly used to manufacture other things, and when traded are usually held to a _basis grade_. But perhaps you can point to a basis grade for toothpaste on a trade exchange?



Steve said:


> Canon and Nikon are in no way trying to flood shelves with a confusing array of bs like laundry detergent or toothpaste. The product types are absolutely, fundamentally different, in every conceivable way short of both of them being sold for money in stores. Now, if you want to talk about Pentax and their rainbow colored assortment of DSLRs that might be a different story...


The first line here is reasonably debatable. In my regional camera stores up to 3/4 of the shelf space allotted for DSLR cameras goes to Nikon and Canon. Canon and Nikon also dominate searches on popular websites I use. Perhaps your experience there is different. The comparison is complicated slightly because of the transition from film to digital, but I can still recall in the 90's the fuss made about Canon expanding from four to five EOS camera lines. Canon's current count is ten EOS cameras in production. Four of those lines were started in the last few years, versus one discontinued, for a net increase of three. That is a 40% increase in the number of EOS camera lines in the last few years and 150% overall, which is what the fuss on here was about originally--claims they supposedly offered "too many" and that the company would soon go bankrupt because of Canon's complete insanity. I think these numbers qualify as a significant increase in the number of camera lines, though I don't know how you intended to quantify a "flood."

Adding product lines when in a dominant market position is a well-documented way to expand market share even further. What matters is that the consumer, when faced with a choice, concludes that a) several things your company offers might fit that choice, and b) your company's choices dominate the total number of acceptable choices in sight. The actual count of lines doesn't matter, it's the relative appearance which generates the desired psychological result in the consumer. The odds are outsized, in this case, that the consumer will pick one of your products. How the options are presented to the consumer typically matters a lot more than what category of product it is. For toothpaste, having 50+ product lines matters to create sufficient visual domination when the consumer looks at the store shelf. Ten varieties might be sufficient for laundry detergent. For cameras marketed on, to choose the big example, Amazon, what matters is what the search pages return. If you look at the top SLRs there, almost all of the top 30 models are Canon sprinkled with Nikon--and more models there can generate the same impression in the mind of the consumer as they would on store shelves. It might be relevant that Canon began this expansion from 4 camera lines with the development of on-line retail (call that additional circumstantial evidence, since previously lots of models wouldn't have helped as much since photo stores would probably have chosen not to stock every model).

A stronger line of argumentation might have been to argue that the increase in the number of models offered by Canon served a different purpose. But then you would have to state that purpose, and provide evidence to suggest that this alternate purpose was more important to increasing Canon's profitability.



dgatwood said:


> I'm quite familiar with all of those terms. I've been working in the computer industry for fifteen years. What you keep ignoring is the fact that toothpaste is a commodity, which means that any one toothpaste is almost exactly as good as another. They're literally interchangeable.


Your statements in this paragraph contradict one another: clearly you don't know how to identify a commodity, you don't know that toothpaste users exhibit some of the strongest brand loyalty of all products, and you don't know that the differences you're trying to point up are irrelevant as noted above, so therefore you can't be "quite familiar" with marketing. Experience in the computer industry also has no obvious relevance to a marketing discussion. Ask yourself, would you be called to a courtroom to testify as an expert in marketing something at your company? If not, citing your number of years served in an unrelated job merely undermines your credibility further. I have 32 years in the industry--that's not relevant. But I recently reorganized a plummeting department, developed a new marketing plan for its product, and chiefly by doing this have tripled its size in three years. _That's_ relevant experience.

To everyone else: apologies that we've hijacked a geek thread with marketing goop. I hope that if you've waded through all this you'll find it useful in some small way, perhaps over drinks at a party.


----------



## fragilesi (Aug 8, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> To everyone else: apologies that we've hijacked a geek thread with marketing goop. I hope that if you've waded through all this you'll find it useful in some small way, perhaps over drinks at a party.



Next time I am writing a thesis on "The Art of Splitting Hairs" I think it will be invaluable 

And I know, we all get drawn into these kind of debates at times (well I do too at least), I'm not really dissing anything that's been said. At least unlike some of the rather more surreal threads I've read recently this is still relatively polite!


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 8, 2014)

Tugela said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > Just try buying a modern bicycle with no research and see what you end up with.
> ...



Bah Unicycle. 2 wheels is soooo 20th century. Clearly the technology has advanced to the point where the product should be smaller.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 8, 2014)

scottburgess said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > DSLRs and toothpaste are in no way comparable and aren't marketed the same way at all. That's absurd.
> ...



For the vast majority of purchasers, the purpose of toothpaste is to prevent cavities and gum disease. To that end, all toothpastes work pretty similarly, and there's not a dime's worth of difference between them. Yes, there are a few consumers who care about whether it has extra whitening ingredients, etc., but these users are in the tiny minority, similar to the number of consumers who care about whether a particular Blu-Ray player can also play streaming video from a particular website. It's an attempt to create differentiation, but not a very significant one, at least for a typical consumer.

Or, as Wikipedia puts it, "There is a spectrum of commoditization, rather than a binary distinction of 'commodity versus differentiable product'. Few products have complete undifferentiability and hence fungibility; even electricity can be differentiated in the market based on its method of generation (e.g., fossil fuel, wind, solar), in markets where energy choice lets a buyer pay more for renewable methods if desired. Many products' degree of commodification depends on the buyer's mentality and means."

For most users, toothpaste is fungible. DSLRs are not. The strict definition of a commodity is nothing more than a good that is fully or partially fungible. That's it.




scottburgess said:


> While common usage of the term is something exchanged in commerce (which applies to most products), the technical usage of commodity is applied to products like oil or electricity or grain which are truly equal regardless of their origin and therefore can be traded on exchanges. Commodities in this sense are mostly used to manufacture other things, and when traded are usually held to a _basis grade_. But perhaps you can point to a basis grade for toothpaste on a trade exchange?



A basis grade is required *if* a commodity is traded on an exchange, but not all commodities are exchange-traded commodities (ETCs). The mere existence of such a term should be ample proof of that fact.





scottburgess said:


> The first line here is reasonably debatable. In my regional camera stores up to 3/4 of the shelf space allotted for DSLR cameras goes to Nikon and Canon. Canon and Nikon also dominate searches on popular websites I use. Perhaps your experience there is different.



Then again, these are mostly the products that customers want to buy, and as mentioned, cameras aren't nearly as fungible as toothpaste. 




scottburgess said:


> Adding product lines when in a dominant market position is a well-documented way to expand market share even further. What matters is that the consumer, when faced with a choice, concludes that a) several things your company offers might fit that choice, and b) your company's choices dominate the total number of acceptable choices in sight. The actual count of lines doesn't matter, it's the relative appearance which generates the desired psychological result in the consumer. The odds are outsized, in this case, that the consumer will pick one of your products.



But this strategy works a lot better for really cheap, non-differentiated goods than it does for products costing thousands of dollars. When you get into that territory, most customers can't afford to make a mistake, so what ends up mattering the most is not what's on store shelves, but rather what gear they've seen other people using whose opinions they trust, and what those people say about those cameras.





scottburgess said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > I'm quite familiar with all of those terms. I've been working in the computer industry for fifteen years. What you keep ignoring is the fact that toothpaste is a commodity, which means that any one toothpaste is almost exactly as good as another. They're literally interchangeable.
> ...



Again, Your definition of commodity is way, way narrower than anything I've ever heard in any economics class. It might be a correct definition in some specific usage (market trading, perhaps), but it is *not* the way that term is commonly used.

And yes, I know about brand loyalty. The reason for that strong brand loyalty is twofold:

1. The products are mostly undifferentiated, and even to the degree that they are differentiated, consumers have very little information about what would make one better than the other. In the absence, therefore, of any solid reason to choose one brand over another, the vast majority of new consumers choose whatever brand their parents used, assuming it is easy to find. Otherwise, they grab the first thing on the shelf, and they stick with it because they have no reason to change.

2. Customers see their toothpaste decision as mostly an unimportant, non-intellectual choice, and don't want to waste time and mental energy on finding a different brand of something that is so cheap and whose differences are so largely irrelevant to their lives.

If a brand ceased to exist outright, people wouldn't stop brushing their teeth. They would choose another brand. Yes, consumers will try to find the brand elsewhere, will complain about its absence, and will put off purchasing toothpaste in the vain hope that they'll see it again, but at some point, they'll be forced to buy toothpaste, and they will buy whatever is available. Very few people would pay the 100% markup that mail ordering toothpaste would entail (unless they have a more important reason to strongly prefer a particular kind of toothpaste).

And brand loyalty can also be broken by true differentiation. It only binds consumers who see no other, more meaningful difference between two similar products than the name on the package. When consumers read an article about some ingredient that significantly improves oral hygiene in some way (xylitol, for example), and when that ingredient is only found in specific brands, you'll see a fair percentage of those readers switch. Indeed, the very fact that strong brand loyalty is possible clearly indicates that the goods are highly fungible and poorly differentiated, which makes those goods effectively a commodity in every meaningful sense of the word.




scottburgess said:


> ... and you don't know that the differences you're trying to point up are irrelevant as noted above, so therefore you can't be "quite familiar" with marketing.



The differences I've pointed out are most certainly not irrelevant. You've said nothing that changes the fact that the more expensive the product, the more consumers will research their purchase, which eliminates the effects of brand loyalty and largely obviates the benefit of shelf presence. Consumers research car purchases. They research DSLR purchases. They don't research their initial toothpaste purchase.

That's a very crucial difference, particularly in the presence of substantial vendor lock-in from incompatible camera systems. Combine this with the fact that most users *do* care about a camera's features (unlike toothpaste, where statistically most users make their initial buying decision based on what their parents bought), and you have an entirely different kind of market. The strategies that work in a small-ticket, highly commoditized market like toothpaste simply cannot work in a big-ticket, highly differentiated market like DSLRs, though many companies have tried it.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 10, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Steve said:
> ...


I concur, we'll run production on unicycles until we run down stock of the old sprocket-and-chains. When unicycles become the norm we can reintroduce the "retro-cool" bicycle targeting the discerning hipster crowd


----------



## tron (Aug 11, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...


Yea, unicycles, unicorns and Canon will make a big splash this year ;D


----------



## jrista (Aug 11, 2014)

Umm...toothpaste? That's where this conversation went? Seriously....?


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> Umm...toothpaste? That's where this conversation went? Seriously....?



Is there some variant of Godwin's Law that applies to toothpaste? 8)


----------



## jrista (Aug 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Umm...toothpaste? That's where this conversation went? Seriously....?
> ...



Haha, maybe!  We could call it Orangutan's Law, if no one else has coined it yet.


----------



## traingineer (Aug 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> Umm...toothpaste? That's where this conversation went? Seriously....?


Wait a second... Big Splash? Toothpaste?? Does this mean that Canon is releasing EOS branded toothpaste at Photokina? ??? Well if this is the case, then would that mean that the 100D used teeth whitening toothpaste to become white?..

*It* all makes sense now! Canon is releasing EOS whitening toothpaste to make a DSLR white coloured!


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 11, 2014)

traingineer said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Umm...toothpaste? That's where this conversation went? Seriously....?
> ...



Could this be Canon's response to Nikon's new T810 toothpaste? It's at least as good as Canon's toothpaste, but it will only stick to Nikon's brushes, which in turn are a lot like Canon's brushes, but softer at the corners.


----------



## traingineer (Aug 12, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> traingineer said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



I think it's gonna certainly beat Nikon's T810 toothpaste, and hopefully, Canon release a new brush with their "dual bristles" technology/more fibers. Or else Nikon will have the edge with their 36 million bristles tooth brush.


----------



## jrista (Aug 12, 2014)

traingineer said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > traingineer said:
> ...



They not only need more than 36 million fibers in their brush, Canon also needs a longer shaft, so they can reach way back into the smelly reaches and lift up plaque from the utter depths of the wisdom teeth. ;D


----------



## brianftpc (Aug 12, 2014)

Tugela said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > Just try buying a modern bicycle with no research and see what you end up with.
> ...



Well it is a lot more convenient to ride so in that aspect yes it is an upgrade 



Steve said:


> DSLRs and toothpaste are in no way comparable and aren't marketed the same way at all. That's absurd. Toothpaste is a commodity, bought by everybody, that is used up and must be replaced periodically; it has also remained completely functionally unchanged for the last several decades. The only way to differentiate brands is with different colored boxes, flavor additives, and nonsense marketing words plastered on the packaging. That's why toothpaste marketing is such a bewildering confusion - the product is all identical so the companies have to create an illusion of choice in order to stand out.
> 
> DSLRs on the other hand are technology that is constantly changing and improving, are a non-essential luxury item/toy for most, a specialty tool for some and they are marketed as such. There are discrete pricing levels for different demographics with varying levels of disposable income and needs: entry level Rebels, midpoint xxD's, high end full frame, pro level 1 series. There has been some further segmentation with the 7D line for high end crop and the 6D/5DIII that divides full frame into low/high but the general principle is still valid. All of these products are different with pricing that reflects those differences and a presumed customer base. There is literally an order of magnitude difference in the pricing between the t5i and the 1dx and I don't think anyone here would disagree with me when I say these are absolutely different cameras meant for different users.
> 
> ...



I dont really believe it to be confusing unless someone just doesnt know what they are buying or why. Price is normally always associated with these major factors

1. Low light performance
2. build quality
3. FPS
4. focus points
5. lens mount
6. generation

how much you want to spend should be dictated by what you want to do with it and what you need the camera to do. its like buying a car. Plus if you have a lot of money then the best will do just fine.

What will confuse people will be these things
1. MP count (the idea that more is better)
2. wi-fi (cool stuff)
3. touch screen (cool stuff)
4. camera size (the idea that smaller is better)

If those things confuse them then they shouldnt be spending that much on a camera anyway. An hour on youtube should be all they need to know what they want anyway.

toothpaste is only confusing because its all about the same price. You have to ask yourself what does this toothpaste do that this 1 doesnt and you honestly dont give a damn enough to really find out. The decision is simply based on preference or if it says whitening on the front. Buying a camera is based on actual need. What you are going to do with it. Will you be in situations where you cant use a flash and low light performance is a must. just about any toothpaste you buy is gonna be good enough. That absolutely is not the case with a camera. Its sad to see the confusion on someone's face when they take their brand new rebel to a basketball game and wonder why their pics look horrible or are full of motion blur. Because your camera does not fulfil your need. Theres a reason why a camera exists that costs 5 or 6 times the price. its because it can do something that your camera sucks at.


----------



## dgatwood (Aug 12, 2014)

brianftpc said:


> What will confuse people will be these things
> 1. MP count (the idea that more is better)
> 2. wi-fi (cool stuff)
> 3. touch screen (cool stuff)
> ...



I agree, though it is unfortunate that (with the exception of #4) the only reason these are confusing is a lack of good judgment on Canon's part. There's no reason Canon couldn't add Wi-Fi and optional touchscreen behavior on their high-end gear. And there's no reason they can't add high megapixel counts on their full-frame hardware. They just haven't done it, and probably should.... 




brianftpc said:


> toothpaste is only confusing because its all about the same price.



That and because they're all approximately the same stuff. 




brianftpc said:


> Its sad to see the confusion on someone's face when they take their brand new rebel to a basketball game and wonder why their pics look horrible or are full of motion blur. Because your camera does not fulfil your need. Theres a reason why a camera exists that costs 5 or 6 times the price. its because it can do something that your camera sucks at.



Admittedly, I've only done sports photography on a 6D, but I'd expect a Rebel to be adequate if someone knows how to use it (Tv mode with auto ISO).


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 12, 2014)

let's not just blame the body... often people will pair the rebel with a 75-300 or 55-250 which is a f5.6 at the tele ems, so they are readily getting a quarter of the light in a poorly lit gym... 

Heck...I settle getting 1/500 if a second on some gyms with an aperture of f2.8 and am iso of 3200... provided I'm reflecting correctly.


----------



## Steve (Aug 12, 2014)

brianftpc said:


> I dont really believe it to be confusing unless someone just doesnt know what they are buying or why.



Right, that's why I put in those last two sentences. Buying things like this requires research, which is something a lot of people won't put too much effort into or simply don't know what or how to research. 



brianftpc said:


> toothpaste is only confusing because its all about the same price.



Yes, that's one reason why its really dumb to compare selling cameras to selling toothpaste.


----------

