# *UPDATED* Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 5, 2016)

```
The rumormill has gone quiet for the moment, though we expect it to pick up ahead of CPS next month. Below is what we believe we know is coming in 2017, and we expect there are going to be other products as well.</p>
<p><strong>DSLR</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Canon EOS 77D
<ul>
<li><em>Release Date: Either for CES in January or CP+ in February</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Canon EOS Rebel T7i
<ul>
<li><em>Release Date:Either for CES in January or CP+ in February</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Canon EOS 6D Mark II
<ul>
<li><em>Release Date: Late spring or early summer 2017.</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>PowerShot</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Canon PowerShot SX70 HS
<ul>
<li><em>Release Date: Unknown</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Canon PowerShot G9 X Mark II
<ul>
<li><em>Release Date: Ahead of CES in January</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Lenses</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM II
<ul>
<li><em>Release Date: Either for CES in January or CP+ in February</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM
<ul>
<li><em>Release Date: Unknown</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>A second lens released alongside the Rebels
<ul>
<li><em>We’re told there may be an “interesting lens” coming around the same time as the Rebels.</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Cinema EOS</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Canon Cinema EOS C100 Mark III
<ul>
<li><em>Release Date: Unknown, but NAB would be a logical guess.</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Canon Cinema EOS anamorphic lens
<ul>
<li><em>We think at least one is coming for NAB in April.</em></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>EOS M</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>EOS M3 replacement
<ul>
<li>Release Date: Likely coming in February ahead of CP+</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>We’ll update the roadmap on a regular basis as we learn more about Canon plans.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## rfdesigner (Dec 5, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

It's going to be a cheap year for me then.


----------



## Sharlin (Dec 5, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

[me=Sharlin]wonders how close the 8x0D will be to the 80D. They will probably retain the 19pt AF system. DPAF is more than not, I'd wager. [/me]


----------



## SkynetTX (Dec 5, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Lenses:

Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS *USM* with *Ring-type USM* and *real FTM support*. No STM II, please!


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 5, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



SkynetTX said:


> Lenses:
> 
> Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS *USM* with *Ring-type USM* and *real FTM support*. No STM II, please!


And by *this* you'd pay more for the kit lens than for the 1300D/Rebel T5. 
Try your next wish 


_Edit:
"Your" lens already exists and is called EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM. But it is slightly more expensive than a normal kit lens. 
And the main reason therefore are not the additional 30 mm on the long end nor the 3 mm on the wide._


----------



## vscd (Dec 5, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

@Canon Rumors
Can you please try to name the bodies (if known) also in their other brand-names like Canon f.e. 760D (european market) or Kiss X5 (asian market). Thanks in advance. It's always quite difficult to coop with the Txi/Txs names if you're not used to.So this will be an 800D + 810D equivalent?


----------



## Sharlin (Dec 5, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



SkynetTX said:


> Lenses:
> 
> Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS *USM* with *Ring-type USM* and *real FTM support*. No STM II, please!



The probability of this happening is exactly zero. It would be the stupidest decision ever made.


----------



## Fatalv (Dec 5, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Does this mean we should count out the previous CR1 for Canon's "internal roadmap to merge the 5DS(R) into a 5DS Mk2 in 2017"?

I was getting excited about the 5DIV sensor tech being applied to the already appealing 5DS line


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 5, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

how INNOVATIVE, Canon. Stupid. ;D


----------



## Kim Bentsen (Dec 5, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Boooooring!


----------



## TheVirtualTim (Dec 5, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

About 18 months back (give or take) there were some CR2 level rumors on the TS-E 45 & 90mm lenses being updated with newer versions (although the 90 was likely to be some a different focal length longer than 90).

The rumors on that just sort of went dark and I haven't seen anything further. Is that rumor dead or is there still something expected?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 5, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



SkynetTX said:


> Lenses:
> 
> Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS *USM* with *Ring-type USM* and *real FTM support*. No STM II, please!





via Imgflip Meme Generator


----------



## kyle86 (Dec 5, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Looks like its gonna be a very dull year compared to 2016! Bring on the 400mm with built in extenders!


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 5, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

So if I have this right:


Still no FF mirrorless, not even a low risk fixed lens offering like the RX1, Leica Q, etc.
No replacement to numerous 20+ year old mid-grade USM primes (20 f/2.8, 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2)
No higher quality lenses for EF-M
No wide + fast + coma free prime purpose-built for astro
No budget relatively affordable not super expensive long 200-600 zoom to compete with the influx of new offerings, and also to entice the higher-end crop camp to stay with Canon instead of giving the D500 + 200-500 f/5.6 VR a spin.

AvTvM might actually be right this time. I appreciate there's a lot of 'compulsories' in the pipeline (Rebels, 6D2, etc.), but one would think there'd be room to address some long-skipped-over areas of improvement.

- A


----------



## pokerz (Dec 5, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

STM is future!
Dump all old school USM now


----------



## mustafa (Dec 5, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

My money's waiting for a G5 X MkII. Any sign of that on your radar screen?


----------



## 9VIII (Dec 5, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

This actually sounds like a really good year.

The 5D4 was very "evolutionary" but the 6D2 will be revolutionary compared to the 6D.
If Canon can shrink the form factor enough it might even convince me to try the 6D2 for backpacking instead of the ultralight entry Rebels.
Still wish we had an update for the SL1.
On that note, Canon still has room to do something interesting with the T7, maybe they could make the "s" larger and the "i" smaller, or at least one can can hope.
If nothing else next year I'll pick up a T6i at closeout prices, that camera is basically a 70D at half the price.


----------



## dak723 (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> So if I have this right:
> 
> 
> Still no FF mirrorless, not even a low risk fixed lens offering like the RX1, Leica Q, etc.
> ...



Well, as usual, people can't wait for the opportunity to complain and slam Canon. There are only two sentences in the opening of the article and apparently this is one too many for the brilliant readership of CA.

"Below is what we believe *we know is coming* in 2017, and *we expect there are going to be other products as well.*"

To clarify:
1). No, this is not the complete list of probable products.
2). Expect other products as well.


----------



## markphoto (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

I would love to know the status of an updated TS-E 45mm as well!




TheVirtualTim said:


> About 18 months back (give or take) there were some CR2 level rumors on the TS-E 45 & 90mm lenses being updated with newer versions (although the 90 was likely to be some a different focal length longer than 90).
> 
> The rumors on that just sort of went dark and I haven't seen anything further. Is that rumor dead or is there still something expected?


----------



## markazali (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Is there any word on an update of Vixia Camcorders (4K?)or is that outside the scope of coverage / no one cares?


----------



## Josh Denver (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Questions to admin please: 

-Is it confirmed (Rumor-wise) that the 800D will come in two versions like the 750/760D? or just normalize it to 760D? 

-Is it confirmed the new kit lens is STM or is this an assumption made on the existing product name?


----------



## Lee Jay (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

I thought there was going to be a 150-600 competitor like a 200-500/5.6 or 200-600/5.6.


----------



## James Larsen (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

I just want to see a 6DII announcement ;D


----------



## goldenhusky (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Fatalv said:


> I was getting excited about the 5DIV sensor tech being applied to the already appealing 5DS line



I was dreaming about this as well.... someone might say good luck day dreaming!!! LOL


----------



## unfocused (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



9VIII said:


> ...The 5D4 was very "evolutionary" but the 6D2 will be revolutionary compared to the 6D...



I appreciate your optimism, I just wonder if there is some basis for it. Would you consider 19-point autofocus (probably all points f8 compatible); a second SD card slot; a 24-28 mp sensor; and folding touch screen to be revolutionary? 

A nice upgrade? Yes? But, revolutionary?


----------



## scyrene (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



vscd said:


> @Canon Rumors
> Can you please try to name the bodies (if known) also in their other brand-names like Canon f.e. 760D (european market) or Kiss X5 (asian market). Thanks in advance. It's always quite difficult to coop with the Txi/Txs names if you're not used to.So this will be an 800D + 810D equivalent?



Yeah, I had to go to Wikipedia to be sure what they meant. What is with the US/Japanese naming systems?!


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> AvTvM might actually be right this time. I appreciate there's a lot of 'compulsories' in the pipeline (Rebels, 6D2, etc.), but one would think there'd be room to *address some long-skipped-over areas of improvement*.



Instead, they choose to address long-skipped-over areas of profit. 

Let me repeat, yet again: we *all* want the perfect camera at a Rebel price. We want a sensor with 100Mpix, and sRAW down to 20; and we want 16-stops of DR, with lossless compression to store that in 8 bits; and we all want it weatherproof, and psychic levels of subject tracking, and a mirrorless version with an EVF with zero lag and clear, bright low-light view.

Until the competition starts eating Canon's lunch, you will see solid, incremental, unsurprising advances on products that just work.

Blame the (lack of) competition, there's no other way to look at it.


----------



## Woody (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Still hoping to see on-board flash for 6D MkII, a la Nikon D600/D750


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

If that roadmap would be true, it would be very disappointing and only contain 1 out of approx 50 cameras and lenses I have on a personal wish list and would buy (products which all wouldn't be unrealistic looking at the competition and the market in the year 2017):

1DX2 Mirrorless 5Axis
5D4 Mirrorless 5Axis
5D 120MP 5Axis
5D 12MP Low Light 5Axis
5D Astro Camera
Medium Format 100MP Camera
C500III 4K 60fps

14-24/2.8 IS
16-35/2.8 IS
24-70/2.8 IS
70-200/2.8 IS III
200-600/5.6 IS
24-200/3.5-5.6 IS
28-300/3.5-5.6 IS II

16-300/3.5-5.6 IS
17-55/2.8 IS II
18-35/1.8 IS
50-100/1.8 IS
50-150/2.8 IS

12/2.8 IS
14/2.8 IS
18/2 IS
20/1.4 IS
20/1.8 IS
24/1.4 IS
24/1.8 IS
28/1.4 IS
28/1.8 IS
35/1.4 IS
35/1.8 IS
45/2.8 II Tiltshift
50/0.95
50/1.2 IS
50/1.8 IS
60/2 IS Macro
85/1.2 IS
85/1.8 IS
90/2.8 II Tiltshift
100/2 IS Macro
135/2 IS
180/2.8 IS Macro
200/2.8 IS


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Orangutan said:


> Let me repeat, yet again: we *all* want the perfect camera at a Rebel price. We want a sensor with 100Mpix, and sRAW down to 20; and we want 16-stops of DR, with lossless compression to store that in 8 bits; and we all want it weatherproof, and psychic levels of subject tracking, and a mirrorless version with an EVF with zero lag and clear, bright low-light view.



Speak for yourself. I'm actually a _reasonable_ person. 

I don't think anything on my list was particularly extravagant. Sure, none of them are more important than a competitive new Rebel or the 6D2 -- your point is correct. But consider:


If a new 70-300 non-L can happen, I think the non-L USM lenses might see an update someday.

If an astro rig gets released every so often, perhaps someone might want to put a great lens on it for that application.


Canon FF mirrorless is not an if -- it's a _when_. 'When' could plausibly be 2017 given all the strides they've made with DPAF, viewfinders, touchscreen, etc.


So I don't think 1-2 of those items on my (prior posted) list arriving next year would be a delusional ask. I mean, it's not crazytown like folks pining for EF-S L lenses, f/1.0 primes to make a comeback, or AvTvM's now infamous EF-M 85mm 'fast IS pancake'. 

- A


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Still no replacement to prehistoric 50mm Compact macro or update to ancient 180mm usm macro. Also how about Rt(slave mode only) upgrade to speedlight 320ex? That would be useful for a people wanting RT flashes on budget.


----------



## drob (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Let me repeat, yet again: we *all* want the perfect camera at a Rebel price. We want a sensor with 100Mpix, and sRAW down to 20; and we want 16-stops of DR, with lossless compression to store that in 8 bits; and we all want it weatherproof, and psychic levels of subject tracking, and a mirrorless version with an EVF with zero lag and clear, bright low-light view.
> ...



Why is a FF mirrorless such a desired item again? With their lackluster history with the M series, I don't think they would start off with an awesome FF mirrorless...it would be some crippled, pathetic attempt. In addition the size advantage of a pro-grade mirrorless camera is nil....how about just a 6DII that has some advanced features (like an actually competitive AF system)?


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



drob said:


> Why is a FF mirrorless such a desired item again? With their lackluster history with the M series, I don't think they would start off with an awesome FF mirrorless...it would be some crippled, pathetic attempt.



Mirrorless is attractive for many reasons you can find in the forum. If you try to distill it down into a simple sound bite like "Mirrorless is all about making things smaller" you miss the point. There's more going on than that. I'm not declaring mirrorless as being better than my current SLR (5D3) and I have avoided buying mirrorless because the performance isn't there yet. But it will get there for probably 90% of us eventually, and it offers some slick functionality a traditional SLR cannot offer.

And past is not necessarily prologue here with your EOS M reference. Nerfing/crippling a product is a _decision_, not a failure to execute. Canon doesn't have to make that decision with FF mirrorless. Between their immense expertise with lens and camera design, proprietary tech like DPAF, their experience with EVFs, touchscreen interfaces, etc. they have all the tools they need to make a killer mirrorless offering. (One could argue the only thing Canon lacks in the mirrorless tech side of things is IBIS, which is a nice-to-have (but not a must) if you are going with a new skinny mount and plan to bolt older pre-IS lenses on to it.)

Now do I expect Canon's first FF mirrorless offering to be a a 5D4-level polished gem without a mirror? No. But it will not be horrendously nerfed, _lack a damn viewfinder_, etc. like they had with EOS M, M2, M3, etc. It will be a solid offering as they'll be asking a nontrivial price for it.

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Sounds boring.

I've read the reviews of the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 mkIII, kept the mkII, and bought an EF 11-24mm f/4L USM.

That stretched my budget. Unless Canon releases an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L with IS (not holding my breath), I'm done with L zooms for a decade.

Now I'm hoping Canon would upgrade the non-L primes, say 50mm f/1.4 & 85mm f/1.8 with IS, same as the 24-28-35 trio got.


----------



## crashpc (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Well small FF mirrorless with 28mm pancake with 5D4 sensor would do.
M5 without viewfinder too.
Some native lenses as 50mm f/1.4 IS would do too.
I have some $$$$ in my hands, willing to upgrade in next month, yet I don't see the camera ecosystem I would really like to jump into.
Even ugly Sony now looks like tempting competition.


----------



## Jopa (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM - excited!!!

No 5dsr II ??? I remember a rumor it was promised the next year.


----------



## vscd (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Chaitanya said:


> Still no replacement to prehistoric 50mm Compact macro or update to ancient 180mm usm macro. Also how about Rt(slave mode only) upgrade to speedlight 320ex? That would be useful for a people wanting RT flashes on budget.



What would you like to improve on the 180L? Just improving for it's own sake to rise the prices? The lens is perfect as is... still one of the sharpest ever made, after 2 decades.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> ...
> Now do I expect Canon's first FF mirrorless offering to be a a 5D4-level polished gem without a mirror? No. But it will not be horrendously nerfed, _lack a damn viewfinder_, etc. like they had with EOS M, M2, M3, etc. It will be a solid offering as they'll be asking a nontrivial price for it.



While I still hope for it I am not sure Canon (and Nikon) have learned their mirrorless lesson yet. Especially as no single attractive offering for mirrorless - not even for EOS M - is on this "rumored roadmap". I don't see any hints whatsoever pointing towards a 2017 launch of a Canon (and/or Nikon) FF MILC system. 

That's why I wish them a lot more suffering and bleeding. They apparently have to be brought to their knees first before they finally offer what I and millions of other potential buyers want. 


PS: Mirrorless FF why so attractive? If done right with global electronic shutter it means: *no noise, no vibration, smaller form factor for camera and a number of most frequently used lenses* in focal range from 24-85mm. Plus *full photographic capability *and use of (larger) lenses whenever needed. But only when needed. *Best of both worlds*. 

*More precise and faster AF* ... just a matter of CPU power and use of some smart algorithms in firmware. *No AFMA *needed ... don't give me the "focus shift" bullsh*t. As long as you stay away from dubious f/1.2 lenses it is no real issue. 

Plus *less expensive cameras*, due to major cost savings - fully robotic assembly of mechanics-free, "solid-state" MILCs .. no shimming, no shifting, easy assembly, much easier, fully automated quality control. No oil splatters on sensors, no sub-mirror-assembly related AF issues in the field, less recalls. And less after-sales service / warranty repairs needed (if done right of course). And I demand 50% of those cost savings for us customers. 50% to keep for suppliers. Fair is fair. Win-Win.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> PS: Mirrorless FF why so attractive? If done right with global electronic shutter it means: *no noise, no vibration, smaller form factor for camera and a number of most frequently used lenses* in focal range from 24-85mm. Plus *full photographic capability *and use of (larger) lenses whenever needed. But only when needed. *Best of both worlds*.
> 
> *More precise and faster AF* ... just a matter of CPU power and use of some smart algorithms in firmware. *No AFMA *needed ... don't give me the "focus shift" bullsh*t. As long as you stay away from dubious f/1.2 lenses it is no real issue.
> 
> Plus *less expensive cameras*, due to major cost savings - fully robotic assembly of mechanics-free, "solid-state" MILCs .. no shimming, no shifting, easy assembly, much easier, fully automated quality control. No oil splatters on sensors, no sub-mirror-assembly related AF issues in the field, less recalls. And less after-sales service / warranty repairs needed (if done right of course). And I demand 50% of those cost savings for us customers. 50% to keep for suppliers. Fair is fair. Win-Win.



Global shutter - no-on has the technology for that on FF yet, but you wish bile on Canon in particular?
No vibration? - shutter shock remains an issue and no doubt for you it will be a problem specifically at the shutter speeds you use
Smaller form factor? - I have seen a lot of comments that the 'smaller form factor' on the Sony means significant aberrations at the periphery. If Canon introduced a FF mirrorless now with the same compromises you would whine about that as well

Canon have a history of deciding what is important and blocking things they think do not meet their standards. it is why they program Canon extenders to block AF at f8 except on specific bodies that have the capability to actually use it - they would rather block it than have people complaining about unpredictable AF at the smaller apertures. It is why they are cautious about introducing new technologies until they are confident they work. 



> They apparently have to be brought to their knees first before they finally offer what I and millions of other potential buyers want.



Do you think Sony should be 'brought to their knees' for not offering a FF mirrorless with the quality of weathersealing that you can buy on the 7D2? Or the level of AF? After all, given your assertion that FF cameras are cheaper, then at the ame price they should be able to offer the weathersealing as well. 
Not to mention any form of after-sales service.

Stupid, stupid AvTvM


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

@mikehit: 
global shutter eliminates shutter shock. That's why I want it (I dont care for video). It has been in the works long enough. If Canon were half as innovative as some CDL members here claim, we would have had global shutter on FF sensors for some time already. 

Smaller form factor: is real. Just becaus Sony decied to first make a narrow very short-flange distance E-mount for APS-C only, and then decided to also use that for FF does not mean Canon or others should repeat Sony's mistake. Make that mount as wide as you can [Canon does] and make flange distance just 3 mm longer and lens design will be *a whole lot easier* and lenses smaller and less expensive, while camera bodies can be still quite skinny. 

Me and millions of other potential buyers have not switched to Sony because 
1. most of us have some investment in Canon or Nikon glass and Sony does not offer a native adapter for it and i will never buy some weirdo metabones stuff at 500 a piece and 
2. Sony A7 1st gen line-up was lacking in some key areas [AF, shutter shock, battery charge ... ] and 
3. Sony has priced its A7 Mk. II family rather high and
4. most importantly: Sony lenses are either sub-par and yet more expensive compared to Canon/Nikon glass or too big, fat, heavy and way too expensive [Zeiss-badged stuff, G-Master cludges] 

Those are the main 4 reasons why Sony has not been able and is not able to grab more market share, despite Nikon's and Canon's no-show in FF mirrorless and Canon's nerfed APS-C mirrorless offering. 

Fuji has profited a bit from the situation, but are limited due to their high prices and their (stupid!) decision to not add FF mirrorless but rather go into pseudo "medium format". And that retro stuff appeals only to a small minority of customers and turns off people like myself and millions of other potential customers who want clean, modern, digital, sleek user interfaces. 

It's quite easy to understand the stills imaging market.


----------



## vscd (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

@AvTvM

I think you see the world from the customerview. Your statements remind me of something like "Why is there no 70-200L 1.4 IS, where is the problem?". In the non-engineering world it's quite easy to wish for something which seems to be a no-brainer, but I think even Canon doesn't hold back innovation on purpose...

The mirrorless concept is no holy grail and every advantage takes a disadvantage with it. For example a sportsphotograph gives a S*it on shuttterschocks if he can do 3000 shots CIPA with the mirror-cam. This may be differ on another task, but as you see the mirrorless is nothing some people may look for. I might remind you than any DSLR can be a mirrorless with slapping up the mirror and let liveview take over the work. You can have all you desire directly on the sensor, without AF-Adjustment. So what's the deal?

Just wanted to jump on the Mirrorless-Train? I guess most pro/semipro know what the differences are and don't need another thread about what Canon should do and what they shouldn't.

I don't want a mirrorless. I have one and I use it where is belongs. For real work I use a DSLR. Thanks for teaching.

By the way, why do you claim the Mirrorless body to be less noisy?

P.S: Did you notice the recent problems of small bodies with overheating @4k recording? One further disadvantage... look at CPU-Coolers.


----------



## Ladislav (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

My expectations for 2017:


6D II
That rumored 200-500 or similar zoom
24-70/2.8 L IS
Rumors about 7D III for 2018 

I would be more than interested in these items.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> @mikehit:
> global shutter eliminates shutter shock. That's why I want it (I dont care for video). It has been in the works long enough. If Canon were half as innovative as some CDL members here claim, we would have had global shutter on FF sensors for some time already.
> 
> Smaller form factor: is real. Just becaus Sony decied to first make a narrow very short-flange distance E-mount for APS-C only, and then decided to also use that for FF does not mean Canon or others should repeat Sony's mistake. Make that mount as wide as you can [Canon does] and make flange distance just 3 mm longer and lens design will be *a whole lot easier* and lenses smaller and less expensive, while camera bodies can be still quite skinny.
> ...



With all their video equipment, you are claiming the Canon is not applying their research to this? has little interest in a global shutter? It seems your desire to whine like a 5-year old who didn't get their favourite present on Christmas day is blinding you to pure logic.

The four points you highlight show different priorities with each company and which one you buy is your choice. You see, the problem is that people are predicting the demise of Canon for their ignorance or unwillingness to introduce certain technology, forgetting that people buy Canon or Nikon for what is called the 'ecosystem' (stupid word in this context). And your 4 points explain precisely why Canon will not go bust - the Sony lenses are big and expensive and quality ones few and far between.

Maybe Sony's prices are high because implementing mirrorless technology is not your verging-on-peurile assumption that 'the price of the camera is the price of a DSL without the cost of making and installing a mirror'. Maybe you don't know what you are talking about. Or maybe you do know what you are are talking about but just like to complain. 



Nikon don't have FF mirrorless
Canon don't have FF mirrorless
Fuji don't have FF mirrorless



> It's quite easy to understand the stills imaging market.


Given it is so easy to understand, I wonder who it is who doesn't understand it. You or three major manufacturers?


----------



## canonic (Dec 6, 2016)

*6D2*

If Canon dont put in it 4K Video ... i am coming Sony A7/A9 ... long live Metabones!

Its a shame i/we have to ask ourselve about this if will be happen in 2017!


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



vscd said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Still no replacement to prehistoric 50mm Compact macro or update to ancient 180mm usm macro. Also how about Rt(slave mode only) upgrade to speedlight 320ex? That would be useful for a people wanting RT flashes on budget.
> ...



Reduce CA, increase focus speed and add IS.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> drob said:
> 
> 
> > Why is a FF mirrorless such a desired item again? With their lackluster history with the M series, I don't think they would start off with an awesome FF mirrorless...it would be some crippled, pathetic attempt.
> ...



During spring/summer the MP-E 65mm, MT-24EX and GP-E2 rarely leave my eos M, the exposure simulation and 5x/10x zoom options really help with nailing the focus: https://www.flickr.com/photos/koenkooi/18738636335/in/album-72157654153487336/

That combo can't be labeled 'small mirrorless' either


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Mike,

I recall Fuji CEO making comment at the launch of their Medium Format rig to the effect that they decided to skip mirrorless FF form factor all together as it is dangerously too close to the crop tech in terms of IQ and other major charateristics of the resulting image... Medium Format was making a better sense for them. So having the crop bodies targeting consumer customer base and Medium Format targeting more demanding segments of the market? I totally understand where he was coming from  Just wanted to support your statement: there is nothing technical about this FF issue. I trust it was a business decision that companies made based on reliable market and customer base data / feedback / response...




Mikehit said:


> Nikon don't have FF mirrorless
> Canon don't have FF mirrorless
> Fuji don't have FF mirrorless
> 
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Thank you for that clarification, Alex. 
As you say, these guys understand the market, because it is how they make their living. Whereas too many armchair marketing geniuses think the market is 'I would buy it'. 

I am sure more firms have plans to make FF mirrorless in due course. It is just not ready yet.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



SkynetTX said:


> Lenses:
> 
> Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS *USM* with *Ring-type USM* and *real FTM support*. No STM II, please!



Let me fix that for ya.. "Canon EF-S 18-55 f/2.8 II IS USM"... But yea no STM.. 

APS-C bodies need a quality standard zoom in a serious way.. It can be done, the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 Contemporary has really good optics for a sub $500 APS-C lens. Sadly mine has started having focusing issues the past month or so now..


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Canon Rumors said:


> The rumormill has gone quiet for the moment, though we expect it to pick up ahead of CPS next month. Below is what we believe we know is coming in 2017, and we expect there are going to be other products as well.</p>
> <p><strong>DSLR</strong></p>
> <ul>
> <li>Canon EOS Rebel T7s
> ...


I think were also going to see at NAB a Full-Frame version of the C700. My prediction will be the EF 35mm f1.4L II which your reporting will have a cousin in the EF 85mm f1.4L will expand out to a 18mm, 24mm, 50mm, 100mm and maybe a 135mm. Nikon have recently added a 105mm f1.4 so Canon will want to compete and these lenses will be converted for cinematography just as Sigma has done with its Art lenses but Canon will maintain a T1.5 stop.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> Speak for yourself. I'm actually a _reasonable_ person.
> 
> I don't think anything on my list was particularly extravagant. Sure, none of them are more important than a competitive new Rebel or the 6D2 -- your point is correct. But consider:
> 
> ...



Never said your requests weren't reasonable. My point is that "reasonable" is not the criterion Canon will use, it will be "profitable relative to other products." That can be a straight-up profit projection in the current market, or important competition from another market participant. I might very well buy that 200-600 you described, I'd love to have it for birds. I simply concede an important point: Canon knows the aggregate camera market better than I do, so they don't care a whole lot what I want.

-O


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> If that roadmap would be true, it would be very disappointing and only contain 1 out of approx 50 cameras and lenses I have on a personal wish list and would buy (products which all wouldn't be unrealistic looking at the competition and the market in the year 2017):
> 
> 1DX2 Mirrorless 5Axis
> 5D4 Mirrorless 5Axis
> ...



Lol. First, no one but you cares about 'your personal wishlist'. Second, you have six f/1.4 or faster lenses with IS that ' wouldn't be unrealistic looking at the competition' so please list all the competitor lenses that are f/1.2 or f/1.4 with VC/IS. Third, you've got cameras on there that are ridiculuosly silly.

Granted, there are a few products on your list that make sense...but hey, if you throw enough crap at the wall, some will stick. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Orangutan said:


> I simply concede an important point: Canon knows the aggregate camera market better than I do, so they don't care a whole lot what I want.



Canon knows the aggregate camera market better than any of us. 

Well, except for AvTvM...


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



vscd said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Still no replacement to prehistoric 50mm Compact macro or update to ancient 180mm usm macro. Also how about Rt(slave mode only) upgrade to speedlight 320ex? That would be useful for a people wanting RT flashes on budget.
> ...


like other user posted: improved af speed and added IS. also there was a patent that Canon filed for 180mm macro that went beyond 1x max mag ratio so that would be insanely useful. I have used Sigma 180mm f2.8 Macro and Af is very slow it takes good 1.5-2secs to lock af and it lacks weather sealing.


----------



## Luds34 (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



James Larsen said:


> I just want to see a 6DII announcement ;D



You and I both!


----------



## tron (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

If 6DII's sensor is better than 5DIV's one (I do not want to repeat other threads here) but does NOT have 4K ..




























... I will most probably buy it ;D


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I simply concede an important point: Canon knows the aggregate camera market better than I do, so they don't care a whole lot what I want.
> ...


They don't always get it right the XC10 was a good example of that come to think of it so was the C500! They also didn't foresee the impact of smart phones on compact cameras.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

To be fair, no-one foresaw the impact of camera phones on the compacts market. Not even the smartphone makers - what really allowed smartphones to take off was social network sites and the two have fed off each other ever since.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



vscd said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Still no replacement to prehistoric 50mm Compact macro or update to ancient 180mm usm macro. Also how about Rt(slave mode only) upgrade to speedlight 320ex? That would be useful for a people wanting RT flashes on budget.
> ...



What little test data exists on the 180L in a comparable format is hard to come by, but you might consider this:

DXO @ 22MP (5D3): 

135L: 20 / 22 P-Mpix (in DXO speak, the lens is nearly outresolving the sensor here)
180L: 14 / 22 P-Mpix

DXO @ 50 MP (5DS R):

135L: 30 / 50 P-Mpix (where a lot of very good L lenses end up)
180L: *16* / 50 P-Mpix (this is a level of performance you'd allege the lens isn't rated for / doesn't get rewarded for the 50 MP canvas)

So there is always room for improvement. They could always refresh the optics and give it the 100L treatment: give it IS and fast enough AF to serve as a non-macro lens. I've never personally used it, but I've always read the current 180L's AF was quite slow.

Also, why not sprinkle some innovation in there and find a way to streamline focus stacking? If we can have a digital focus scale on a lens, we could pipe focus stacking increments to the display and show where to set the focus ring in precise increments.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



jeffa4444 said:


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



No one is suggesting they are perfect or omniscient, just that they know far more than individuals posting here. Take douglaurent, for example, with his personal wish list of 50 'not unreasonable' products, most of which are _very_ unreasonable with current technology and the state of the market. Or AvTvM, with his 'millions of people would buy an EF-M 85mm f/2.8 IS'.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> Or AvTvM, with his 'millions of people would buy an EF-M 85mm f/*2.4* IS *pancake*'.



Corrected that for you. Now it's so much more reasonable of an ask! 

#stupidcanon

- A


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > If that roadmap would be true, it would be very disappointing and only contain 1 out of approx 50 cameras and lenses I have on a personal wish list and would buy (products which all wouldn't be unrealistic looking at the competition and the market in the year 2017):
> ...



The list contains only products that Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax, Sigma and Tamron already have in their program - plus ONE main innovation, which in most cases is stabilization. One innovation is something you can expect from a new product, after the old one has been on the market since 1-20 years, right??? 

Regarding the main point "stabilization" I invite you to use one of the latest, body-stabilized Micro Four Third cameras and lenses. It's possible to shoot stable, handheld 800mm full frame equivalent photos and 920mm videos for less than 2000 euros. An 8500 euro 1DX2+24-70/2.8 Canon combination sucks in comparison. Of course people who only use existing Canon products will never know what the rest of the world is talking about.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> The list contains only products that Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax, Sigma and Tamron already have in their program - plus ONE main innovation, which in most cases is stabilization. One innovation is something you can expect from a new product, after the old one has been on the market since 1-20 years, right???
> 
> Regarding the main point "stabilization"* I invite you to use one of the latest, body-stabilized Micro Four Third cameras and lenses. * It's possible to shoot stable, handheld 800mm full frame equivalent photos and 920mm videos for less than 2000 euros. An 8500 euro 1DX2+24-70/2.8 Canon combination sucks in comparison. Of course people who only use existing Canon products will never know what the rest of the world is talking about.



So in other words you admit not even MFTs make image stabilised f1.8 lenses because the 'IS' is in the body. 
D'uh!
You then compare the MFT to a 1Dx2 (what a ridiculous attempt at trolling) with an unstabilised lens. Try the 6D with 24-105 f4 IS at about 2,000 Euros.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> Regarding the main point "stabilization" I invite you to use one of the latest, body-stabilized Micro Four Third cameras and lenses. It's possible to shoot stable, handheld 800mm full frame equivalent photos and 920mm videos for less than 2000 euros. An 8500 euro 1DX2+24-70/2.8 Canon combination sucks in comparison. Of course people who only use existing Canon products will never know what the rest of the world is talking about.



Your list is _dreamy_, Doug, I'll give you that. : But I will back you up on one thing: IS is great and can do some amazing things.

There are folks now raving about the new Olympus's IS and being able to pull off sharp 15 second handheld exposures (not a typo). That's a radioactively misleading claim to make (and in fairness, enthusiasts are saying this, not Olympus), but it shows that IS can help for much more than conventional wisdom telling us that it's meant for longer FL lenses and for video. 

So I would love IS on everything and I commend Doug for asking for it, but we simply won't get it. Canon has staked out a portfolio that is inconsistent on this front.

- A


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> Or AvTvM, with his 'millions of people would buy an EF-M 85mm f/2.8 IS'.



wrong. EF-M 85mm/*2.4* STM IS is what me and the unshaven EOS M masses want.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> So in other words you admit not even MFTs make image stabilised f1.8 lenses because the 'IS' is in the body.
> D'uh!
> You then compare the MFT to a 1Dx2 (what a ridiculous attempt at trolling) with an unstabilised lens. Try the 6D with 24-105 f4 IS at about 2,000 Euros.



Ridiculois troll...yep that pretty much sums up douglaurent. And those 50 friends of his that think like he does, and thus are also apparently members of CHWAC*.




*Canon Haters Without a Clue


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Or AvTvM, with his 'millions of people would buy an EF-M 85mm f/*2.4* IS *pancake*'.
> ...





AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Or AvTvM, with his 'millions of people would buy an EF-M 85mm f/2.8 IS'.
> ...



Late to the party as usual. :


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > The list contains only products that Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax, Sigma and Tamron already have in their program - plus ONE main innovation, which in most cases is stabilization. One innovation is something you can expect from a new product, after the old one has been on the market since 1-20 years, right???
> ...



Panasonic even makes stabilized f1.2 lenses like the 42.5mm, but with the new MFT bodies indeed lens stabilization is not that relevant anymore. I don't understand why that's a "Canon wins" point?


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > So in other words you admit not even MFTs make image stabilised f1.8 lenses because the 'IS' is in the body.
> ...



Yes, that pretty much sums me up, the guy who owns approx 50 cameras and 250 lenses including all new Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic etc stuff. Someone who owns and uses that clearly will have far less knowledge than a Canon user who only knows and uses 1 body and 3 lenses. That is pretty logical.


----------



## pokerz (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



vscd said:


> @AvTvM
> 
> I think you see the world from the customerview. Your statements remind me of something like "Why is there no 70-200L 1.4 IS, where is the problem?". In the non-engineering world it's quite easy to wish for something which seems to be a no-brainer, but I think even Canon doesn't hold back innovation on purpose...
> 
> ...


someone tried recording 4k (full pixel readout without pixel binning) with no overheat on little A6500
If Sony can, why cant Canon?


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> Panasonic even makes stabilized f1.2 lenses like the 42.5mm, but with the new MFT bodies indeed lens stabilization is not that relevant anymore. I don't understand why that's a "Canon wins" point?



You can't sling around an m43 company building absurd one-off lenses to try to get small DOF from those tiny sensors as a legitimate roadmap for CaNikon to follow. 

The lens you reference is more like an 85mm f/2.4 lens in our terms. (Yes, the light gathering is f/1.2 but the DOF is not.) But we can already enjoy an 85mm f/1.8 for a quarter of the price. That's a "Canon wins" in my book.

But please continue running with that argument if you want. Get geeked out about your iPhone 7S f/1.8 + IBIS setup. And then I can stop down my 28mm IS prime to f/11 or so and get the same result.

I am not knocking smaller sensors so much as making a point. Just because a smaller sensor manufacturer offers something doesn't mean FF folks should expect the same spec'd product as a reasonable ask. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Oh, is that what matters most? You're saying you actually use 50 cameras and 250 lenses personally? Earlier you said you rented them out. Oh, well, it's pretty logical to spin facts...or even make stuff up...to support your opinion. 

FYI, Roger Cicala is a guy who owns _way more_ cameras and lenses than you, and he bought a Canon dSLR system for his personal use. That is pretty logical, too.


----------



## tron (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



pokerz said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > @AvTvM
> ...


Actually they solved overheat with ... overheat ;D
I mean they included a new setting which disables the power off due to heat and allows the camera to continue up to maximum time.
They say they guarantee a second round but not a 3rd. So sony has indeed more potential. It can possible be a toaster or ... even make coffee something that is always an indication of maximum (doing everything) possible functionality ;D

http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/10/14/sony-fix-overheating-issue-with-new-setting-on-the-a6500/


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> If that roadmap would be true, it would be very disappointing and only contain 1 out of approx 50 cameras and lenses I have on a personal wish list and would buy (products which all wouldn't be unrealistic looking at the competition and the market in the year 2017)



good grief most of them are retarded. IS won't correct low frequency shake in the lens itself.


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> It's possible to shoot stable, handheld 800mm full frame equivalent photos and 920mm videos for less than 2000 euros.



Except it's not the same. especially in conditions people really shoot with those telephotos - such as poor light and subject isolation is entirely different with what an f/8 or f/11 equivalent telephoto?


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> Yes, that pretty much sums me up, the guy who owns approx 50 cameras and 250 lenses including all new Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic etc stuff. Someone who owns and uses that clearly will have far less knowledge than a Canon user who only knows and uses 1 body and 3 lenses. That is pretty logical.



comments like this are funny. if you own 50 cameras, and 250 lenses then I suggest you get out your mom's basement, realize the sky is blue and get off the internet.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



rrcphoto said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > It's possible to shoot stable, handheld 800mm full frame equivalent photos and 920mm videos for less than 2000 euros.
> ...



f4 on MFT is like f4 on full frame in terms of transmission and brightness. 
And what does that have to do with the effect of image stabilization?
Logically a much smaller camera should be much shakier in itself, and a smaller body should have less space for effective in body stabilization.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



rrcphoto said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that pretty much sums me up, the guy who owns approx 50 cameras and 250 lenses including all new Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic etc stuff. Someone who owns and uses that clearly will have far less knowledge than a Canon user who only knows and uses 1 body and 3 lenses. That is pretty logical.
> ...



You know this site is about the future of Canon equipment and not Breitbart, right? Seems you have hit the wrong bookmark.


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



read much? know much?

seems you need to shoot with some of those 300 pieces of camera gear.

pros will use the 1DX and the D5's because of the ability to shoot in poor light with increased subject isolation, something your example simply cannot do. Not to mention the 1DX,etc has far better and more advanced AF systems that work much better with major defocus to handle that subject isolation.


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



you know that idiotic comments will be treated as such as well? Good grief.

if mirrorless was so popular it wouldn't languishing with an increased 5% marketshare penetration over 5+ years with additional companies providing mirrorless in that timespan.

and m43's? really?

Olympus can't even sell 500,000 cameras per year.

and sounds like half of them were sold to you.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



rrcphoto said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...


In body stabilisation has its merits and that data in 4K video can be used as positioning metadata. Olympus perfected in-body stabilisation and Sony use their system (they own a chuck of Olympus). Personally I would prefer m4/3rd than smart phone cameras and the system is useful for travelling light, its not a full-frame replacement and never will be but horses for courses.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



jeffa4444 said:


> In body stabilisation has its merits and that data in 4K video can be used as positioning metadata. Olympus perfected in-body stabilisation and Sony use their system (they own a chuck of Olympus). Personally I would prefer m4/3rd than smart phone cameras and the system is useful for travelling light, its not a full-frame replacement and never will be but horses for courses.



For the FF crowd, IBIS serves one key area: _adapting old glass on mirrorless._ 

We can bellyache all day that IBIS doesn't work well on longer lenses or certain frequencies of vibration, but for an old FD lens, it's better than nothing.

- A


----------



## gn100 (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



vscd said:


> @Canon Rumors
> Can you please try to name the bodies (if known) also in their other brand-names like Canon f.e. 760D (european market) or Kiss X5 (asian market). Thanks in advance. It's always quite difficult to coop with the Txi/Txs names if you're not used to.So this will be an 800D + 810D equivalent?



Wld also be nice to have the time of release in a month or quarter, instead of season ..... as far as I'm concerned, it's now summer ...... as it is for half the planet, winter for the other other half


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > In body stabilisation has its merits and that data in 4K video can be used as positioning metadata. Olympus perfected in-body stabilisation and Sony use their system (they own a chuck of Olympus). Personally I would prefer m4/3rd than smart phone cameras and the system is useful for travelling light, its not a full-frame replacement and never will be but horses for courses.
> ...



What do you think is the market size of those adapting old glass on mirrorless? The real market, I mean, not the few hundred people hanging out on Internet photo forums and happy that mirrorless means they no longer have to buy EdMika adapters for their old FD lenses. Or maybe, those few hundred people hanging out on Internet photo forums discussing old glass *is* the entire market.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

In camera stabilisation I assume also means that the lens are cheaper. Olympus make very good prime lens. I like the picture quality from their micro 4/3 sensors. The small size is very handy and as you say much better than a phone. For Olympus I find their menu system a disaster. It's really poorly designed. I can't believe they won't do something with it. It lets down their gear which is really very good.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> What do you think is the market size of those adapting old glass on mirrorless? The real market, I mean, not the few hundred people hanging out on Internet photo forums and happy that mirrorless means they no longer have to buy EdMika adapters for their old FD lenses. Or maybe, those few hundred people hanging out on Internet photo forums discussing old glass *is* the entire market.



Small but dedicated number, I'm sure, though many of them flocked to the A7 platform when it came out. It screams the Venn diagram intersection of [Old lens collector or film shooter] + [Enthusiast] + [Tinkerer], so yeah, there aren't _that_ many folks out there who want to do this.

Agree, Canon shouldn't build their mirrorless future around this functionality. If they can offer it, terrific, but I feel it will be the byproduct of a decision made to serve a much higher priority, i.e. bolting on old glass might be secondary benefit to Canon choosing to 'go small' with a skinny new mount rather than full EF, but bolting on old glass won't be the reason they made that decision.

- A


----------



## vau (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

I really wish the 6D to be something compact and sexy. 

Damn, I wish it were retro as well, but I'm not brave enough to say that out loud.


----------



## SkynetTX (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

To make everyone happy:

Lenses:

EF-S 18-55mm f/2.8 II IS USM for still photographers with ring-type USM and *real* FTM support
EF-V 18-55mm f/2.8 IS STM II for videographes


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



SkynetTX said:


> To make everyone happy:
> 
> Lenses:
> 
> ...



Adding >$500 to the cost of a Rebel/xxxD entry-level kit isn't going *anyone* happy.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> Yes, that pretty much sums me up, the guy who owns approx 50 cameras and 250 lenses including all new Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic etc stuff. Someone who owns and uses that clearly will have far less knowledge than a Canon user who only knows and uses 1 body and 3 lenses. That is pretty logical.



Are you serious about 50 cameras and 250 lenses? If you are, I can only conclude one of two things. You own a rental house and keep this stock so others can rent it or you have some serious hoarding issues and need professional help.

I would say that I agree with your point that someone who owns 50 bodies and 250 lenses probably does have far less knowledge than a professional who consistently uses one body and three lenses. The normal arc in most professions, including photography, is for someone to start out with a limited range of equipment, acquire more equipment as they progress and then as they master their craft begin shedding some of that equipment to focus only on the basics so they can get most comfortable and knowledgeable about their equipment. 

Most of the really great photographers keep their equipment fairly simple.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



Or, from Canon's point of view, why sell cameras intended for use with FD lenses? So it could finally sell all those 30 years old FD lenses still in it's inventory?


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Antono Refa said:


> Or, from Canon's point of view, why sell cameras intended for use with FD lenses? So it could finally sell all those 30 years old FD lenses still in it's inventory?



Oh ye of little vision. FD is but one example of using old glass.

_Want to try out that Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8? Their new 105mm f/1.4? _ A lot of Canonites sure do. 

And Canon corporate would love to see potential pullthrough of Nikon users who don't need to sell all their glass to use a Canon body. 

I'm hyping something I'd likely never use myself as all I've ever owned is Canon glass. But a 'thin flanged' FF mirrorless mount unlocks some neat stuff _some_ folks (both photographers and Canon corporate) might find attractive.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Hey douglaurent, a year ago you stated this regarding Canon:



douglaurent said:


> By 2017 Sony will have destroyed their business if they don't wake up and come around with some better specs as well.



So did Canon come around with better specs? Since you have bashed the 1D X II and the 5DIV and only bought one of each instead of the couple of dozen of each you would have bought if they'd have had better specs, I'm assuming your answer to that is 'no'.

That means Sony must be pretty close to destroying Canon's business, since it's almost 2017. Except that so far this year, Canon has gained ILC market share and Sony has lost it. 

Welcome to CHWAC (Canon Haters Without a Clue). You should be receiving your welcome packet from the organization's president, AvTvM, in the mail soon, including the Olympus mug and the coveted "I  Canon" bumper sticker.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



SkynetTX said:


> To make everyone happy:
> 
> Lenses:
> 
> ...


Perhaps you haven't yet heard of Nano-USM:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=17726




via Imgflip Meme Generator


----------



## transpo1 (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

And none of these cameras will have 4K  Except, of course, for the C100 Mark III one would hope.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



StudentOfLight said:


> Perhaps you haven't yet heard of Nano-USM:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=17726



The two Nano USM lenses I am aware of are $549 and $599. That's hardly a kit price. That's a midgrade feature on budget lens. I'm just not seeing it. Budget lenses get STM, sorry.

Now a refresh to the _EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM_ would be a great candidate for Nano USM, but (a) that'll be a $999 lens and (b) I'm not sure Canon wants an APS-C owner to be tethered to a large EF-S investment ever again, so I doubt they'd ever refresh that lens. They want EF-S to have a hard cap of good but not great to entice APS-C folks to buy EF lenses and think about a move to FF.

- A


----------



## scyrene (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



vscd said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > Still no replacement to prehistoric 50mm Compact macro or update to ancient 180mm usm macro. Also how about Rt(slave mode only) upgrade to speedlight 320ex? That would be useful for a people wanting RT flashes on budget.
> ...



I went with the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 OS, rather than the Canon 180L, because the former had a half stop extra aperture wide open, and ~4 stop IS. Those made it better for my purposes. A Canon lens with those features would be an improvement, even if the optical performance was kept the same.


----------



## dsut4392 (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Or, from Canon's point of view, why sell cameras intended for use with FD lenses? So it could finally sell all those 30 years old FD lenses still in it's inventory?
> ...



The way I look at your scenario above is that just as much as it allows a Nikon user to try a Canon body without abandoning their Nikon lenses, it allows a Canon user to dabble in some interesting Nikon lenses instead of remaining faithful. In Sony's case, doing this was a great move as they had a very limited range of native lenses when the A7 launched, but for Canon there is more risk than benefit. The 14-24 argument is now moot since the release of the 11-24 f4/L, but why would Canon want you to buy the Nikon 105/1.4 which could well take you out of the market for the new 85/1.4 L IS when it arrives? As much as many Canon shooters would like to try the 105/1.4, how many of us would actually switch to Nikon to do so?
FWIW, I initially bought into Canon DSLR 10 years ago (having previously shot film only) largely because the shorter flange distance (vs Nikon) allowed me to keep using some nice Olympus Zuiko glass with an adaptor, so I obviously agree there some upside. And yes, there is also the argument (as put by Steve Jobs) that "if you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will". I just don't think that (short of a major breakthrough in sensor or AF technology, which seems unlikely at this point) there are that many Nikon users who want to try a Canon body that the pullthrough you mention would be a net positive after you discount the lens sales lost to the other brand. Sony has been offering all this for years, yet despite some great sensor tech and IBIS really hasn't made much of a dent in market share. Unless Canon had the tech to offer advantages over Sony, why would we assume they would do better in the market?


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



dsut4392 said:


> The way I look at your scenario above is that just as much as it allows a Nikon user to try a Canon body without abandoning their Nikon lenses, it allows a Canon user to dabble in some interesting Nikon lenses instead of remaining faithful. In Sony's case, doing this was a great move as they had a very limited range of native lenses when the A7 launched, but for Canon there is more risk than benefit.
> 
> [truncated]



Good points, but I see it a little differently. I see dabbling with camera bodies being a better chance to steal some business than dabbling with lenses. If you could use the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 on a future Canon FF mirrorless rig, I doubt a Canon user would say "Ooh _that lens feels nice_.... I think I'll try a completely different ergonomic setup and menu system based on how this lens performs." 

But I think the converse could actually happen. A longtime Nikon user, looking to build a small kit for travel, a simple landscape setup, etc. may opt for the Canon setup (if first to market) and use their Nikkor glass. _Then_ there is a chance to impress and potentially steal some business. 

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> dsut4392 said:
> 
> 
> > The way I look at your scenario above is that just as much as it allows a Nikon user to try a Canon body without abandoning their Nikon lenses, it allows a Canon user to dabble in some interesting Nikon lenses instead of remaining faithful. In Sony's case, doing this was a great move as they had a very limited range of native lenses when the A7 launched, but for Canon there is more risk than benefit.
> ...



Why would a Canon shooter lust after a Nikon 14-24? Compared to the Canon 12-24 it is a very poor performer, sure the Nikon was better than any UWA zoom from Canon some time ago, now, not so much.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



privatebydesign said:


> Why would a Canon shooter lust after a Nikon 14-24? Compared to the Canon 12-24 it is a very poor performer, sure the Nikon was better than any UWA zoom from Canon some time ago, now, not so much.



I don't, but people on this very forum do. They want f/2.8 speed _and_ ultra-ultrawide FOV. And for some stupid reason they think that overlaps in FL ranges with their zooms (16-35s overlapping with 24-70s) is uncool. 

But I am not their publicist. They can speak for themselves. I'll be happily snapping away with my stellar 16-35 f/4L IS that is conveniently front filterable and lets me use ND grads smaller than the city of Cleveland.

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Or, from Canon's point of view, why sell cameras intended for use with FD lenses? So it could finally sell all those 30 years old FD lenses still in it's inventory?
> ...



Canon would gain in camera sales, and lose in lens sales from customers who have a Canon camera and would suddenly be able to buy Nikon lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Antono Refa said:


> Canon would gain in camera sales, and lose in lens sales from customers who have a Canon camera and would suddenly be able to buy Nikon lenses.



Less than you think. It's not like Sony would have us believe -- _pick any lens you want and it's awesome!_ The AF with these adaptors is far from flawless from what I've read. 

So I see this more as a nice option for Canon folks to dabble with a wider array of lenses or Nikon folks to give a Canon body a try with their existing glass. But surely native mount glass is the overwhelming way people would use such a body.

- A


----------



## hubie (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> If that roadmap would be true, it would be very disappointing and only contain 1 out of approx 50 cameras and lenses I have on a personal wish list and would buy (products which all wouldn't be unrealistic looking at the competition and the market in the year 2017):
> 
> 1DX2 Mirrorless 5Axis
> 5D4 Mirrorless 5Axis
> ...



Your wishlist drives me nuts... why you wish to have a 70-200 f/2.8 is iii when the ii is perfectly alright already? I get the "I want something new" part of it but this leaves the impression of your wishlist being rather childish... althout buying one or the other item would leave you up not buying 2 to 3 other ones remaining, e.g. a 50 prime or one of the 5Ds (without low pass I guess).


----------



## StudentOfLight (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you haven't yet heard of Nano-USM:
> ...


He said:


> "To make everyone happy:
> 
> Lenses:
> 
> ...


According to B&H the fast APS-C standard zoom (17-55/2.8) is significantly more expensive than run-of-the-mill vari-aperture zooms:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002AA_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html


----------



## Woody (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> Welcome to CHWAC (Canon Haters Without a Clue). You should be receiving your welcome packet from the organization's president, AvTvM, in the mail soon, including the Olympus mug and the coveted "I  Canon" bumper sticker.



LOL


----------



## Woody (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> I don't, but people on this very forum do. They want f/2.8 speed _and_ ultra-ultrawide FOV. And for some stupid reason they think that overlaps in FL ranges with their zooms (16-35s overlapping with 24-70s) is uncool.
> 
> But I am not their publicist. They can speak for themselves. I'll be happily snapping away with my stellar 16-35 f/4L IS that is conveniently front filterable and lets me use ND grads smaller than the city of Cleveland.



LOL


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Canon would gain in camera sales, and lose in lens sales from customers who have a Canon camera and would suddenly be able to buy Nikon lenses.
> ...



I have an EF 11-24mm f/4, and focus it manually (live view with 10x magnification) on a tripod. If I had the option to buy the Nikkor 14-24mm five years ago, I might not have bought the Canon 11-24mm today.

Portrait photographers might do the same with longer lenses, e.g. as long as 200mm or even 300mm.

That's certainly a relatively small portion, but its good money nonetheless.


----------



## vscd (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



scyrene said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...



Yes. f2.8 is very important on Macrolenses... can't live without shallow depth of field. I think weathersealing is more important in the field... and Sigma does nothing about it. I don't think it's impossible to improve the 135L but there are much more lenses who are more necessary to get improved like the 50mm 1.4 or the 50L.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



rrcphoto said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



The point is that Sony is very close to implement all the last advantages Canon has in their DSLRs. On the other hand, Canon seems to be a decade away to implement all the many precious features the other manufacturers have to offer.

Aside from that, subject isolation with MFT is far better than most people think, as there are several f0.95 lenses and also speed booster options. If you want to have a bokeh orgy, you can have it with MFT as well.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



rrcphoto said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



Even if Olympus or Panasonic would only sell 1 camera each year: the fact remains that their body stabilization is brilliant, and even more with stabilized lenses. Canon has no body stabilization, and even worse - the key lenses 11-24/4, 16-35/2.8III, 24-70/2.8II, 35/1.4II, 50/1.2+1.8 and 85/1.2+1.8 don't have IS as well.

This means if you want to have some sort of stabilization, you need f4 lenses, and suddenly you are on MFT bokeh levels.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> The point is that Sony is very close to implement all the last advantages Canon has in their DSLRs. On the other hand, Canon seems to be a decade away to implement all the many precious features the other manufacturers have to offer.



Sony being 'very close' does not cut any ice when you need those 'advantages' - how do you know it will not take Sony a decade to get to Canon's level?
As for 'precious features'... are you Gollum in disguise? If they were that 'precious' then sales of Sony would be far higher but instead they appeal to a select few. 

As you seem to own all the significant camera marques answer me these questions:
- why do you own Sony
- Why do you own Canon
- What situations do you decide to use any particular one


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



unfocused said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that pretty much sums me up, the guy who owns approx 50 cameras and 250 lenses including all new Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic etc stuff. Someone who owns and uses that clearly will have far less knowledge than a Canon user who only knows and uses 1 body and 3 lenses. That is pretty logical.
> ...



Yes, I rent out all the equipment as well. Plus it's a write off, and especially the lenses keep most of their value and are some sort of wealth diversification. All in all this sort of ownership is nothing crazy at all and isn't something to brag about or that can be admired. But having all tools available and being able to compare is a great help. In the end I only would like to use 1 camera and 1 lens for the best possible results. It's just not possible yet, and for each project there are different needs regarding weight, logistics, focal lengths etc. Right now unfortunately it is necessary to own Canon EF, Nikon F, Sony E, MFT and medium format products if you want to be able to achieve the best in any niche. Less than approx 5-8 cameras and 100+ lenses won't do it! Example astro photography: no way around a D810A with F-mount lenses. The list would go on like this for any specialty project.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> Hey douglaurent, a year ago you stated this regarding Canon:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Didn't know that the year 2017 already is over at the beginning of december 2016? Sony will release a fusion of an A99II and an A7RII, which means it clearly tops the 1DX2 and 5D4. If Canon has no answer to that until their next 2020 product refreshment, there is no reason to buy such a Canon camera between 2017 and 2019.

Canon also will hardly be happy to have a better marketshare than competitors, when they sell significantly less 5D4s now than 5D3s in former years. And they will continue to sell less, if their only strategy is to raise prices and keep innovation on a low level. There are no competitors like DJI who come up with excellent and unexpected innovations every few months. People get used to that and appreciate it. Nobody is excited about Canon on the other hand, because the quality and features of their new products are good and sometimes very good - but not overfulfilling, and most of all very expensive. Like a 16-35/2.8III which is very sharp, but costs a lot and has no IS.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



hubie said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > If that roadmap would be true, it would be very disappointing and only contain 1 out of approx 50 cameras and lenses I have on a personal wish list and would buy (products which all wouldn't be unrealistic looking at the competition and the market in the year 2017):
> ...



The new Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR FL is better than the Canon II version. As you can see in most lens releases of the last 5 years, optics, features and stabilization can improve big time. Especially for 50-120MP, Canon will be able to release a better 70-200/2.8. This is one of the releases that will happen anyway.

I personally own all comparable existing products of this list, and would buy all of them. A 24/1.8 (like in Nikons portfolio) can make sense on top of a 24/1.4 because of size and weight. The only lens I would cross of that list is the 35/1.8 IS, as there is a good 35/2 IS already. All the rest I can justify with many arguments.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that Sony is very close to implement all the last advantages Canon has in their DSLRs. On the other hand, Canon seems to be a decade away to implement all the many precious features the other manufacturers have to offer.
> ...



With the A99II and A7RII Sony is already on Canon's level in 99% of all relevant features, I doubt it will take them 10 instead of 1 year to release a fusion of both cameras for E-mount. Surely Canon could do the same, but their marketing department still lives in the last millennium and avoids faster innovation.

I don't even want to use any other system than Canon. But there are dozens of shooting situations that did require other manufacturers products, or they are simply more convenient. Months ago I have put lists with 20-30 of the things you still can't do with Canon products - or you need multiple Canon cameras, carry much more weight or spend much more money to do the same.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> Didn't know that the year 2017 already is over at the beginning of december 2016? Sony will release a fusion of an A99II and an A7RII, which means it clearly tops the 1DX2 and 5D4.



Wow! you can tell the manufacturers which cameras will be the best before they are even released? You mean how many Sony admirers were looking forward to the class-leading A99 only to find it has been crippled? 




douglaurent said:


> Canon also will hardly be happy to have a better marketshare than competitors, when they sell significantly less 5D4s now than 5D3s in former years.


Two months after its release and you can predict sales volume and how successful a camera is going to be? Genius! I suggest Canon and Sony save themselves gazillions on market research and hire you.





douglaurent said:


> There are no competitors like DJI who come up with excellent and unexpected innovations every few months.


It is easy to get excited by a company producing a niche product. let's see how they cope with mass market gear catering to the specialised needs of those who use cameras like the 7D2, 6D and 1Dx shall we?




douglaurent said:


> People get used to that and appreciate it. Nobody is excited about Canon on the other hand, because the quality and features of their new products are good and sometimes very good - but not overfulfilling...


People get excited about the new supercar, or marvel at the technology and ideas of small-factory purpose designed vehicles. But at the end of the day, a vast majority of the population need a car to carry their goods home from the shopping mall and take the kids to football practice. That is where the money comes from to innovate.


You bring up some excellent points but your conclusions are often shakey. I can easily see camera industry going the way of the biotechnology and medicines where the technology is now very mature and what will sell is the finer points and that takes ideas as well as innovation and no company can do that alone. I can see the likes of Canon forming tie-ins with companies like DJI or smaller research units (if they haven't already) and getting a pool of ideas. But at the end of the day Canon and Nikon have built their reputation on producing reliable products that do the job that a vast majority or professionals need them to do. And in business you break away from your core business at your peril - the secret is knowing when to do so. You get it right and you can introduce solutions to problems that the professional never knew he had and a typical example is Canon's introduction of video to a stills camera.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> I don't even want to use any other system than Canon.



So despite your protestations, Canon are actually doing a lot right. You have all that gear from so many manufacturers and you _still_ prefer to use Canon. Yet from what you write anyone would think they are on the downward slope and have been for a while. 

So which is it - either Canon has problems or Canon is getting it right in 90% of the situations and what you are talking about is wanting them to produce a camera that does 100%. No manufacturer will ever do that these days which sort of puts all your comments in context. 

So tell me, from your point of view let's hear what canon are doing right?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> Didn't know that the year 2017 already is over at the beginning of december 2016? Sony will release a fusion of an A99II and an A7RII, which means it clearly tops the 1DX2 and 5D4. If Canon has no answer to that until their next 2020 product refreshment, there is no reason to buy such a Canon camera between 2017 and 2019.
> 
> Canon also will hardly be happy to have a better marketshare than competitors, when they sell significantly less 5D4s now than 5D3s in former years. And they will continue to sell less, if their only strategy is to raise prices and keep innovation on a low level. There are no competitors like DJI who come up with excellent and unexpected innovations every few months. People get used to that and appreciate it. Nobody is excited about Canon on the other hand, because the quality and features of their new products are good and sometimes very good - but not overfulfilling, and most of all very expensive. Like a 16-35/2.8III which is very sharp, but costs a lot and has no IS.



So a single high-end model from Sony, which they _might_ release in 2017, is going to 'destroy Canon's business' within a year? Even a CHWAC as clueless as you must realize how utterly stupid that sounds. Or are you now saying you were wrong earlier, that Canon will not be destroyed by 2017? As for, 'no reason to buy such a Canon camera between 2017 and 2019', who are you speaking for...yourself? You and those 50 friends you claim to have who think just like you? The 50% of all people who are disappoineted in the 5DIV? Or the whole universe? :

I must have missed Canon publishing unit sales for the first few months and future projections for the 5DIV, and I also missed the unit sales data for the 5DIII. What they did say was, "_Within the Imaging System Business Unit, sales volume for interchangeable-lens digital cameras grew compared with same period of the previous year owing to healthy demand for the advanced-amateur-model EOS 80D and EOS 5D Mark IV digital SLR cameras, which were launched this year._" So please, share the data supporting your conclusion that Canon is selling, "...significantly less 5D4s now than 5D3s in former years." Oh wait, let me guess...you bought several 5DIIIs but only one 5DIV (plus your earlier statement that '50% of people aren't satisfied with the 5D4', also based on nothing but the nonsense in your head). 

People seem to be excited about Sony...well, at least a handful of people who post on the Internet are excited about Sony. That's been true for several years now. The thing is, people are actually _buying_ Canon, as the market share data clearly indicate. It's funny, you acknowledge that Canon makes good and sometimes very good products, the market data show that people are buying those products, they are gaining market share at the expense of other brands, and yet somehow Canon is *******. Well, I guess that's what passes for logic in the empty space between the ears of a CHWAC.


----------



## vscd (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> Aside from that, subject isolation with MFT is far better than most people think, as there are several f0.95 lenses and also speed booster options. If you want to have a bokeh orgy, you can have it with MFT as well.



Not really, because the 0.95 open aperture pictures are *unusable*. Or at least nothing compared to an equivalent f1.9 Picture on a Canon Lens like 85L or 50mm 1.4 @f2. The only lens which I experienced to be a good competitor is the APS-C Fujinon 56mm 1.2 which gives roughly a 85mm f1.8; enough to blur a good portrait because it's usable at open aperture. Rumours say the 25 f1.2 of Olympus is great at open Aperture, whcih i believe really is, so you get a f2.4... that's it.

Don't get me wrong... i mostly shoot at f2.2 or f2.8 with my 85L, so MFT is great. But bokeh-orgy? No way. And don#t forget there are f0.95/f1.0 lenses for fullframe, too. How do you want to emulate that? f0.5 on MFT?


----------



## scyrene (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



vscd said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



Weather sealing is a good point. I personally tend not to pay attention to it, but I can see why it would be important to some.


----------



## neonlight (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Would the "interesting lens" be the 600 f/4 DO?
Where's the 50-300 DO?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...


Your confusing yourself and missing some basis understanding of lenses and formats. The shallow depth of field of large format lenses at relatively slow stops compared to 35mm, compared to APS-C, compared to MFT etc. produces a different smoother bokah and allows a different story-telling whether stills or moving image. Most MFT lenses are not well corrected and rely on in-camera software adjustment, similarly APS-C lenses tend to have less quality control from lens to lens reflecting the price point. Lenses are a compromise particularly zooms and designers have to trade something to get lenses acceptable across a given range. Primes can be made to a higher standard because they are less complex but here again quality is directly affected by price. 

Then throw in whether you want high contrast or low contrast lenses, whether you want smooth bokah or not, whether you want close focus or not, whether you want a good say 100mm but its good as a 1:1 macro all will produce a compromise. 
We rent equipment and I'm glad to say we have many many choices because perfection is in the eye of the beholder not a bench engineer. 
Now as to cameras your also away with the fairies!


----------



## SkynetTX (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Both the EF-S 17-55mm and the EF-S 15-85 lenses need an update: the focusing ring should be wider (at least 20-25 mm) and placed at the front of the lens and the zoom ring should be moved behind it to the back of the lens.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



SkynetTX said:


> Both the EF-S 17-55mm and the EF-S 15-85 lenses need an update: the focusing ring should be wider (at least 20-25 mm) and placed at the front of the lens and the zoom ring should be moved behind it to the back of the lens.



the focusing ring on Canon EF-S lenses should be obliterated, done away with, cut out. Me and millions of rebel-lish soccer moms rely on Canon autofocus. we paid for it. we use it. it works. we don't twiddle focus rings!


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> the focusing ring on Canon EF-S lenses should be obliterated, done away with, cut out. Me and millions of rebel-lish soccer moms rely on Canon autofocus. we paid for it. we use it. it works. we don't twiddle focus rings!



Because no Rebel owner _ever_ checks his focus for landscapes in LiveView, shoots astro, uses macro lenses, uses tilt-shift lenses, turns AF off and zone-focuses for street, etc.

#delusional

- A


----------



## Roy2001 (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

No 5DS II?


----------



## tron (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Roy2001 said:


> No 5DS II?


After a so ridiculous list of wished lenses finally a reasonable wish for a useful update. I would like that but I do not think we will get one. Maybe 2018...


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Roy2001 said:


> No 5DS II?



See attached (from NorthLight). A few thoughts:

1) The pace of camera body development appears to be slowing. You can chalk this up to the general photography market contracting due to rise of cell phone photography, a large global recession in the last 10 years limiting peoples' discretionary spending, or possibly Canon proliferating the number of brands they now carry. (Consider: 10 years ago, Canon had 5 lines of interchangeable lens digital cameras -- now there are _13_).

2) Can you name a single instance in which a higher end non-gripped rig (5D / 6D / 7D) got a new body in less than three years?

3) Is anyone applying pressure to Canon on the resolution front? Does anyone have a higher res FF camera than the 5DS nearly two years since it was announced?

Canon isn't Sony. Canon doesn't spew new bodies every 6 seconds to impress people.

A 5DSR2 (or 7D3) in 2017 seems wildly, wildly improbable given all the reasons above. I'm not saying it's _impossible_, but it would be the exception heard round the world. I don't see it happening.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



tron said:


> Roy2001 said:
> 
> 
> > No 5DS II?
> ...



I don't own a 5DS/5DS R. Where is it presently letting you down, just curious?

Do you want even more resolution? 
Do you think switching to on-chip ADC will dramatically improve your photography? 
Is there some feature-envy with something the 5D4 got that you'd really like?
Do you really want/need a tilty-flippy LCD?

I don't ask that as a wind-up, I'm actually curious. I've heard nothing but either unadulerated praise (by the resolution lovers) or 'you know what, it's actually pretty damn good' from cynics that predicted noise would be stratospheric or that it would be a 'good light' camera (for tripod / studio shooting only) and were pleasantly surprised when they used it.

So what would a 5DS2 have that you don't have today?

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 7, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Time lines of old releases are not as relevant when models jump user brackets.

The 5DS/R has effectively replaced the 1DS line for all but a few users. These high end users demand the best and are not too fussed about the price. Any improvements to sensors like dual pixels, or colour depth or especially low iso DR they will want. Things like connectivity are a must in a lot of situations, I shoot tethered now over 50% of the time even on location, and the 5DS/R even with the WiFi card is not the solution. AF whilst not being as critical speed wise is very critical accuracy wise, when you start using all those pixels the images need to have the detail inaccurate AF will rob them of in heart beat.

It's not that the 5DS/R lets users down so much as it needs to keep up with Canon's own innovations and development.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Thanks, PBD, I appreciate the details and insight. I'm just trying to size up this ask and understand it.



privatebydesign said:


> It's not that the 5DS/R lets users down so much as it needs to keep up with Canon's own innovations and development.



...and it surely will. _When it is updated more or less four years after release. _



privatebydesign said:


> Time lines of old releases are not as relevant when models jump user brackets.



Sure, but a quick refresh will be a terrible hit on excess and obsolescence burden of the original 5DS/5DSR rigs unless that 5DS2/5DSR2 pulls tons and tons of new people in or existing users _up_ the feeding chain (from crop, from a 6D, etc.). Do you really see that happening? Is there enough sexy goodness in a potential 5DS2 to pull the 80D/7D2/6D masses into a $3500/$3700 market to cover the losses of a 2.5 year lifecycle original model?



privatebydesign said:


> The 5DS/R has effectively replaced the 1DS line for all but a few users. These high end users demand the best and are not too fussed about the price.



Your list of nice-to-haves is entirely fair, but I'm just lost why one camp of photographers is worthy of a faster update than everyone else. A bus comes (more or less) every four years for the major brands, and we get what we get and start the four year-ish wait all over again. That's the deal. 

This all sounds like 1Ds level service / 'best status' expectations being channeled into an ask for a newer camera. Is that fair, or am I pegging this wrong? Is a future 5DS2 the FF rig _everyone_ will own someday and I'm just missing it? (Because if that's the case, sure, Canon should speed that one up! )

- A


----------



## tron (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Roy2001 said:
> ...


If you were referring to me it is not letting me down because I do not have it. I have a 7D2 a 5D4 and 2 5D3 (of which I will sell one). I think it is too much to get a 5DsR too but if a 5DsII was introduced I could probably substitute 7D2 with if it had a decent buffer and fps count. 

In fact it could also consolidate 5D3 and 7D2 either in a super telephoto or in 100-400. The latter combination could be a super portable solution both for general use and birds. 

I do not want a tilt/flip screen. I like them just as they are. Finally I wouldn't like to get one near the end of its cycle. For now I will continue with my 7D2 for birding and I will exchange it with 5D4 when light gets worse...


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> Thanks, PBD, I appreciate the details and insight. I'm just trying to size up this ask and understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, and I don't see why they'd need to. Most 5DS/R users are either business users so can claim depreciation in three years to zero or are well heeled amateurs who don't really care they just want to see if the latest will offer anything 'better' for them. They are not 70D and 6D upgraders so why should the 5DS/R MkII be? Besides, the MkII will come out at a premium and the MkI is still selling at well above $3,000 for the more popular R. NOS ones would still command over $2,000 so the used ones could float around that figure, $1,500 depreciation in three years for a digital body sounds pretty good to me.

As for the rest, who knows? But almost every 5DS/R owner I know of would upgrade because they take their output very seriously.

Besides the elephant in the room is the parts. The 5DS/R is built off many 5D MkIII parts, from a manufacturing standpoint it makes no sense to make 5D MkIII parts, 5DS/R parts and 5D MkIV parts, it makes much more sense to harmonise sooner rather than later and base a 5DS/R model off the current 5D model.


----------



## pj1974 (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



SkynetTX said:


> Both the EF-S 17-55mm and the EF-S 15-85 lenses need an update: the focusing ring should be wider (at least 20-25 mm) and placed at the front of the lens and the zoom ring should be moved behind it to the back of the lens.



Ergonomics are very much a personal factor (and can even change with time).

The placement of the zoom and focus rings on my Canon EF-S 15-85mm are ideal for me. I prefer the configuration of zoom ring at the front, and the focus ring closer to the body. (I have also used the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 and enjoy its ergonomics).

I have used the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 ii and find while it balances ok, I would also prefer the zoom ring at the front. Preferred ergonomics may be due to the way different people hold their camera and lens combo.

The IQ of the 15-85mm and 17-55mm are very good, practically L level (but being an EF-S lens, doesn't get the L designation). And yes, I own several other lenses, including L glass.  The IQ of these 2 lenses can be improved upon in minor ways (as we've seen in some of the latest Canon lenses which are improvements on their predecessors). 

Regards

PJ 8)


----------



## tcmatthews (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



pj1974 said:


> SkynetTX said:
> 
> 
> > Both the EF-S 17-55mm and the EF-S 15-85 lenses need an update: the focusing ring should be wider (at least 20-25 mm) and placed at the front of the lens and the zoom ring should be moved behind it to the back of the lens.
> ...



PJ I agree with you on the 15-85mm it is a great lens. I just have not been using it much after moving to full frame. If I it needs improvement in any areas it would be:


fix the distortion at 15mm 
Better build quality
Make it faster 2.8 -4.5 instead of 3.5-5.6 or something like that

There is nothing wrong with the location of the zoom and focus. In actual use I never really notice the zoom placement vs focus. Not to mention it is there because of the physical lens design. I would like to see some of the EF-s lenses have similar finish to the EOS-M lenses. I think that if newer better plastics or some thin metal the 15-85mm could be made smaller/lighter without compromising the durability. 

The Canon 17-55f2.8 IS could use updated IS. 

If there was any other reason to update the other EF-s lenses them it would be to add the nano USM and the power zoom accessory.


----------



## dsut4392 (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> dsut4392 said:
> 
> 
> > The way I look at your scenario above is that just as much as it allows a Nikon user to try a Canon body without abandoning their Nikon lenses, it allows a Canon user to dabble in some interesting Nikon lenses instead of remaining faithful. In Sony's case, doing this was a great move as they had a very limited range of native lenses when the A7 launched, but for Canon there is more risk than benefit.
> ...



Sure, but unless they hop in their time machine, Canon are hardly going to be "first to market" with a FF mirrorless rig with a short flange distance. That ship sailed three years ago. Canon would have to make one hell of a leap to release a better mirrorless rig in 2017 than Sony is capable of.
I get where you're coming from about a compact travel setup, and I've looked long and hard at all the A7 series as they have been released. But frankly the lenses make up 75% of the weight and bulk for me, so saving a little on the body makes no real difference (6D shooter). Besides which, I still can't stand the EVF experience, and don't like the way they chew through batteries either (my OM1 would run the meter for years on one little button cell, and could still shoot fine with no battery at all).


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > I don't even want to use any other system than Canon.
> ...



Canon is great on all points I didn't criticze in detail. Canon is like a sports world champion who is too lazy for excercising, or whose coach (in this case marketing dept) chooses to limit training, then unnecessarily ending up with ranking second, third or fourth in certain tournaments or games.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



jeffa4444 said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



There are also endless lists with improvements or disadvantages regarding the Nikon F, Sony E and Micro Four Thirds system of course. But this is a forum about the future of Canon products, who obviously will have to show some improvements over older Canon products. And the features Canon has to add are obviously those things that their competitors already do much better than them. These things need to be mentioned, and everything else that other systems or competitors do worse is completely irrelevant here when it comes to a consumer message to Canon.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



So guess which competition Canon ends up winning a lot of the time - yep, the ones that interest a vast majority of the client base. The majors. 
Which ones does it end up third or fourth with not too much worry? Yep, the minor ones. The ones with small spectator numbers. 

To carry your analogy further - it is not about being too lazy for exercising, but sports players enter minor tournaments to keep their hand in and keep their skills ticking over. The ones they are really interested in are the majors and all other activities (training and smaller tournaments) are timed to peak three or four times a year at the events that really matter. The trainer agrees with the player how and when they will peak and where they will concentrate their training in the areas that show best return.

Canon DSLR = Novak Djokovic. Proven competitor and winner
Sony mirrorless = Nick Kyrgios. Erratic. Some nice tricks but does not really have a package that troubles the leaders.

Neat analogy you picked up there


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> Roy2001 said:
> 
> 
> > No 5DS II?
> ...



In my opinion you can kick most of the experiences from former decades to the curb. Globalization, the internet and big data brought a kind of speed and super efficiency into everything that requires a different kind of acting. Canon seems to want to stop the train and acting as slow as ever, but that's not what their customers experience in their lifes of the year 2016. Logictics and workflows need to be easier, quality needs to be better, budgets are lower. Other companies seem to be more willing to give answers and products for that.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Novak Djokovic = player whose coach just left and said he isn't working hard enough. Instead Djokovic surrounds himself with a strange mental guru, not winning anymore and lost his number one spot. So it's a perfect analogy.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

I herewith present you a list (inverted wish roadmap you can say) with all Canon cameras and lenses that DON'T necessarily need an upgrade the next years regarding image quality and/or stabilization, autofocus etc:

8-15/4 Fisheye
100-400/4.5-5.6 II IS
200-400/4 IS

17/4 TS
24/2.8 STM Pancake
24/3.5 II TS
35/2 IS
40/2.8 STM Pancake
65/2.8 Macro
100/2.8 IS Macro
200/2 IS
300/2.8 II IS
400/2.8 II IS
500/4 II IS
600/4 II IS
800/5.6 IS


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> See attached (from NorthLight). A few thoughts:
> 
> 1) The pace of camera body development appears to be slowing. You can chalk this up to the general photography market contracting due to rise of cell phone photography, a large global recession in the last 10 years limiting peoples' discretionary spending, or possibly Canon proliferating the number of brands they now carry. (Consider: 10 years ago, Canon had 5 lines of interchangeable lens digital cameras -- now there are _13_).
> 
> ...



In my opinion you can kick most of the experiences from former decades to the curb. Globalization, the internet and big data brought a kind of speed and super efficiency into everything that requires a different kind of acting. Canon seems to want to stop the train and acting as slow as ever, but that's not what their customers experience in their lifes of the year 2016. Logictics and workflows need to be easier, quality needs to be better, budgets are lower.  Other companies seem to be more willing to give answers and products for that.
[/quote]

And be like Sony who has hacked off a lot of people by introducing models that solved design flaws in a model released barely 18months earlier? 
When the 5D3 was released a lot of people said it was not enough development to make them spend their money on an upgrade. Now 5 years later people are saying the same about the release of the 5DIV. So do you want incremental developments or significant developments? I prefer the latter.
Canon are the biggest manufacturer with (probably) the biggest R&D budget. Either you agree worthwhile improvements cannot be made in less than 3-4 years or you believe Canon has the 5DIV in place 3 years ago and sat on it. 

Olympus released the revolutionary E-M1 which leap frogged all competitors by a significant margin. It took them over 3 years to release a worthwhile successor. Or do you think they have deliberately slowed things down as well?


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> Novak Djokovic = player whose coach just left and said he isn't working hard enough. Instead Djokovic surrounds himself with a strange mental guru, not winning anymore and lost his number one spot. So it's a perfect analogy.



Ah, the coach who also said he knows the player will turn it around after a period of recuperation. 
You seem to be taking the 'Canon has had a blip therefore the company is *******!!' scenario.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> I herewith present you a list (inverted wish roadmap you can say) with all Canon cameras and lenses that DON'T necessarily need an upgrade the next years regarding image quality and/or stabilization, autofocus etc:
> 
> 8-15/4 Fisheye
> 100-400/4.5-5.6 II IS
> ...



No cameras on your list. Has your CHWAC schwag arrived yet?

Incidentally, the 800/5.6 IS should be on your other list. The 600/4L IS II + 1.4xIII has better IQ and is lighter, cheaper, and a longer FL. Plus, Nikon recently released an excellent (albeit expensive) 800/5.6 VC.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> I herewith present you a list (inverted wish roadmap you can say) with all Canon cameras and lenses that DON'T necessarily need an upgrade the next years regarding image quality and/or stabilization, autofocus etc:



Doug, I actually agree with more than I disagree with here. 

I can't speak for the longer teles as I don't shoot with them, but your list is leaving out a few lenses that are just fine right now as is:

11-24 f/4L
16-35 f/4L IS
24-70 f/2.8L II
24-70 f/4L IS
24 f/2.8 IS
28 f/2.8 IS
35 f/1.4L II (that's a glaring omission -- one of Canon's best!)

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> 11-24 f/4L
> 35 f/1.4L II (that's a glaring omission -- one of Canon's best!)



No, those lenses are crap becuase they lack IS, whereas the competition offers many excellent wide f/1.4 primes and uberwide zooms with VC so Canon is clearly failing. :


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > See attached (from NorthLight). A few thoughts:
> ...



And be like Sony who has hacked off a lot of people by introducing models that solved design flaws in a model released barely 18months earlier? 
When the 5D3 was released a lot of people said it was not enough development to make them spend their money on an upgrade. Now 5 years later people are saying the same about the release of the 5DIV. So do you want incremental developments or significant developments? I prefer the latter.
Canon are the biggest manufacturer with (probably) the biggest R&D budget. Either you agree worthwhile improvements cannot be made in less than 3-4 years or you believe Canon has the 5DIV in place 3 years ago and sat on it. 

Olympus released the revolutionary E-M1 which leap frogged all competitors by a significant margin. It took them over 3 years to release a worthwhile successor. Or do you think they have deliberately slowed things down as well?
[/quote]

It doesn't matter if Sony, Olympus, Panasonic do release a new model every month or every 4 years, as long as their models have important features that Canon doesn't have or will have only years later.

At the moment it's actually okay if you just buy a new Sony or Panasonic model every 4 years, as long as they are 2-5 years ahead of Canon in certain areas. 

In spring of 2014 the GH4 with 4K 2 years before the 5D4 was a great investment, and releasing a GH5 in spring 2017 is a healthy 3 year-cycle. 

A Sony A7RII or A7SII will most likely have at least a 2.5 year product cycle, and to date I haven't found any design flaw aside from the fact that I need 5 seconds longer each shooting day to switch batteries compared to a Canon DSLR. 

No clue anywhere why these competitors products are not well thought through. Instead it seems that the Canon marketing people have too much time to think in their 4 year product cycles, and unnecessarily use the time to move existing technologies to camera releases in future years.

Probably the lens people at Canon say: hell, we can't sell stabilized bodies, why should anybody buy an expensive stabilized 70-200 over a cheaper non-stabilized 70-200 then?


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Novak Djokovic = player whose coach just left and said he isn't working hard enough. Instead Djokovic surrounds himself with a strange mental guru, not winning anymore and lost his number one spot. So it's a perfect analogy.
> ...



My only point: people with Canon cameras do pay more, have a slower workflow, carry more weight, need to buy more products as necessary, when you look at the fact that of course they could come up with the existing features of their competitors, act faster and be cheaper.

And that's because of Canon's marketing strategy, which is the right of any company. But the right of consumers is to complain and criticize it. 

Whoever thinks that Canon products are perfect already and need no improvements - what are you doing on this rumors website? Are you visiting an info website 365 days a year, and hope that Canon only releases 1-3 useful new products with little improvement, instead of 10-20 with the best features available on the market? What kind of masochism is it to pay much and demand little?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> When the 5D3 was released a lot of people said it was not enough development to make them spend their money on an upgrade. Now 5 years later people are saying the same about the release of the 5DIV. So do you want incremental developments or significant developments? I prefer the latter.



'A lot of people' have opinions that don't represent the majority. Maybe to you, putting the 1-series AF into a 5-series body, adding a second card slot, and a 50% boost in frame rate were 'incremental' but given that the 5DIII was a best-selling FF dSLR, it's apparent that you're part of that minority. 

CHWAC on!


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > I herewith present you a list (inverted wish roadmap you can say) with all Canon cameras and lenses that DON'T necessarily need an upgrade the next years regarding image quality and/or stabilization, autofocus etc:
> ...



There are no cameras on the list, because any existing Canon camera is missing a lot of features and needs improvements.

And yes, the 800/5.6 is less sharp than the current 300,400,500,600 models. But an update could make it a too expensive 17.000 buck lens like Nikons. And at 800mm, in many cases the atmosphere starts to avoid you get crystal clear images. Most of the subjects will have extreme bokeh anyway, so corner sharpness of the 800/5.6 is not an issue. Instead of an 800, the 600II+1.4 extender will also do it. Aside from that, for these focal lengths I would use the Sigma 200-500/2.8 with its 2x extender anyway - mainly because of its weight, which makes it much more stable outdoor situations.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > I herewith present you a list (inverted wish roadmap you can say) with all Canon cameras and lenses that DON'T necessarily need an upgrade the next years regarding image quality and/or stabilization, autofocus etc:
> ...



11-24 f/4L - could use IS and is a bit outperformend in sharpness between 12-16mm by the Sigma Art
16-35 f/4L IS - ok, that one can stay
24-70 f/2.8L II - urgently needs IS
24-70 f/4L IS - could be a bit sharper 
24 f/2.8 IS - could be a bit sharper like the 35/2 and be f2
28 f/2.8 IS - could be a bit sharper like the 35/2 and be f2
35 f/1.4L II - excellent and best 35 on the planet, but no IS


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> 11-24 f/4L - could use IS and is a bit outperformend in sharpness between 12-16mm by the Sigma Art
> 16-35 f/4L IS - ok, that one can stay
> 24-70 f/2.8L II - urgently needs IS
> 24-70 f/4L IS - could be a bit sharper
> ...



Surely, you recognize that Canon won't put IS on everything, or if it does, it might be two updates from now (i.e. 10-20 years depending on the lens). 

Given how important IS is for you, you'll likely find more joy with an IBIS-based platform than waiting for Canon to value IS as much as you do.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> But an update could make it a too expensive 17.000 buck lens like Nikons. And at 800mm, in many cases the atmosphere starts to avoid you get crystal clear images. Most of the subjects will have extreme bokeh anyway, so corner sharpness of the 800/5.6 is not an issue. Instead of an 800, the 600II+1.4 extender will also do it. Aside from that, for these focal lengths I would use the Sigma 200-500/2.8 with its 2x extender anyway - mainly because of its weight, which makes it much more stable outdoor situations.



So your rationale is that an updated Canon 800/5.6L IS II would be too expensive, but you prefer to use the $26K SigZooka instead. That makes sense, thanks.


----------



## tron (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > But an update could make it a too expensive 17.000 buck lens like Nikons. And at 800mm, in many cases the atmosphere starts to avoid you get crystal clear images. Most of the subjects will have extreme bokeh anyway, so corner sharpness of the 800/5.6 is not an issue. Instead of an 800, the 600II+1.4 extender will also do it. Aside from that, for these focal lengths I would use the Sigma 200-500/2.8 with its 2x extender anyway - mainly because of its weight, which makes it much more stable outdoor situations.
> ...


 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > But an update could make it a too expensive 17.000 buck lens like Nikons. And at 800mm, in many cases the atmosphere starts to avoid you get crystal clear images. Most of the subjects will have extreme bokeh anyway, so corner sharpness of the 800/5.6 is not an issue. Instead of an 800, the 600II+1.4 extender will also do it. Aside from that, for these focal lengths I would use the Sigma 200-500/2.8 with its 2x extender anyway - mainly because of its weight, which makes it much more stable outdoor situations.
> ...



When subtlety fails, choose SigZooka.

- A


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> It doesn't matter if Sony, Olympus, Panasonic do release a new model every month or every 4 years, as long as their models have important features [1] that Canon doesn't have or will have only years later.
> 
> At the moment it's actually okay if you just buy a new Sony or Panasonic model every 4 years, as long as they are 2-5 years ahead of Canon in certain areas.
> 
> ...



[1] - and we keep coming back to what you mean by 'important updates'. My guess is your definitions bear little resemblance to the definitions used by a vast majority of Canon purchasers.

[2] so again you are criticising Canon based on an assumption you have no idea is true or not. The key thing about the Olympus E-M1 and the Panasonic GH4 is that, yes, they came out with products that leapt ahead. But the reason they leapt ahead is because they were far advanced in specific ways and the new models are not significant upgrades in practical terms. In other words no different to Canon's upgrades really and that 'great leap forward' is being eroded while still maintaining Canon's product range. 

[3] - alternative interpretation is that Canon have different priorities based on their knowledge of the market. You seem totally unable to gasp this point.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > No clue anywhere why these competitors products are not well thought through. Instead it seems that the Canon marketing people have too much time to think in their 4 year product cycles, and unnecessarily use the time to move existing technologies to camera releases in future years [3].
> ...



I see it very simply. Canon has turned the crank on endless permutations of their business plans and determined they make the most money on a (depends on the brand/level) ~ 4 year update cycle. They've endlessly run the numbers, and: 

1) *If they refresh too soon (say 2-3 years), they'd make less profit. * They would fire up the base Canon faithful into thinking 'lots of new' is coming, Canon is really responsive and listening to us, etc. and get a slight bump in sales from that approach. But, huge capital costs get involved in component fabrication, sensor build, assembly of camera bodies, testing, etc. _and if you are turning the crank more often, that equipment is churning out less units over its lifespan_. In other words: refresh too quickly and the burden of front-end capital investment is not recouped to the same degree and profits suffer.

2) *If they refresh too slowly (say 5-6 years), they'd also make less profit.* Sure, for the opposite reasons as above, they'd be completely maximizing the return on their capital investment by getting significantly more units out than with a 4 year cycle, but there comes a point the product is no longer competitive or the Canon faithful leave the fold for other companies' gear because they've given up on waiting for a refresh.

I'm not saying 4 years is the categorical magic number. In some cases -- let's say a Rebel -- there's 'less new' to make breakthroughs on as the line is often the recipient of pricier products' innovations trickling down to them. In other cases, the photography market is contracting due to cell phones, which has a global gravitational effect to slow everything down. In other cases (the 7D immediately comes to mind), the niche status of a 'pro APS-C' camera (with, at the time, no direct Nikon rival) led Canon to push a mid-cycle refresh via firmware to extend the service life of the camera to 5+ years. The right time depends on the brand.

But Canon -- much like Nikon -- have been at this forever, they know the market like none other, and they are planning, planning, planning their pants off. There will come a point that such a conservative business model will end up seeing people leave the fold. But guess what? *That's in their plan, too*, and they'll make adjustments to that plan before that happens.

- A


----------



## vscd (Dec 8, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> 11-24 f/4L - could use IS and is a bit outperformend in sharpness between 12-16mm by the Sigma Art



Did you read the same reviews as I did? The Sigma Art is not up to the canon. And who need IS @11mm? landscape photographers use tripods, the rest can easily hold 1/10 s.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > 11-24 f/4L - could use IS and is a bit outperformend in sharpness between 12-16mm by the Sigma Art
> ...



Does anybody who owns a stabilized lens turn off IS aside from tripod use?
Probably not. This means IS should be useful on any lens. 
Third party companies like Tamron show that it's possible and helpful for EF-mount glass, like with the 15-30/2.8 or the 35+45+85/1.8

It also makes no sense that there are 16-35 and 24-70 f4 zooms with stabilization, but not for the f2.8 versions.
It's just an incomplete lineup. With the 85/1.4 IS Canon is giving a good sign in 2017, but it would be ridiculous to release the other 10-30 lenses who deserve IS spread over the coming 20 years. We live in faster times now. Some people want to experience obvious features as long as they are still alive.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



vscd said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > 11-24 f/4L - could use IS and is a bit outperformend in sharpness between 12-16mm by the Sigma Art
> ...



IS helps *every* lens if the subject is not moving. _We don't always carry tripods with us. _

Imagine handholding a U-UWA lens for _2-3 seconds_ with a good keeper rate -- for casual landscape shots and travel shots, you could reel in a decent waterfall shot. 

Or imagine shooting a scene where @ f/8 you need ISO 6400 at 1/10s shutter speed to properly expose it. IS lets you walk that down to ISO 800 or so, which will net you considerably better IQ.

Or imagine (perhaps with a longer lens, say a 50 f/1.4 :) that a darker shot can only be exposed appropriately at 1/50s at f/1.4, but you've got three people in the frame at 10 feet away and they aren't standing in a convenient line. With IS, you can stop down to f/4 and still put everyone in field without posing them and ruining what you saw before your camera came out.

IS is really useful for what I shoot. I'll take it on everything.

- A


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > But an update could make it a too expensive 17.000 buck lens like Nikons. And at 800mm, in many cases the atmosphere starts to avoid you get crystal clear images. Most of the subjects will have extreme bokeh anyway, so corner sharpness of the 800/5.6 is not an issue. Instead of an 800, the 600II+1.4 extender will also do it. Aside from that, for these focal lengths I would use the Sigma 200-500/2.8 with its 2x extender anyway - mainly because of its weight, which makes it much more stable outdoor situations.
> ...



I bought a Canon and a Nikon version of the Sigma 200-500/2.8 approx 5 years ago for approx $8000 each new. This lens will never cost anywhere near its fantasy list price if you search a bit or negotiate.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



I probably read every funny comment that was made about this lens. I invite everybody to set up a Canon telezoom on one tripod, and the Sigma on another tripod in an outdoor scenario (which is obviously what it was made for). Let's see who's laughing then, when you realize that the weight of the Sigma makes it much more stable than the other tele zooms, giving you more room regarding shutter speeds on top of the f-stop advantage it has. I also didn't see too many people handhold a Canon 400/2.8 or 800/5.6, so a tripod is needed for all these lenses anyway.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter if Sony, Olympus, Panasonic do release a new model every month or every 4 years, as long as their models have important features [1] that Canon doesn't have or will have only years later.
> ...



If the people at Canon would know the market and be good in knowing what their consumers want, they would have predicted that their mass consumers will flee from DSLRs, and have started to build smartphones some years ago. They also would have reacted with products to all those former Canon consumers, who bought Sony and Panasonic cameras instead. Canon's absolute sales numbers are going down since years, nobody at Canon will throw champagne parties because the market share still looks good.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



Canon and Nikon and its employees are as imperfect as Lehman Brothers or Volkswagen - because large corporations will always have lots of flaws. This is why Canon didn't foresee the smartphone boom and also had no answer to it. 

Nikon and Canon had a good plan until a few years ago, but now the pace of the planet and the developments in camera products mean that most aspects of former decades are not valid anymore. It's very unlikely that Canon will see growth instead of decline, the way they acted the last 2-4 years.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



vscd said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > 11-24 f/4L - could use IS and is a bit outperformend in sharpness between 12-16mm by the Sigma Art
> ...



No need to read the reviews as I own both and can test them myself. But I checked and you can see the charts over at Digital Picture, which show exactly what I said.

Regarding IS: it helps at any focal lengths. You can still see micro shakes when you zoom in in live view. Cameras with 50MP like the 5DsR need shorter shutter speeds so you really get tack sharp results at these resolutions. Anything that makes it steady is welcome, although the effect between 16-24mm of course is more visible. Probably this is why Canon themselves didn't cut the IS below 24mm in their 16-35/4 IS lens.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Know-it-all Canon market research says: "All we need to do is continue bringing marginally improved iterations of our tried and tested mirrorslappers. No need whatsoever to put anything mirrorless on our 207 roadmap." 

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/how-bad-is-it.html


> Let’s look at the just-announced Jan-Oct CIPA numbers for the past few years for a moment:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> So as we get to the close of another year, I’d have to argue that “nope, we haven’t hit bottom yet.”
> That’s where things get really scary. If this is just a constant state of decline, DSLRs will fall below 3m units by 2021, which is about where mirrorless is now.



hehehe. Now who's delusional? 

Punishment by "me and millions of other not buying customers" is brutal. ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



The Canon 400 and 800 primes are easily used on a monopod, which is how many of them are used, the Sigma lens is tripod only, so a vast difference in usability. If you want the stability the weight the Sigma brings just put some sandbags/bean bags over any lens on a tripod and you get exactly the same result, mass induced stability. Of course the bean bags with beans will cost you $25,000 less


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Not sure what has Adone done to lightroom, but its getting more and more buggy each time out. Sonce the June update Lightroom has been crashing for no good reason at all. Even going from Develop module to Map module crashes lightroom. I dont think Adobe is serious about Lightroom anymore also their CC is crap I want good old lightroom back or else its hello On1 goodbye LR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Chaitanya said:


> Not sure what has Adone done to lightroom, but its getting more and more buggy each time out. Sonce the June update Lightroom has been crashing for no good reason at all. Even going from Develop module to Map module crashes lightroom. I dont think Adobe is serious about Lightroom anymore also their CC is crap I want good old lightroom back or else its hello On1 goodbye LR.



Adobe don't care about you and never have, say goodbye and don't look back.

I just downloaded the latest LR 2015.8 and was playing with the new 'Reference View' in the Develop Module, absolutely love it, and best of all is the cursor gives two readings, one from the reference image and one from the image being developed. This is a feature I know I will use a lot and wonder how I did without it.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> Canon and Nikon and its employees are as imperfect as Lehman Brothers or Volkswagen - because large corporations will always have lots of flaws. This is why Canon didn't foresee the smartphone boom and also had no answer to it.



There _*is *_no answer to smartphones other than excelling where they don't -- true (not software synthesized) small DOF, low noise at high ISO and night and day better longer-than-28mm focal length options.

The only answer to smartphones is to be part of their success and sell components to their manufacturers. Did you expect Canon or Nikon to start selling cell phones?

- A


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



privatebydesign said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



It's not the stability of the tripod. It's the wind that's going to shake the front and end of a tele lens. So good luck putting sand bags directly on top of your Canon tele zoom to make it heavier and more sturdy.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Canon and Nikon and its employees are as imperfect as Lehman Brothers or Volkswagen - because large corporations will always have lots of flaws. This is why Canon didn't foresee the smartphone boom and also had no answer to it.
> ...



Nikon is too small for cell phones, but why shouldn't Canon have started to get a foot in that door? There were times when nobody would have expected that Nokia or Apple will sell phones. Phones are manufactured in asia, the operating system can be licensed, and the sales driver has been display and camera technology. It would have been more logical or at least as likely that a company like Canon instead of Apple came up with phones.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> If the people at Canon would know the market and be good in knowing what their consumers want, they would have predicted that their mass consumers will flee from DSLRs, and have started to build smartphones some years ago. They also would have reacted with products to all those former Canon consumers, who bought Sony and Panasonic cameras instead. Canon's absolute sales numbers are going down since years, nobody at Canon will throw champagne parties because the market share still looks good.



Interpreted as:

I have a view that says Canon is a crap company, crap at predicting things, crap at knowing what their clients want and crap at delivering anything useful and above all crap because they are more useless than anyone else because they don't deliver what nobody else delivers either. I will therefore twist any information I see to fit that jaundiced irascible viewpoint. 

But I will still use Canon over any other marque.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Make a low-end camera with a phone-size touch screen on the back, android OS, so that you can install all your favourite social media apps on it, take photos and upload them directly from your camera. I know samsung tried a phone/camera hybrid thing a while back, but no-one's yet done this properly with an ILC.

It won't be the camera for most of us, but it will be what a lot of (younger) people would prefer. Right now every single time I've tried to link a camera to an iphone to share photos it's been a nightmare and usually not worked. This is important stuff. People want to share their photos straight away. If their camera can't do this, they'll use their phone, and soon forget why they bothered to buy a camera in the first place.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > If the people at Canon would know the market and be good in knowing what their consumers want, they would have predicted that their mass consumers will flee from DSLRs, and have started to build smartphones some years ago. They also would have reacted with products to all those former Canon consumers, who bought Sony and Panasonic cameras instead. Canon's absolute sales numbers are going down since years, nobody at Canon will throw champagne parties because the market share still looks good.
> ...



Indeed. Yet another hypocritical forum dweller who knows better than Canon how Canon should spend their money. In this case with a leavening of 20/20 hindsight thrown in, along with a sprinkle of I'm special 'cuz I own lots of expensive gear on top. 

What most of these CHWAC posts amount to is a justification for why Canon should make the gear on that poster's personal wish list (in some cases a ridiculously long personal wish list). 

Funny how these self-appointed experts – and the millions of people they claim think just like them – seem to have radically different, and in some cases diametrically opposed, 'knowledge' about what Canton must do to avoid certain doom. For example, one CHWAC says that Canon must update every single one of their dSLRs and most of their lenses with features 'their competitors have offered for years' (despite those competitors' continued loss of marketshare to Canon), while another CHWAC says that Canon should stop making dSLRs altogether, and instead switch over to making only mirrorless cameras, with an entire new line of lenses to go with the FF versions. 

Clueless.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> Know-it-all Canon market research says: "All we need to do is continue bringing marginally improved iterations of our tried and tested mirrorslappers. No need whatsoever to put anything mirrorless on our 207 roadmap."
> 
> http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/how-bad-is-it.html
> 
> ...



I think you're misinterpreting your data. Here's a table of DSLR ("mirrorslapper") sales as percentage of total ILC sales.






Considering all the mirrorless advances (and opportunities for advancement) in the last 4 years, I'm shocked that the percentage has declined *only *8%. And the smallest drop in the last 4 years was the most recent year. This very strongly supports the hypothesis that there is *NO* great demand for mirrorless over mirrored. Please look deeper into the data before pronouncing conclusions. Your data do no support your conclusion.

Edit: embedded image didn't post, see attached image below.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Orangutan said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Know-it-all Canon market research says: "All we need to do is continue bringing marginally improved iterations of our tried and tested mirrorslappers. No need whatsoever to put anything mirrorless on our 207 roadmap."
> ...


A virtual 50% decline in DSLR sales since 2012 is equally nothing to shout about for the industry. The decline in mirrorless is smaller as a % but its certainly not growing either. At their peak SLRs biggest year total was 8.8M but averaged was around 6.8M the level we see DSLRs at in 2016 YTD. 
However you read the figures smart phones & tablets have taken a huge chunk of the photographic market which not only affects camera sales but everything around them such as cases, batteries, memory cards, filters, tripods etc.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

well orangutan, you may want to discuss it with Thom Hogan. I quoted his conclusions on CIPA data. As far as I am concerned, I am in full agreement with the facts & data as well as the conclusions. 

Re. 11% decline in mirrorless ... oh wonder! Only #3 market player offers FF mirrorless. Nikon and Canon with combined 80% market share are empty-handed on FF MILC, they have nothing to sell, so there are no sales. Hardly a surprise. 

Even for APS-C mirrorless there are only 3 players: Sony [good bodies, but only sub-par or too expensive lenses] , Fuji [expensive & retro stuff] and Canon [decent lenses, but nerfed bodies]. Samsung ... departed. Leica .. of yeah ... "be dumm, pay premium!" 

Oly/Pana ... mFT dwarf sensors anyone? Nikon 1 ? give me a break. Pathetic. 

My conclusion: mirrorslappers are dying even faster than I expected. Mirrorless is not where it ought to be, because of lack of compelling systems. 

In essence: MILC market share is absolutely and solely a SUPPLY side problem, not a market DEMAND issue.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

One other point. As the market is squeezed the unit cost will increase no wonder the Canon 5D MKIV is £ 3599 in the UK (no this is not all down to Brexit which would have added around 18% using the $ as the benchmark, in % terms the camera increased by 36% over the 5D MKIII price prior to launch). 
These higher prices also reduce sales so become a downward spiral.


----------



## hbr (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Some random thoughts here with no conclusions. The advent of the cell phone market market was a huge hit to the traditional camera manufacturers due to one thing - convenience. The smart phones are small, most people own them and carry them everywhere they go, they are always connected, (although people pay a monthly fee to the phone carriers for this convenience), and they take great pictures. They do not have a plethora of buttons and confusing menu items. As Mikehit said earlier, the cell phones coupled with the huge rise of social media has been a huge success for the smart phone manufacturers. Most of the people I know that use them are not interested in the quality of the pictures, in other words, they will not edit their pictures, print them or pixel peep. One humorous example of this is often when I go to a national park, I frequently observe a car load of people with smartphones sticking out of every window, photographing a wild animal at 200 yards away. The quality of the photo is not important, just the fact that they can share their experience with their friends.
In another vein, often while I am out and about I attract a lot of attention due to the white lenses on my camera. I love to talk to these people and share my passion for photography and experience with them and I often ask them as many questions as they ask me. Many people are still using 7 and 8 year old entry level cameras with only the original kit lens. They originally planned to purchase one camera in their lifetime and think their photos are just fine. Most of them have never taken the mode dial off of the Auto setting and don't have a clue about shooting in RAW or what all the dials and buttons do. Most of them will never join a forum like this. But, I am hoping that when I show them what kind of shots are possible that they reconsider and upgrade. 
And then many of my friends purchased a dslr only to take pictures of their babies or kids growing up because they thought the dslr would give them outstanding photos, (although most of them would probably have taken better pictures with their smart phones or a point and shoot).
So, my question is this: are the entry level cameras too complicated? Could the camera manufacturers make a profit by offering less features on a less expensive entry level camera? When the T5 recently sold on QVC at a give away price, they sold out almost immediately. (I realize that no one made much profit on this sale as it was a close-out, but even this camera had more features than most of they buyers will ever use). A friend of mine bought 3 of them - one each for her teenage kids.
But even if they could make a profit on low cost cameras, the issue of connectivity to instantly share ones photos will still plague the camera manufacturers.
The cell phone market has also matured and we are inundated with cell phones, so I see no advantage for the manufacturers to enter this market.
Fortunately, there are still plenty of true photographers out there who are upgrading their equipment as technology advances to make money for the camera manufacturers, but it will take a lot of thinking outside of the box for these manufacturers to try to get the customers back that only use their smart phones and more than likely this segment of the market is gone forever.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> well orangutan, you may want to discuss it with Thom Hogan. I quoted his conclusions on CIPA data. As far as I am concerned, I am in full agreement with the facts & data as well as the conclusions.
> 
> Re. 11% decline in mirrorless ... oh wonder! Only #3 market player offers FF mirrorless. Nikon and Canon with combined 80% market share are empty-handed on FF MILC, they have nothing to sell, so there are no sales. Hardly a surprise.
> 
> ...


Seems your contradicting yourself. The Oly mFT Ive run along side my Canon gear for years and the quality has steadily got better especially when they changed to Sony sensors. Its certainly not a FF beater but its certainly a viable system for a vacation camera with inter-changeable lenses at half the weight. 
The Nikon 1 was a daft system without others buying in but mFT has got buy-in.

I would buy the Canon 5D MKIV but not at £ 3599 body only in the UK at least Canon are pricing themselves out of the market.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



jeffa4444 said:


> One other point. As the market is squeezed the unit cost will increase no wonder the Canon 5D MKIV is £ 3599 in the UK (no this is not all down to Brexit which would have added around 18% using the $ as the benchmark, in % terms the camera increased by 36% over the 5D MKIII price prior to launch).
> These higher prices also reduce sales so become a downward spiral.



That currency conversion relies on hindsight. If you had to set the price of anything you were importing into the UK today 8-12 months ago without that hindsight how would you have valued the pound? Brexit's biggest issue was the uncertainty it created for companies importing to the UK, bankers and traders love uncertainty because they profit from it, companies trying to do real import export work hate it. 

It turns out that the devaluation Brexit's brought about was not as dramatic as many feared, though there is more uncertainty to come, so I'd expect many of these prices to ease. Interestingly the 5D MkIV is following the same price trajectory as the 5D MkIII did whereas the 5DSR is holding a markedly higher price/devaluation curve. Cameras are not 18 or 36% more expensive in the USA or in most countries, so the UK is an outlier and the uncertainty and currency hedging that was forced on importers is the main reason.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



privatebydesign said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > One other point. As the market is squeezed the unit cost will increase no wonder the Canon 5D MKIV is £ 3599 in the UK (no this is not all down to Brexit which would have added around 18% using the $ as the benchmark, in % terms the camera increased by 36% over the 5D MKIII price prior to launch).
> ...


That only explains the 18% move not the actual 36% move. By contrast Canon lenses have jumped by 18-20%, the 80D is unchanged and the 6D up by 5%.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



jeffa4444 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > jeffa4444 said:
> ...



No you are being myopic. 18% is the actual difference, I am saying what was the projected difference when the price was set? Nobody knew, nobody had a clue. The 6D is nearing end of life, the 80D is getting massive discount flash sales in the USA so is also likely EOL, lenses are a constant. A release like a 5D replacement is a major cash boost and Canon could not afford to under price it, so they hedged, as all good company money men would. It is a lot easier to lower the price and make more sales than raise it and try to recoup lost income.


----------



## Azathoth (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> If that roadmap would be true, it would be very disappointing and only contain 1 out of approx 50 cameras and lenses I have on a personal wish list and would buy (products which all wouldn't be unrealistic looking at the competition and the market in the year 2017):
> 
> 1DX2 Mirrorless 5Axis
> 5D4 Mirrorless 5Axis
> ...



Please, no. Canon, please don't ruin amazingly good and simple primes by putting IS. It makes sense on a zoom lens because the aim is to get something versatile. But not on a prime. Primes have that amazing good image quality because they have a simple construction. Don't transform primes into zooms, pleeease.


----------



## hbr (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



jeffa4444 said:


> One other point. As the market is squeezed the unit cost will increase no wonder the Canon 5D MKIV is £ 3599 in the UK (no this is not all down to Brexit which would have added around 18% using the $ as the benchmark, in % terms the camera increased by 36% over the 5D MKIII price prior to launch).
> These higher prices also reduce sales so become a downward spiral.



If my information is correct, I believe Canon, (in the US anyway), has done a good job of keeping the market entry prices the same or lower than the previous models despite fluctuations in exchange rates. Europe may be a totally different situation. I believe that Europe taxes imports differently than in the US.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 9, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Azathoth said:


> Please, no. Canon, please don't ruin amazingly good and simple primes by putting IS. It makes sense on a zoom lens because the aim is to get something versatile. But not on a prime. Primes have that amazing good image quality because they have a simple construction. Don't transform primes into zooms, pleeease.



Can you name me a single lens that was 'ruined' by adding IS to it?

The simple construction in the 24/28/35 non-L primes was transformed into the 'IS refresh' lenses, which were near-L quality instruments: night-and-day better build quality, internal focusing, ring USM, etc. and shockingly, those lenses did not become zoom-like. They are just wonderful little primes.

And I have heard precisely zero complaints with the 100 f/2.8L Macro IS other than stuff like front filter diameter or the tripod ring being a separate item. That lens is also terrific.

- A


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Azathoth said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > If that roadmap would be true, it would be very disappointing and only contain 1 out of approx 50 cameras and lenses I have on a personal wish list and would buy (products which all wouldn't be unrealistic looking at the competition and the market in the year 2017):
> ...



"Primes have that amazing good image quality because they have a simple construction" - that might be the most untrue technical statement I have read. So the 100/2.8 Macro, 200/2 and tele lenses suck because they have IS? No they don't, and aside from the new 35/1.4 II these mentioned lenses are all better optically than Canon's non-IS prime lens lineup.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



I honestly don't care how Canon is doing, because they don't care about the budgets and workflows of the consumers either. Especially for you, below I will copy my personal "best of full frame" camera and lens list again, regardless of brands or mounts. This is not a forum for amateurs, which is why it's not about celebrating which company sells most in mass volume. What we search are the Ferraris for our work, and not the best selling Toyotas. An in my opinion Canon only delivers the best product in 14 of 40 categories:

Sony A99II (Allround)
Sony A7SII (Lowlight)
Canon 1DXII (4K 60fps, Video Autofocus)
Canon 5DsR (Resolution)
Nikon D810A (Astro)

Canon 8-15/4 Fisheye
Sigma Art 12-24/4
Canon 16-35/2.8 III
Sony 24-70/2.8 GM
Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR FL
Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6 II IS
Canon 200-400/4 IS +1.4EXT
Sony 24-240/3.5-6.3 (Allround)

Voigtländer 10/5.6
Voigtländer 12/5.6
Zeiss Milvus 15/2.8
Zeiss Batis 18/2.8
Zeiss Milvus 21/2.8
Sigma Art 24/1.4
Zeiss Otus 28/1.4
Canon 35/1.4 II
Zeiss Milvus 50/2 Macro
Zeiss Otus 55/1.4
Canon 65/2.8 Macro 1-5x
Sigma Art 85/1.4
Zeiss Milvus 100/2 Macro
Nikon 105/1.4
Zeiss Milvus 135/2
Sigma 180/2.8 OS Macro
Nikon 200/2 VR II
Canon 300/2.8 II IS
Canon 400/2.8 II IS
Canon 500/4 II IS
Canon 600/4 II IS
Nikon 800/5.6 VR FL

Canon 17/4 TS
Nikon 19/4 TS
Canon 24/3.5 TS
Nikon 45/2.8 TS
Nikon 90/2.8 TS


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> I honestly don't care how Canon is doing, because they don't care about the budgets and workflows of the consumers either. Especially for you, below I will copy my personal "best of full frame" camera and lens list again, regardless of brands or mounts. ... An in my opinion Canon only delivers the best product in 14 of 40 categories:



Especially for me? Lol. Why would I give any credence to your worthless opinion?


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> If that roadmap would be true, it would be very disappointing and only contain 1 out of approx 50 cameras and lenses I have on a personal wish list and would buy (products which all wouldn't be unrealistic looking at the competition and the market in the year 2017):
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I'll settle for TS-E 11-800mm f/1.0 IS USM and TS-E 8-15mm f/0.7 IS USM fish eye, both with auto focus, 5 axis 6 stops IS, and the ability to tilt & shift on both axis.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> This is not a forum for amateurs



Of course it is, where did you get the idea that CR is for pros only?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Orangutan said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > This is not a forum for amateurs
> ...



That's his opinion. He's welcome to express his opinion even though, as usual, doing so makes him look foolish.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



It's not an opinion if it stands opposed to fact.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> An in my opinion Canon only delivers the best product in 14 of 40 categories:



So that list is your 40 categories? Those aren't categories - its a list of products you like to use. 

It is interesting you are so critical about Canon when the nearest competitors in you 'list of categories' are: 
Nikon - 8
Zeiss - 8 
Sony - 4

Yeah, Canon's doing a _really _bad job there. 

I have friends who own a Nissan 4x4 for winter travel and a Mazda for summer days. I don't ever recall them bitching about how Mazda are so incompetent because the Mazda doesn't meet their needs for winter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Orangutan said:


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



I respectfully disagree. 

*o·pin·ion* əˈpinyən/ _noun_
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

For example, some people hold the opinion that the earth is flat. They sound like idiots when they share that opinion with people who are cognizant of the facts, but it remains their right to hold that opinion.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Antono Refa said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > If that roadmap would be true, it would be very disappointing and only contain 1 out of approx 50 cameras and lenses I have on a personal wish list and would buy (products which all wouldn't be unrealistic looking at the competition and the market in the year 2017):
> ...



So regarding these 3 zooms, you say I'm a complete idiot to expect Canon to release same spec'ed lenses 2-8 years later than the competion, because it's unmanagable to add stabilization? That only shows how low the expectations regarding Canon seem to be.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > I honestly don't care how Canon is doing, because they don't care about the budgets and workflows of the consumers either. Especially for you, below I will copy my personal "best of full frame" camera and lens list again, regardless of brands or mounts. ... An in my opinion Canon only delivers the best product in 14 of 40 categories:
> ...



Because you seem to spend 50x as much time in such forums as me and seem to need the attention.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



Amateurs: people who own basic DSLR's and kit lenses and are satisfied with what they have. Between amateur and pro there are a lot more shades of enthusiasts etc, and for all of them the forum can be interesting of course.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > An in my opinion Canon only delivers the best product in 14 of 40 categories:
> ...



Many people in this forum behave as if Canon delivers the #1 quality in everything and are personally insulted if you don't agree, like as if their equipment is a family member. Understandable, because people think they get and own the best, if they buy the top brand and spend a lot of money. 

I personally also do have equal lists for improvments for Nikon and Sony. While Nikon's speed of innovation and price politics are even worse than Canon's, Sony shows that they are much more willing to give the best they can.

And Sony's lense lineup has some gaps, but most of the lenses are very close to Canon's quality and much lighter. Plus you can use nearly any lens on a Sony mirrorless body including speedboosters, and some mirrorless features of Sony are nowhere to be seen from Canon.

So the former true self conception that Canon is #1 is not valid anymore concerning features, quality etc. That is much different than in former decades now, and Canon is just one among several other sometimes equal or better options. I wish it wasn't like that, because I'd rather spend money on Canon products only!


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

So given that Canon have more hits in your top 40 than any other marque, do you go onto the Sony and Nikon sites and give them even more criticism? Or do you reserve your bile for Canon?

There are many companies that are innovative but have a pitifully small (though useful) line-up of products. This has always been the case and always will be.
Ask any professional if they would rather have the 'innovation' of Sony or the reliability and after-sales service and support of Canon. Many pros will not have Sony as their main rig for precisely that reason.
Ask any wildlife photographer if they will risk their livelihood putting the 500mm f4L on a A7Rii with metabones adapter, shall we? Or is that a daft question given that the definition of a successful camera is if they make products that _you_ want.

Sony made a major leap forward with the A7R(ii) - that is the easy bit (well, apart from their highly inferior interface...and that is easiest of all!!). Let's see they can keep up that pace of evolution in the next 5 years. I have read many reviews saying the 5DSR and the 5DIV have closed the gap considerably. Let's see where Sony and Canon are in 5 years and see if you are still so critical of Canon.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> Sony A99II (Allround)
> Sony A7SII (Lowlight)
> Canon 1DXII (4K 60fps, Video Autofocus)
> Canon 5DsR (Resolution)
> ...



I take issue with the four in red and believe either the Canon is 'better' (Sigma 12-24 vs Canon 11-24) or there is no effective difference (Nikon 800 vs Canon 800).

Actually there is bugger all difference between the Canon and Nikon PC-E 45 and 90 and the Canon TS-E 45 and 90 too, all four need upgrading with independent rotation. Also what's with the PC-E 19? Why do you need a 17mm TS-E and a 19mm PC-E? They are direct competitors and the Canon has been out for years and is half the price of the 19 that appears to be made from unobtanium.

So once you reduce your list to competing products and consider observable differences in output Canon is far and away the leader of manufacturers. Of 39 "categories" they make at least 20 bests or equals, that seems pretty good to me!


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> Many people in this forum behave as if Canon delivers the #1 quality in everything and are personally insulted if you don't agree



I don't know of any, please give examples. 

All the Canon supporters on this forum seem to be aware that there are specific areas that would benefit from improvement.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> I respectfully disagree.
> 
> *o·pin·ion* əˈpinyən/ _noun_
> a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> ...



With equal respect, it seems plain to me that "not necessarily based on fact or knowledge" is not at all the same as standing opposed to fact. For example (and maintaining your astronomical theme), suppose someone says "I believe there's no life in the universe outside of Earth." That would be an opinion, even though it's not based on fact. On the other hand, suppose life were found on Europa that did not use DNA for its genes. Then the original assertion would no longer be an opinion, but a false statement.

Or, as the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan said so well (or has been attributed to him), "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."


----------



## Diko (Dec 10, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Sorry if in the previous 14 pages someone already has pointed out the answer to:

Why on the poll there was EOS 90 as an option to 2017 when it's not even on the bloody roadmap for this year?

And why would anyone choose 24-70 f2.8 instead of the CANON second version of it? Does it has macro (like Canon mk1 version, which is/was awesome btw)?


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> So given that Canon have more hits in your top 40 than any other marque, do you go onto the Sony and Nikon sites and give them even more criticism? Or do you reserve your bile for Canon?



+1. This. No single imaging company will be the best at everything because it's a competitive industry. To expect one company to have everything better than everyone else is nuts.

Canon's ecosystem is not a paradise -- it's just the most reliable, satisfying, surprise-free, flexible and practical place to live.

I'm as 'Canon apologist-y' as anyone here and I would tell you first-hand that not all of Canon's products / features / components are the best. But the logic that...

1) Canon isn't the best at everything
2) Other companies are more exciting / innovative / quick-to-market
3) _Therefore Canon is ******* unless they do exactly what I want right now_

...is patently absurd. That implies that corporation's trajectory is more important than it's present altitude. 

I don't need to feel good about the momentum of my company. I need to feel good that that company has what I need. Overwhelmingly, Canon ticks those boxes more than other companies, and quite frankly, it's going to be that way for some time.

- A


----------



## scyrene (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I respectfully disagree.
> ...



This is way off topic but...

I'm afraid I'm with Neuro here. 'Opinion' doesn't connote factual basis. Opinion is belief. One can believe anything, and hold any opinion. We'd need a whole new word if your preferred meaning held true. It might be a useful distinction to make (some languages do encode the distinction unknown-untrue, but not English, in this case), but that's not how it is.


----------



## Fleetie (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



scyrene said:


> This is way off topic but...
> 
> I'm afraid I'm with Neuro here. 'Opinion' doesn't connote factual basis. Opinion is belief. One can believe anything, and hold any opinion. We'd need a whole new word if your preferred meaning held true. It might be a useful distinction to make (some languages do encode the distinction unknown-untrue, but not English, in this case), but that's not how it is.


Well I am genuinely interested in your other-languages statement.
Examples would be appreciated! I like things like this; extra-ordinary distinctions, in other languages!
But this is a camera forum, so I understand if you don't want to elaborate.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...



I chose those in random, IIRC because they were on top of the lenses list.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

any single opinion held by any single person can be a) factually correct or b) factually incorrect or c) factually partially correct to any degree. in my opinion this is "self-evident" and not difficult to understand ... ;-)

furthermore i am of the opinion there is no "objective truth". not in any language, not for anybody. all there is, are opionions, beliefs and disbelieves. subjective stuff, perception. includes natural sciences and so-called "laws of nature". 

who knows, whether we are not all just existing in a "Matrix". would not contradict descartes logic. or as Patti Smith has put it so poetically: "i was dreaming in my dreaming" ...


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> So given that Canon have more hits in your top 40 than any other marque, do you go onto the Sony and Nikon sites and give them even more criticism? Or do you reserve your bile for Canon?
> 
> There are many companies that are innovative but have a pitifully small (though useful) line-up of products. This has always been the case and always will be.
> Ask any professional if they would rather have the 'innovation' of Sony or the reliability and after-sales service and support of Canon. Many pros will not have Sony as their main rig for precisely that reason.
> ...



Yes, I give the same justified criticism to all the other manufacturers as well.

Probably in 5 years Canon is ahead in everything again against Sony. That would be no surprise because they are capable of anything. But that wouldn't help then, because Canon stole a lot of time from many photographers and filmmakers by holding back features, or making it necessary to buy more products than necessary. That's what it's all about.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Antono Refa said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...



So which lenses of the list are completely unrealistic?


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> But that wouldn't help then, because Canon stole a lot of time from many photographers and filmmakers



That is verging on peurile. 
They have stolen nothing - they just didn't give you what you wanted. WAAAAAAH!. 
More exactly, they didn't give you what you thought was technically possible, but my guess is you know squat about the trade offs between technicalities and costing. All you're bothered about it 'me me me', and my guess is that if they did make a camera with all the features you wanted you would refuse to pay the cost it takes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> who knows, whether we are not all just existing in a "Matrix". would not contradict descartes logic. or as Patti Smith has put it so poetically: "i was dreaming in my dreaming" ...



It does seem that might be the case for you, the AvTvM Universe.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> Yes, I give the same justified criticism to all the other manufacturers as well.



Lol, I'm sure they give it as much credence as Canon. None. But if whining on the Internet makes you feel better, well, good for you. 




douglaurent said:


> Probably in 5 years Canon is ahead in everything again against Sony.



Canon is _very_ far ahead of Sony now in what matters most to both Canon and Sony. Given their history, in five years, it's not unlikely that Sony's only contribution to the ILC market will be sensors used in other manufacturers' cameras.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> So which lenses of the list are completely unrealistic?



There are several lenses which I think are unlikely:

1. 14-24/2.8 IS - no other company makes such a lens.
2. 16-35/2.8 IS - no other company makes such a lens.
3. 12/2.8 IS - no other company makes such a lens, and the Laowa 12mm f/2.8 is very new.
4. 14/2.8 IS - no other company makes such a lens.
5. 18/2 IS - no other company makes such a lens. AFAIK, there is only one 18mm f/2 lens for m43, not even APS-C.
6. 20/1.4 IS - no other company makes such a lens.
7. 20/1.8 IS - no other company makes such a lens, and is very similar to the above.
8. 24/1.4 IS - no other company makes such a lens.
9. 24/1.8 IS - no other company makes such a lens, and is very similar to the above.
[Repeat 28 & 35mm]
10. 50/1.2 IS - no other company makes such a lens.
11. 85/1.2 IS - no other company makes such a lens.

No matter how realistic the lenses are, the more lenses are on the list, the less realistic it is. Canon's resources are limited, all the more so with decreasing sales, investing in R&D and manufacturing lines of >20 lenses could easily take over five years, by which time your least would change.

Making 15 lenses no other company ever made? Now, that's unrealistic.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Antono Refa said:


> Making 15 lenses no other company ever made? Now, that's unrealistic.



Nonsense, Canon can easily do it. In addition to their known corporate goals of making profit, returning value to shareholders, and being environmentally conscious, they have a secret corporate goal of holding back technology so they can steal time from photographers. It's secret, but douglaurent knows all about it because he's bought some Canon gear and talked to a few people that rent that gear from him.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Let's continue to drive straight off the roadmap.



scyrene said:


> 'Opinion' doesn't connote factual basis.


I never said it did.



> Opinion is belief.


No. In my _opinion_, they're closely related, but not the same.

I found some material that asserted that _opinion _was reflexive, that it was "self-report or attitudinal statement." I.e., it's personal or values-related, whereas _belief_ is a holding of factual truth.



> One can believe anything


 This is true, and has caused many problems in the world.

I'm saying an opinion can live in the area between known-true and unknown, but it's not the same as belief -- it's more an attitude or value about a belief than the belief itself. Here's an example of my distinction: consider a physician speaking to a patient.

Belief: "Medication A performed best in the clinical trials." This is a belief because it's a holding of fact. Even if it's false, it's still a belief.

Opinion: "Medication A is the best treatment for your condition." This is a value statement about a belief, not the belief itself. 

Why this matters: once an _opinion_ has been shown to be based on falsehood, it no longer deserves deference we often try to give to values, attitudes and self-reports. (Some would argue the same of false beliefs, but that's a different conversation.)

Thanks for the entertaining discussion; and for those interested, here are a few URLs.

http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/co300man/pop12d.cfm

http://www.auburn.edu/academic/education/reading_genie/Fact-opinion.html


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > But that wouldn't help then, because Canon stole a lot of time from many photographers and filmmakers
> ...



No, it's not about me. I own all the alternative products and simply use them. I am just analyzing the reality. Unfortunately we live in an age of globalization, super efficiency and pressure on everybody. Canon does put pressure on their factory workers, distributors etc etc to get results which they think is best for them. So consumers have the right to put the pressure on Canon and demand what's best for them. If it was the Mother Theresa foundation, I wouldn't demand anything.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I give the same justified criticism to all the other manufacturers as well.
> ...



It's just 5 lost years for Canon users if they offer the same features only that late.

And it's always interesting to read when forum users say that Canon does give a shit about social media, and will not recognize this rumor website and its discussions at all. This would imply whatever you write is irrelevant as well, and Canon is an ignorant company that doesn't properly do modern consumer research - which would prove the point that they are a bit behind.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Antono Refa said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > So which lenses of the list are completely unrealistic?
> ...



In recent years, Canon did release 8 mirrorless system lenses that noone expected.
They did release these still unique lenses that nobody expected:

8-15/4 Fisheye
11-24/4
17/4 TiltShift
24/2.8 IS
28/2.8 IS
35/2 IS
200-540/4-5.6 IS

They also still have classics likthe 65/2.8 macro that are unparalleled to date.
Sigma and other manufacturers came up with lots of new lens specifications never seen before.

So please why shouldn't Canon be able to release new lenses whose specifications would make a lot of sense, and are definitely technically possible???


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> Antono Refa said:
> 
> 
> > Making 15 lenses no other company ever made? Now, that's unrealistic.
> ...



Right, a company that seems to sell only half as many cameras than a few years ago knows exactly what they are doing. They are just too good to fail! 

And all the users who are standing in shooting situations since years and in the future, missing IS on a 24-70/2.8, carrying 2 cameras instead of 1 because they need to do photo and video at the same time, and having 100 other limitations - they all don't need to worry, because they know the japanese corporate gods have decided it in their own best interest! And of course there is no way to question it!


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 11, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> Right, a company that seems to sell only half as many cameras than a few years ago knows exactly what they are doing. They are just too good to fail!



Your logic really is incompetent. It is less a case of how many absolute sales but sales in relation to the total market for a specific product type. If Canon are to be faulted for not selling as many cameras as a few years ago, and Canon are selling more than others in a reducing market, then it means the others are even more at fault.

Please can you point me to your posts on Sony and Nikon sites with your criticisms of them?



douglaurent said:


> And all the users who are standing in shooting situations since years and in the future, missing IS on a 24-70/2.8, carrying 2 cameras instead of 1 because they need to do photo and video at the same time, and having 100 other limitations - they all don't need to worry, because they know the japanese corporate gods have decided it in their own best interest! And of course there is no way to question it!


So if you need to shoot video and photo at the same time why are you using Canon? Why not use Sony or Nikon? Or Panasonic or Olympus?


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> So consumers have the right to put the pressure on Canon and demand what's best for them.



I agree. But your comments go further - you then posit that Canon are incompetent because they don't give you what you say you need. My (and others' ) comments are that they are not incompetent, just that your priorities are not the same Canon's priorities which they have worked out based on a knowledge of the market. 

You really do sound like the annoying oik in the playground who throws a punch (criticising Canon) then goes running behind the skirts of the teacher (in this case, a more reasonable standpoint) when someone calls you out.


----------



## Diko (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Diko said:


> Sorry if in the previous 14 pages someone already has pointed out the answer to:
> 
> Why on the poll there was EOS 90 as an option to 2017 when it's not even on the bloody roadmap for this year?
> 
> And why would anyone choose 24-70 f2.8 instead of the CANON second version of it? Does it has macro (like Canon mk1 version, which is/was awesome btw)?



OK nobody willing to answer?


----------



## scyrene (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Orangutan said:


> Let's continue to drive straight off the roadmap.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Erm... you said this, but perhaps I misinterpret it?



Orangutan said:


> It's not an opinion if it stands opposed to fact.





Orangutan said:


> > Opinion is belief.
> 
> 
> No. In my _opinion_, they're closely related, but not the same.
> ...



All I can say is, our native speaker intuition doesn't agree; that's okay, it's the case for most things. I see what you're driving at, but I think perhaps you are trying to introduce a distinction that you see as useful, but I still don't buy that it's there at present (or rather, I don't see it as the mainstream English usage). Anyway, we need a succinct term for 'former belief subsequently shown to be untrue that is still held', because facts don't seem to bother many people's opinions (this forum is littered with good examples...).

Anyway, not to worry


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> Right, a company that seems to sell only half as many cameras than a few years ago knows exactly what they are doing. They are just too good to fail!



When there wasn't a microwave in almost every home in the developed world, microwave sales grew rapidly. Now, they've flattened out. The ILC market is doing that now. The fact that Canon is selling fewer cameras than some years back is a result of extrinsic factors. The fact that they are gaining market share in this flattening market demonstrates that they know quite well what they are doing, and they are making the right choices. Since you're advocating they change their successful approach, your recommendations are clearly useless. 




douglaurent said:


> And all the users who are standing in shooting situations since years and in the future, missing IS on a 24-70/2.8, carrying 2 cameras instead of 1 because they need to do photo and video at the same time, and having 100 other limitations - they all don't need to worry, because they know the japanese corporate gods have decided it in their own best interest!



Canon has decided to act in their own best interest. Why does that surprise you? They don't care about your interests, except insofar as your purchasing their products. Which you continue to do (and as I've stated, they neither know nor care about your claims that you might have bought more). If people have to buy two cameras instead of one, and Canon doesn't have to spend the R&D money to add 100 other features, they're clearly making the right choice...for them. Their increasing market share is merely confirmation that they know more about what is appealing to buyers than their competitors...and they clearly know more than you.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



scyrene said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Let's continue to drive straight off the roadmap.
> ...



This is precisely the distinction I'm making: an opinion need not be supported by fact, but it cannot be counterfactual. I.e., an opinion can be valid when facts are unknown or ambiguous. It's not a valid opinion if it's provably false.

You may be overthinking it, or I haven't explained well. It's really pretty simple: just about any opinion is valid so long as it's not provably false. Unlike Neuro, I do not believe the word "opinion" extends to the Earth being flat since that's provably false. It can extend to whether aliens have visited the Earth in modern times because that's not provably false, no matter how unlikely it may be or how weak the evidence.



> Anyway, not to worry



Not worrying, just enjoying a nice discussion. ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



douglaurent said:


> Right, a company that seems to sell only half as many cameras than a few years ago knows exactly what they are doing. They are just too good to fail!



You are blaming Canon exclusively for what is pillaging the entire industry right now, so that's a silly thing to say.

You understand that in a shrinking market like you describe, you never gamble on bleeding edge and reach for spruce-goose like passion products -- you focus on fundamentals, value, and execution. 

An (for example) EF 24-70 f/2L IS USM sort of 'we did it!' lens would devour resources to develop, cost a boatload to design and build, and ultimately only serve a sliver of the market. It would take Canon into Otus territory, where the market is rather tiny. That's hardly going to resurrect the market or rock the competitive market share.

Far wiser would be to modernize your staple products, proliferate your proprietary tech as widely across your portfolio as possible, and keep your core users happy. _And that's exactly what Canon is doing._

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Diko said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry if in the previous 14 pages someone already has pointed out the answer to:
> ...



I didn't understand you, that's why I didn't respond. But I shall try:



If by 'EOS 90' you meant a 90D camera body, I would encourage a review of the attached from Northlight. Product lifecycles change (they appear to be slowing due to contraction of the market), but the XXD line appears to -- at least in the last two versions -- have a three year cycle, which would put the 90D as a late 2018 / early 2019 sort of product.


Your 24-70 f/2.8 comment lost me, as neither version of the 24-70 f/2.8L has a great macro mode. I think you may be getting your 24-70 lenses mixed up -- the 24-70 f/4L IS is the one with the great max magnification:

24-70 f/2.8L II: 0.21x Max mag
24-70 f/2.8L (I / Original): 0.29x Max mag
24-70 f/4L IS: *0.70x Max mag*

But please clarify what you are asking and I'm sure the good folks here will have much to say! 



- A


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

yes, market saturation as well as macro-economic conditions are external parameters. but stils imaging industry has not been handling it well. canon and nikon as market share leaders have been acting way too conservative. they continued to pump out tiny-sensor digital compact cameras (powershot and coolpix) like crazy, when it was clear that people were not interested to buy them any longer. they continue to pump out marginally improved iterations of their dslrs, when it is clear that most potential buyets alteady have a mirrorslapper plus kit lens(es) sitting mostly unused in drawers. no wonder that unit sales are declining rapidly.

had canon (and nikon) initiated the transition to smaller, fully capable, connected (!) and less expensive (sub €/$ 1000) mirrorless cameras, both interchangeable lens camera systems and larger-sensor fixed lens compacts (1", APS-C, FF) systems sooner, like starting in 2013 when challenger Sony launched such products (esp. A7, A6000 and RX series) then overall unit sales of dedicated cameras would likely (!) not be in such continued steep decline.

instead, nikon solely came up with limited-capabilty, non-connected Nikon 1 series and is not even capable to offer their announced DL cameras in late 2016. canons only offering consisted of not-connected EOS M system with capabilities below their entry level DSLRs (no Viewfinder, more lag, less capable AF systems, etc.) and a few 1" powershots at way too high prices. 

as customers we have every right to pont out these facts (!) and to questiln the wisdom if canon's (and Nikons) product strategies. they need to come up with way more interesting and capable products at highly affordable proce points (basically 299 / 499 / 999 / 1999 ) if they want us to buy them. 

continued failure to do so will lead to their collapse. nikon first, since they are fully dependent on selling enough cameras to survive. relative market share is a very secondary concern now and not even a "consolation prize" in this game. as simple as that.

thats my non-counterfactual opinion, my belief and my creed as far as the state of affairs in (stills) imaging market at the end if 2016 is concerned.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

There also comes a point that a company has to decide whether it is worth even trying to break into a market. 

Smartphones are not merely 'connected cameras' - they are phones as well and this seems to be the point you and douglaurent are missing. Nearly everyone carries a phone nowadays and that will not change - and that is the challenge (not the connectivity) and that is why smartphones have an advantage over cameras. If someone has in their pocket a phone with a built camera that is what is killing the lower-end camera market; in fact of people I know for whom the smartphone is their camera, few use it to post directly to social networking and most have it to show the picture to friends and relatives later in the day.
So Canon and Nikon decision is not 'do we want to make a connected camera' but 'do we want to make camera phones'. The answer is clearly 'no', if you think about what would need to go into a camera to make this possible - processors, microphone, speaker, antenna etc etc. Then you add the other advantages of smartphone - web browsing, music storage etc. How far do you want cameras to go?
DSLRs according to some are already oversized now you want to put a phone in there. And that is not allowing for signal degradation and radio frequency interference because of all the electronic circuitry in close proximity...

But I would say CaNikon do not need to make cameraphones - their wifi connectivity means the camera can use the phone (which the person has with them anyway) to link to social network sites if that is what the user wants to do.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> ...
> in fact of people I know for whom the smartphone is their camera, few use it to post directly to social networking and most have it to show the picture to friends and relatives later in the day.



seems like you don't know enough people under the age of 50  ;D

Canon does not need to build camera-phones. We would already be HAPPY if Canon would manage to offer *SIMPLE and WORKING* WiFi connectivity in all of their cameras without pesky limitations and laborious setup shenanigans to go through ... in late 2016!


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> Canon does not need to build camera-phones. We would already be HAPPY if Canon would manage to offer *SIMPLE and WORKING* WiFi connectivity in all of their cameras without pesky limitations and laborious setup shenanigans to go through ... in late 2016!



Are you talking wifi connectivity or internet connectivity? So the question is how do you connect to the internet - direct or via a wifi network and the latter can be a wifi connection to your camera and cameras can already connect to wifi. 
You said previously 


> had canon (and nikon) initiated the transition to smaller, fully capable, connected (!) and less expensive (sub €/$ 1000) mirrorless cameras, both interchangeable lens camera systems and larger-sensor fixed lens compacts (1", APS-C, FF) systems sooner, like starting in 2013 when challenger Sony launched such products (esp. A7, A6000 and RX series) then overall unit sales of dedicated cameras would likely (!) not be in such continued steep decline.



So I am not sure what it is you are saying. The only 'connected' camera without 'pesky limitations and laborious setup shenanigans to go through' is one that has internet connectivity. Can the Sony do this? 

And to top it off, you use Sony as an example as to how improved connectivity will save the ILC market. Remind me what proportion of sales Sony has...


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

just look at the extremely poor WiFi implementation in all of Canon's [and Nikons] current cameras. It just sucks. And no, I am not talking "internet connection", just plain and simple direct WiFi connectivity. To a smartphone, tablet or notebook. Plus decent App for remote control including full featured intervalometer.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

No camera IME has particularly good wifi connectivity (I have tried Canon, Olympus, Panasonic and I have seen plenty enough complaints about Fuji and Sony on the poor connection) which suggests to me that there are challenges installing wifi into cameras. If it was as easy as you seem to be implying it would not be an issue. Unless of course you can advise Canon and all the others on how to do it.
Again, you seem to be aiming your shots at Canon when it is the industry as a whole that has a problem inpmplementing the technology.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Don't you worry: i do call out Canon and I do call out the entire imaging industry. But Canon gets most of my flak, because 
1. I am their customer 
2. they are self proclaimd "industry leader". 
that fully justifies use of a tougher yardstick on Canon.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

They are the market leader on taking pictures, not on wifi technology. 
But you are making the same mistake as douglaurent - pointing out the functionality you would like, and when you don't get it using your needs as a barometer to blame Canon for the ills of the camera industry as a whole, as if your needs are universal. 
Well guess what, me and a host of others don't give a crap about posting to social media as soon as we take the picture. My guess is canon's priorities are more in tune with ours than yours. 
Nor do many professionals. In fact, if forums were to be believed, a professional would be negligent if they posted an image without maximal post processing on a laptop (using the power of the in-camera engine??? Pfft!). 

Improved connectivity will come, I have no doubt. But it is all about priorities.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Mike: on this one [connectivity, socila media] people like yourself are the minority. Not me and my product wishes. We really really should not have to discuss "decent WiFi connectivity" in cameras. It may have been a matter of priorities back in 2008. But not today, at the end of 2016. What Canon and Nikon are offering today is just a major embarassment for any sort of "innovative" (!), electronics/tech-oriented company.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> Mike: on this one [connectivity, socila media] people like yourself are the minority. Not me and my product wishes.


How do you know? 



> We really really should not have to discuss "decent WiFi connectivity" in cameras.



The fact that it's not widely discussed on camera forums should be a clue that it's not a compelling need for most.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> We really really should not have to discuss "decent WiFi connectivity" in cameras.



That assumes it is easy to implement it. Can you let me know your experience in development and implementation of wifi systems, just so I can gauge the quality of your criticism.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Typical Canon Defense League demagogic sh*t. 
Folks, this is not about me and my credentials. It is simply ridiculous to put things as if I were the only person on earth wanting simple, stable and decent WiFi implemented in my cameras at the end of 2016. 

It is some of you old folks, who don't think you need it because you cannot even imagine what it might be useful for. Go and print you photos on your home printers and stfu on topics like WiFi in cameras.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

I am far from Canon Defence league. Let alone 'Demagogic sh*t'.
I would love stable wifi implemented in cameras - I use Wifi for liveview macro shooting so don't come all pompous just because someone disagrees with you. 

Unlike you I don't hold Canon responsible for the ills of the camera industry - I accept it as being either a matter of priroites for Canon (and Wifi is nowhere near my main priority) or, given that no maufacturer (none, zero, zip) has developed a stable Wifi technology, there is a limitation inherent in introducing it to cameras. 


And in case you deny that you hold Canon responsible for the decline of the camera industry I point you to your previous comment:


> *had canon (and nikon) initiated the transition to smaller, fully capable, connected (!) and less expensive (sub €/$ 1000) mirrorless cameras, *both interchangeable lens camera systems and larger-sensor fixed lens compacts (1", APS-C, FF) systems sooner, like starting in 2013 when challenger Sony launched such products (esp. A7, A6000 and RX series) *then overall unit sales of dedicated cameras would likely (!) not be in such continued steep decline.*



Given that you have so far failed miserably to provide any evidence of the simplicity of providing such technology I can only assume your accusations aimed at Canon are little more than depressed ramblings.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Right, a company that seems to sell only half as many cameras than a few years ago knows exactly what they are doing. They are just too good to fail!
> ...



I AM using all these brands. Which sucks, because it would be much easier and cheaper if the former #1 brand Canon would release all modern tools, so there would be no need to look left and right. This is why I do write here.

Regarding my Sony, Nikon etc criticism, I will not have hours of time to search. I can just say that Nikon is way worse, and Sony has gaps - but at least shows more will to come up faster with the cool stuff.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> I am far from Canon Defence league. Let alone 'Demagogic sh*t'.
> I would love stable wifi implemented in cameras - I use Wifi for liveview macro shooting so don't come all pompous just because someone disagrees with you.
> 
> Unlike you I don't hold Canon responsible for the ills of the camera industry - I accept it as being either a matter of priroites for Canon (and Wifi is nowhere near my main priority) or, given that no maufacturer (none, zero, zip) has developed a stable Wifi technology, there is a limitation inherent in introducing it to cameras.
> ...



I'd buy a 5DSR tomorrow if it had a reliable and robust WiFi solution. I'll buy a 5DSR MkII on release if it has a robust WiFi solution. 

I don't see any reason why Canon couldn't buy a company like CamRanger and put it all in a body, even if you used the normal excuse for an arial you could have a port for a range boosting optional one, like they did for the original 1DS. I am a generalist and am shooting via wireless more and more, either with a main body for real estate or with a remote. Being able to see the images you are taking is a very very good thing and anybody who doesn't see the utility of remote operation simply isn't looking outside their small box. 

I can well understand people thinking they don't want it, much like remote release sockets or headphone jacks if you never use them, but once you do need them you are very glad they are there and enable you to get shots otherwise impossible.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



ahsanford said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Right, a company that seems to sell only half as many cameras than a few years ago knows exactly what they are doing. They are just too good to fail!
> ...



Keep core users happy? Maybe 50% of them.

As you can with the new 24-105/4, Canon does NOT always use 10 years to solidely develop a product into something better. Some aspects of the 1DX2 are even worse than the 3 year older 1DC, like more noise at ISO above 3200.

As far as I can remember I also didn't expect a 24-70/2 IS. But of course a 24-70/2.8 IS is something that not only can expected, it is urgently needed.


----------



## douglaurent (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Antono Refa said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Antono Refa said:
> ...


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> Given that you have so far failed miserably top provide any evidence of the simplicity of what providing such technology I can only assume your accusations aimed at Canon are little more than depressed ramblings.



You know what: I will laugh, when the next CIPA quarterly numbers are released, and the next and the next. And I will laugh even louder, when Canon sells the last camera in an entire year, reaching a perfect 100% market share.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



privatebydesign said:


> I'd buy a 5DSR tomorrow if it had a reliable and robust WiFi solution. I'll buy a 5DSR MkII on release if it has a robust WiFi solution.



How do you define 'robust'? 
What part is played in this by the phone (or whatever technology) in providing the wifi network for the camera to run off? Is it really all down to Canon?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

In reviewing the list at the beginning the lens list seems very light. I cannot help but think Canon will have more than the EF 85mm f1.4L lens released for full-frame in 2017.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I'd buy a 5DSR tomorrow if it had a reliable and robust WiFi solution. I'll buy a 5DSR MkII on release if it has a robust WiFi solution.
> ...



I mean a robust connection. I have owned the Canon WFT's, the EyeFi SD card and the CamRanger. the CamRanger is the only one I'd recommend, the WFT's take a lot of setting up and when you drop the connection it doesn't, in practice most of the time, reconnect, the CamRanger does, it just works.

The CamRanger works with most cameras, via home/studio WiFi or via it's own network on location, setup is easy fast and simple and the connection is reliable. All camera features work remotely from focus to exposure controls to remote live view on pretty much any device, tablets, phones, laptops, desktops. There are many options and even a companion program just for 'client' viewing where they only see what you allow and they can't take control of the camera. An excellent package with great range that just works, that is what I would want a built in solution to offer.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

P.S. I used to use PhotoSmith (I was a beta tester), an App for the iPad to deal with images on location and LightRoom. They had a simple 'export to' option you could send the image to that you could configure for all manner of social media sites or remote drives. I realize my needs are not for social media and instant exports they are just camera control connectivity, but there is no reason why a PhotoSmith like interface couldn't be in there to cater for those users.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

So with CamRanger you are talking about fitting a big lump of technology on the hotshoe. Canon are looking at ways to have the wifi unit within the camera. I would suspect that that is the difference and where the technological limitations come in. With a standalone unit I can foresee adding all sorts of power units and circuitry that just may not be possible within the camera body but would help stability of signal. 

As for standalone units, if Camranger is available this means the choice is between buying a separate Camranger unit or a separate Canon unit (the latter at twice the price looking at WFT vs Camranger). I see no issue there. 

I'm trying to work out precisely what it is people are asking for regards wifi. Sometimes Occam's razor provides the answer - if no-one has it, it is because it is not (at present) feasible.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> So with CamRanger you are talking about fitting a big lump of technology on the hotshoe. Canon are looking at ways to have the wifi unit within the camera. I would suspect that that is the difference and where the technological limitations come in. With a standalone unit I can foresee adding all sorts of power units and circuitry that just may not be possible within the camera body but would help stability of signal.
> 
> As for standalone units, if Camranger is available this means the choice is between buying a separate Camranger unit or a separate Canon unit (the latter at twice the price looking at WFT vs Camranger). I see no issue there.
> 
> I'm trying to work out precisely what it is people are asking for regards wifi. Sometimes Occam's razor provides the answer - if no-one has it, it is because it is not (at present) feasible.



No, the CamRanger hardware is mostly battery, the same functionality is in the EyeFi and Canon WiFi SD cards, the size of the tech is not an issue, it has always been claimed it is the arial. But like I said it that necessitates an optional one for longer range I'd be all for it.

People are in two camps, one wants remote camera controls (me) and we get that with various solutions some more robust and reliable and affordable than others. Some people want internet connectivity for uploads either as backups or to interact on social media, again there are options for those people. 

The problems are that the manufacturer solutions so far have either been expensive or poorly thought out with bad interfaces.

The tech is out there, the software is out there, for some reason none of the manufacturers can pull that together.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



privatebydesign said:


> P.S. I used to use PhotoSmith (I was a beta tester), an App for the iPad to deal with images on location and LightRoom. They had a simple 'export to' option you could send the image to that you could configure for all manner of social media sites or remote drives. I realize my needs are not for social media and instant exports they are just camera control connectivity, but there is no reason why a PhotoSmith like interface couldn't be in there to cater for those users.



+1 exactly. 


But no, WiFI in a camera and a decent app to go with it are *technically sooooo difficult* that not even "innovative, know-it-all" Canon can implement it ... end of 2016. What a joke that line of Mikehit argumentation is.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



privatebydesign said:


> No, the CamRanger hardware is mostly battery,



If you are correct then to my mind, there is your problem. Where taking photos is the prime motivation (it is why you have a camera after all) then sucking all that battery power from the in-camera battery will reduce battery life and p!ss off more people than will be happy to have wifi. You only need to talk to people who see GPS reducing battery life...




> it has always been claimed it is the arial


So which is it - aerial, battery or (to my mind, more likely) both. And if it is both you have a problem increasing aerial size within the space currently available within a body. And (this is something I am unconvinced by) doing it without affecting image integrity. 

I am not saying it is technologically impossible, but when there are so many knock-on effects, when they are trying to compete with the compactness of mobile phones and (to some extent) mirrorless, when they are trying to improve existing functionality wifi drops down the list and it is so easy for the more unreasonable to stamp their feet and say 'I must have it now!'.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> What a joke that line of Mikehit argumentation is.



Please provide technological evidence for your claim it is so easy to do and why Canon (and everyone else) are being negligent in not doing it.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Wow! Somehow this thread morphed into my favorite topic. Stupid Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc. for failing to figure out the 21st century. Fasten your seat belts. It's time for a post-storm.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > What a joke that line of Mikehit argumentation is.
> ...



I can direct you to a handy website: www.apple.com. That should provide all the evidence needed. You might also check Samsung and LG among others.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



privatebydesign said:


> The tech is out there, the software is out there, for some reason none of the manufacturers can pull that together.



Exactly. 

And, it's cost them dearly. They sat around and let the cell phone industry wipe out the bulk of their sales and just let it happen, while spending millions of dollars to get, like, one stop better dynamic range. Such misplaced priorities.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> Mike: on this one [connectivity, socila media] people like yourself are the minority. Not me and my product wishes. We really really should not have to discuss "decent WiFi connectivity" in cameras. It may have been a matter of priorities back in 2008. But not today, at the end of 2016. What Canon and Nikon are offering today is just a major embarassment for any sort of "innovative" (!), electronics/tech-oriented company.



True. And, if camera manufacturers had made it a priority back in 2008, who knows if the point and shoot market would be dead today.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Orangutan said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > We really really should not have to discuss "decent WiFi connectivity" in cameras.
> ...



I'm afraid you are wrong there. 

Camera forums are a terrible gauge of the market. You know that. 

Whether or not photographers think it is a "need," the public does and they've voted with their wallets, abandoning cameras for devices that can instantly connect to the internet. That has created expectations and photographers who cannot meet those expectations should be prepared to find another line of work.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Okay, now comes the hard facts that will make many people uncomfortable.

All of the camera manufacturers, not just Canon, have failed their customers miserably when it comes to internet connectivity. 

For better or worse, we live in an era of instant communication. No professional photographer in 2016 should have to pay $6,000 for a top of the line camera and then be unable to instantly a) review photos on the back of the camera, make a few basic adjustments and then upload those images to the web or if they choose b) send a selection of photos to a tablet or laptop wirelessly and then make a few quick edits on the tablet or laptop and upload those photos, without clumsy workarounds, poor interfaces or overpriced accessories. 

I can just hear the dinosaurs all crying – I don't need to do that.

That's fine, just keep thinking that.

Meanwhile, some 20-something is going to steal your wedding assignments because she can promise the bride that a selection of her pictures will be up on the bride's Facebook wedding page before the guests sit down at the reception.

Or, the next time you are bidding on a job, the client will ask why it takes you an hour to have photos from the event up on their website.

The world is changing. Professional photographers who want to stay in business have to adapt or die. It's criminal that camera manufacturers can't, in 2016, give us the tools needed to compete.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Storm over (for the time being)


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



unfocused said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Yes, like the Bluetooth headphones : Or the Galaxy Note 7 :

I'd far rather have reliable than cutting edge unreliable crap, especially when in a professional service environment.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

From unfocused:




> They sat around and let the cell phone industry wipe out the bulk of their sales and just let it happen,


The challenge was not connectivity. The challenge was that pretty much everyone carries a phone. That phone has a camera that more than meets their needs so they have no need to buy a camera as well. Cameras cannot compete with that.



> And, if camera manufacturers had made it a priority back in 2008, who knows if the point and shoot market would be dead today.


Exactly...who knows. 
Who is to say it would not have been millions wasted (see above)




> Whether or not photographers think it is a "need," the public does and they've voted with their wallets, abandoning cameras for devices that can instantly connect to the internet.


No, they have voted to buy products that meet their need for a phone and a camera in one compact package.




> For better or worse, we live in an era of instant communication. No professional photographer in 2016 should have to pay $6,000 for a top of the line camera and then be unable to instantly a) review photos on the back of the camera, make a few basic adjustments and then upload those images to the web or if they choose b) send a selection of photos to a tablet or laptop wirelessly and then make a few quick edits on the tablet or laptop and upload those photos, without clumsy workarounds, poor interfaces or overpriced accessories.


That is my point. The issue is not connectivity it is the quality of that connectivity and my questions have been about getting the functionality and reliability of the Camranger within the existing body size of a 5D or 1D body without compromising image integrity.



> Meanwhile, some 20-something is going to steal your wedding assignments because she can promise the bride that a selection of her pictures will be up on the bride's Facebook wedding page before the guests sit down at the reception


Sure, if the bride is happy with iPhone quality images and where the 20-year old will do it for peanuts and where the bride's choice is 'iphone pictures or nothing'. Pay $500 and the bride will expect better. They probably would not pay for a professional anyway.
Or the photographer fits a Camranger.




> Professional photographers who want to stay in business have to adapt or die. It's criminal that camera manufacturers can't, in 2016, give us the tools needed to compete.


First you have to define the tools you want and despite your post-storm you have still not even touched on the feasibility of incorporating functionality and reliability of the Cam ranger into an existing camera body. 
If this is your 'favourite topic' I am sure you can provide that confirmation and educate me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> canon and nikon as market share leaders have been acting way too conservative. they continued to pump out tiny-sensor digital compact cameras (powershot and coolpix) like crazy, when it was clear that people were not interested to buy them any longer.



When did ILC unit shipments surpass P&S? June of this year. In October, it was pretty much a 50:50 split between P&S and ILCs. So clearly, there are still plenty of people interested to buy P&S cameras. 

I'd tell you to get your facts straight, but it's evident that doing so is beyond your capability.




AvTvM said:


> had canon (and nikon) initiated the transition to smaller, fully capable, connected (!) and less expensive (sub €/$ 1000) mirrorless cameras, both interchangeable lens camera systems and larger-sensor fixed lens compacts (1", APS-C, FF) systems sooner, like starting in 2013 when challenger Sony launched such products (esp. A7, A6000 and RX series) then overall unit sales of dedicated cameras would likely (!) not be in such continued steep decline.



Had challenger Sony's products actually sold better than Canon and Nikon's competing products in those ranges, perhaps Canon and Nikon would have been motivated to change their strategy. But the reality is that Sony tried to play in the dSLR segment, and failed because they were unable to compete with Canon and Nikon so they abandoned the segment in favor of the MILC segment, because Canon and Nikon aren't (yet) major players there. Well, except that Canon is now #3 in the MILC segment and gaining ground.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



unfocused said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The tech is out there, the software is out there, for some reason none of the manufacturers can pull that together.
> ...



Why oh why hasn't Canon come out with a dSLR with LTE, a Facebook app, Candy Crush, and a private browsing mode for porn? Clearly, their priorities are very misplaced.


----------



## hbr (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

As I see it the smart phone customer pays a carrier that spent millions in developing a network of towers, etc. a monthly fee to have access to the internet and the carrier's cellular network. Their work had been building for many years and it was only natural for the smart phone manufacturers to add cameras and GPS to their devices. Then the huge rise of social media that gave the customers an easy way to share to photos meant that people that found regular cameras inconvenient to their needs abandoned them or used them in situations where the regular camera would be a hindrance. I own a lot of good camera gear but sometimes sharing a photo or two with my smart phone is too convenient.
Of course that ate heavily into the camera manufacturer's sales and profits, but that doesn't mean the camera market is *******.
Technology changes very rapidly, (vinyl records and cassette tapes to 8 tracks to cds then to streaming audio), and I am sure the camera manufacturers will find ways to find new technology methods to stay profitable.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



 neuroanatomist said:


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



Seriously? That's the best response you can come up with?

I'm actually beginning to think AvTvM's scorn is justified. How anyone can possibly deny that camera manufacturers seriously misread the market for internet connectivity is beyond me. 

This isn't something I've made up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfCJDIf-NeA

Perhaps people who don't have to make a living with a camera and can simply play with pictures at their leisure don't get it. But, if top of the line cameras are truly supposed to be for professionals working under pressure and under deadline, it's a failure if manufacturers can't make their equipment connect as easily as a smart phone.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



unfocused said:


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



I guess the references to Candy Crush and porn weren't adequate. Seriously, let me try that again.







See that winky thing above? Yuk it up, these are the jokes.

For the record, yes, camera manufacturers should certainly have built better connectivity into their products by now. And no, I don't play Candy Crush, nor do I think Canon should promote viewing of porn on their ILCs.

Hope that clarifies.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> From unfocused:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile, some 20-something is going to steal your wedding assignments because she can promise the bride that a selection of her pictures will be up on the bride's Facebook wedding page before the guests sit down at the reception
> ...



I've heard that argument so many times I want to puke. 

Let me explain it more slowly this time.

The customer is what matters in business. Every business person should strive to make the customer happy.

I use wedding photography only as an example. It applies to many other types of work.

The typical wedding couple is in their 20s or 30s. They have grown up with internet connectivity. They routinely and instantly document every aspect of their lives. That's the way it is. It isn't wrong or right, it just is.

It isn't a question of what the bride or groom might be demanding (although it certainly may be shortly). It is a question of what will impress and please them. If a photographer is truly interested in competing and attracting new business, he or she ought to want to outdo the competition. Like it or not, the bride's cousin with an iPhone is competition. Competition for pleasing the bride. Getting there first matters a great deal. It always has. 

So, if the photographer can give the bride a few nice pictures before the end of the evening that she can post to social media, that is going to make for a happy customer.

It should be the photographer's choice as to whether or not he or she wants to try to meet that goal. 

The problem is that until now camera manufacturers have decided for photographers that they don't deserve to meet that goal.

That's a failure on the part of the camera manufacturers. And, it is a disservice to their customers.

I use the example of the 20-something stealing the business to make the point that young people who have grown up with social media have certain expectation and young photographers are more open to trying to meet those expectations. So, what I'm really saying is that if you are an established wedding photographer who thinks he doesn't have to respect and cater to social media, just be prepared to lose work in the near future to a young photographer who has figured out how to meet those desires.

It might make you feel better to sneer at social media, but that isn't going to make it go away. It is only going to get more important and central to our lives and its a shame that camera manufacturers so far has done such a lousy job serving the very people who need connectivity the most in a competitive market.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



unfocused said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > From unfocused:
> ...



No I believe you are conflating several ideas. 

I do not believe there are a swarm of professional wedding shooters who want to Facebook images on the fly, a few maybe, but not many. Besides they have very workable and better options now, after all few people are going to want to use OOC images on the fly, most would pass to an assistant with a laptop or iPad get minor corrections and crops and then be ready, this can be done in camera but seriously, if you are doing that you are not doing your actual job.

I do believe there are many professionals who want to be able to send those files direct to the laptop or iPad without a break in their workflow so the assistant can get the stuff out there on the fly after adjustments, and in my experience the WFT's are expensive and clumsy. I also think there are many professionals that would find useful a built in simple and robust remote control of their cameras via WiFi (that's my group and we now use the CamRanger or one of several competitors).

I also believe there are many 80D and 6D users who want to show their sunset or a picture of their meal instantly, and I believe those cameras should be set up for simple upload to Facebook and other social media sites if they choose.

So I see three different and distinct user groups/applications for good WiFi in DSLR's, and I think the manufacturers have let themselves down up to now in not doing it.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



unfocused said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > From unfocused:
> ...



And so you sidestep the key question which is 



> First you have to define the tools you want and despite your post-storm you have still not even touched on the feasibility of incorporating functionality and reliability of the Cam ranger into an existing camera body.
> If this is your 'favourite topic' I am sure you can provide that confirmation and educate me.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



unfocused said:


> It might make you feel better to sneer at social media, but that isn't going to make it go away. It is only going to get more important and central to our lives and its a shame that camera manufacturers so far has done such a lousy job serving the very people who need connectivity the most in a competitive market.



There is, of course, a branch of professional photographers whose livelihood depends on getting images out quickly and that is sports photographers - they manage with current technology to meet the needs of the (very demanding!) editors to get images up on websites. Image from camera to internet - are you saying that a bride at a wedding is more demanding?


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

mike forget you demagogic shit. Canon Defense League has lost that battle. Connectivity offered in Canon cameras today is *PATHETIC*. Full stop.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> mike forget you demagogic S___. Canon Defense League has lost that battle. Connectivity offered in Canon cameras today is *PATHETIC*. Full stop.




Show me where I have said that the wifi in Canon cameras is adequate...I dare you

So prove to me it is possible to offer a significantly improved wifi connectivity. You are so convinced it is possible you must have a reason for believing it. Prove it to me....I dare you. Or are you relying on the Donald Trump defence - "if you don't agree with me it is because you are biased and I am too scared to defend what I say".

Show me where I have defended Canon. I dare you.

My viewpoint is based on technological capability. Your is based on unfounded emotion. 
To quote Rod Tidwell : "SHOW ME THE MONEY"


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

it is technologically easily possible. Buy a 5 WiFi chip and solder it into camera. Attach a 50 cent antenna around LCD. Stick suitable firmware in that some guys in Bangalore wrote for 5000 bucks. Done.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> it is technologically easily possible. Buy a 5 WiFi chip and solder it into camera. Attach a 50 cent antenna around LCD. Stick suitable firmware in that some guys in Bangalore wrote for 5000 bucks. Done.



^^What passes for 'proof' in the AvTvM Universe. 

Sad.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> it is technologically easily possible. Buy a 5 WiFi chip and solder it into camera. Attach a 50 cent antenna around LCD. Stick suitable firmware in that some guys in Bangalore wrote for 5000 bucks. Done.



I am _so_ glad you don't work for the Canon technical development group.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 12, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> it is technologically easily possible. Buy a 5 WiFi chip and solder it into camera. Attach a 50 cent antenna around LCD. Stick suitable firmware in that some guys in Bangalore wrote for 5000 bucks. Done.



I believe you just wrote the business plan for a wretched 3rd party LCD picture frame that might spontaneously combust upon first use. 

- A


----------



## unfocused (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > It might make you feel better to sneer at social media, but that isn't going to make it go away. It is only going to get more important and central to our lives and its a shame that camera manufacturers so far has done such a lousy job serving the very people who need connectivity the most in a competitive market.
> ...



I *am* a sports photographer (not exclusively, but it accounts for well over half of my paid photography work) and I can tell you, the current state of technology is far from adequate. Of course, the handful of photographers who cover professional and top tier college sports have a different workflow than those of us who shoot small college sports.

The Sports Illustrated level photographers are part of teams, all engaged in getting the images processed immediately. Some use wireless transfer, but some also use a LAN. They have someone else to sort through the images and edit them on the fly. That's a luxury that the majority of working stiffs don't have. I am a one man band. I skim through the images during time outs or halftime or after the game as time permits, rate the ones that have possibilities and then download them to my computer (or laptop) where I spend the next few hours sorting and editing before posting the best shots to the school's athletic pages. Usually at about 2 a.m. 

If you looked around, you'd know there are a great many more people like me than like the big outfits. Most AP bureaus are lucky to have one photographer to do everything. Newspapers have cut back their photo departments and are asking reporters to double as photographers. 

The point is that for people like me, a few simple changes that are readily available on virtually every phone in the world, would be welcome and doesn't seem like too much to ask.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



privatebydesign said:


> No I believe you are conflating several ideas.
> 
> I do not believe there are a swarm of professional wedding shooters who want to Facebook images on the fly, a few maybe, but not many. Besides they have very workable and better options now, after all few people are going to want to use OOC images on the fly, most would pass to an assistant with a laptop or iPad get minor corrections and crops and then be ready, this can be done in camera but seriously, if you are doing that you are not doing your actual job.
> 
> ...



As usual, we aren't that far apart.

I agree that there is not a swarm of professional wedding shooters who want to "Facebook" images on the fly. What I do believe is that the market is headed in that direction and smart photographers are getting prepared for that. I also agree that most have already figured out their own workarounds. But that's really the point. Why should they have to have workarounds? If a company is going to supply equipment to a professional market, don't they owe it to the market to make their equipment as convenient to use as possible. The point is that all of the manufacturers have done a crappy job of making internet connectivity easy and practical. Whether it is done in-camera or on a iPad isn't really the point. The point is that Camera manufacturers have done diddly squat to make it easy. I don't think you disagree with that. 

As for the rest of your post, yes, those are legitimate issues as well and I totally agree.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> And so you sidestep the key question which is
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Apparently you missed this exchange:



unfocused said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Mike, I usually agree with you. But on this one, you are just wrong. I think you are falling into the same trap as Neuro, which is to dismiss everything AvTVM and other Canon Critics say because they usually get a lot wrong. I'm a proud member of the Canon Defense League, but when it comes to connectivity, all of the manufacturers screwed up and it cost them dearly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



unfocused said:


> Apparently you missed this exchange:
> 
> But on this one, you are just wrong. I think you are falling into the same trap as Neuro, which is to dismiss everything AvTVM and other Canon Critics say because they usually get a lot wrong. I'm a proud member of the Canon Defense League, but when it comes to connectivity, all of the manufacturers screwed up and it cost them dearly.



Apparently you missed this exchange (although with the big, animated winky emoticon I'm honestly not sure how, but in any case I'll highlight the relevant bit):



neuroanatomist said:


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



Hope that more clearly clarifies.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



unfocused said:


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


Sorta. They're a terrible gauge of what the overall market *wants* but probably a much better gauge of what the market doesn't care about. On forums you'll see pages-upon-pages of tantrum-like demands for this or that feature, and proclamations about what it should cost. Near-silence on enthusiast forums is near-silence from the most demanding customers. It's like a blackjack player: if he stands you don't know what he has; if he takes a hit you have a good idea he didn't already have 21.



> Whether or not photographers think it is a "need," the public does and they've voted with their wallets, abandoning cameras for devices


I don't disagree. I certainly wouldn't mind having it. You mark my words! As I've said before, in (_mumble-mumble_) years (  ) cameras will be nothing but a lens, sensor and WiFi network component. All else will be controlled from the user's personal device (smartphone/tablet, etc).



> that can instantly connect to the internet. That has created expectations and photographers who cannot meet those expectations should be prepared to find another line of work.


Sure, and the market will sort that out. Film photographers have mostly given way to digital, etc. It'll work out somehow.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> *For the record, yes, camera manufacturers should certainly have built better connectivity into their products by now. * And no, I don't play Candy Crush, nor do I think Canon should promote viewing of porn on their ILCs.
> 
> Hope that more clearly clarifies.



I was blinded by the giant emoticon. I mistook your comment for sarcasm, which I should have known is out of character for you.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

I get the feeling we are all arguing over things we basically agree on. All camera manufacturers have done a crappy job of implementing wireless connectivity. They should have done better. That is water under the bridge. We hope they do better in the future.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > *For the record, yes, camera manufacturers should certainly have built better connectivity into their products by now. * And no, I don't play Candy Crush, nor do I think Canon should promote viewing of porn on their ILCs.
> ...



Very, very out of character for me. 




(He said, deadpan.)


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



unfocused said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Thank you for the explanation, unfocused - it is always good to know the perspective from which someone is making a comment. As said in the last few posts our viewpoints have a lot in common and improvements in connectivity will certainly come driven by the needs of professionals and semi-professionals. As I see it the camera manufacturers have been hit from different sides in a pretty short time and they can't defend all those areas in one action. I fear photography with dedicated cameras is heading to where it was pre-1990 where people had compacts or no camera at all and relied on something called memory and both of those are now replaced by smartphones. 

Maybe one move _is _for CaNikon to make their own phones specifically designed to act as a link with their camera?


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

my preferred solution would be modular cameras. Canon [Nikon, Sony, Fuji, whoever] builds body chassis with mount and few hard control points [shutter trigger, 1 mode dial, 1 front wheel, 1 back wheel, 4 function buttons] + sensor + CPU/image pipeline electronics + AF system electronics/CPU + built-in EVF. 

On back of camera is an easily adaptable, clever, fully articulated (!) attachment for smartphone of your choice. Plus suitable APP from camera maker to form core of user interface and menu system ... in case of Canon just like built-in touch LCD on EOS M series. Smartphone does what it does best: it handles all communications, GPS, motion sensors, etc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> I n back of camera is an easily adaptable, clever, fully articulated (!) attachment for smartphone of your choice. Plus suitable APP from camera maker to form core of user interface and menu system ... in case of Canon just like built-in touch LCD on EOS M series. Smartphone does what it does best: it handles all communications, GPS, motion sensors, etc.



I literally LOL'd as I pictured Canon finally giving you what you want – a _compact_ FF MILC – and some guy with an iPhone 8 Plus or Galaxy S8 holding one in each hand and a WTF look on his face. 

;D


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I n back of camera is an easily adaptable, clever, fully articulated (!) attachment for smartphone of your choice. Plus suitable APP from camera maker to form core of user interface and menu system ... in case of Canon just like built-in touch LCD on EOS M series. Smartphone does what it does best: it handles all communications, GPS, motion sensors, etc.
> ...



Dont ya worry ... my compact "Sony RX1R-II sized" FF-sensored Canon EOS-X1 will team up very nicely with my 4" iphone SE ... 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


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



Well, since Canon would be making such a camera just for you, that should work out fine. :


----------



## hbr (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

The smart phone is connected to the internet 24/7 and you pay your phone carrier a monthly fee for the privilege of internet access. When you are connecting your camera to your home wi-fi you are also paying them a monthly fee for internet access. Smart phones also take small pictures to save on bandwidth. To have your camera have the same convenience as the smart phone anywhere at anytime you would still have to pay someone for the internet access. Why bother. Just take out your smart phone, fire away and share your pictures. It costs you no more than what you are already paying. You most likely have the smart phone with you anyway.
Let the smart phone manufacturers do their thing and let the camera manufacturers do their thing. It is that simple.


----------



## hbr (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Neuro, we need a name for your winkey face. Is the name up for suggestions? LOL


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



hbr said:


> Let the smart phone manufacturers do their thing and let the camera manufacturers do their thing. It is that simple.



Yes, it is that simple. But only *IF* camera manufacturers would do *their thing*: including decent, easy and stable WiFi connectivity in their cameras.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



hbr said:


> Neuro, we need a name for your winkey face. Is the name up for suggestions? LOL



As it was borne out of discussion with douglaurent how about the Neuro-tic.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, we need a name for your winkey face. Is the name up for suggestions? LOL
> ...



Motion seconded!!! ;D ;D ;D


----------



## hbr (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



Mikehit said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, we need a name for your winkey face. Is the name up for suggestions? LOL
> ...



Do you mean easily connect to a home internet connection like another device on your carrier's account or do you mean always be connected to the internet the same as your smart phone. If it is the latter most people would exceed the bandwidth limits of their plans, the photos would have to be significantly downsized, and would increase the cost of the cameras.

Or are you implying that the cameras set up their own internet networks then give it to you for free?

Having had over $10,000 worth of camera equipment stolen in the past, I would love to have the ability to track my equipment as I can with my smart phones. But at what cost and is this practical? Or put a cellphone in each of my cameras and lenses?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*



AvTvM said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > hbr said:
> ...



Motion carries! 8)

Now I need canon to innovatively invent and patent FTIS – facial tic image stabilization. Heck, if they're going to make a whole new line of FF MILCs and lenses for you, why can't they do this one little thing for me?


----------



## hbr (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Let's put another curve in this winding like a mountain road thread - Ken Rockwell list the fact that the new cameras don't have the focus by eye like the old cameras as a con in every camera review. Maybe we should name him Ken-tic. Ha Ha Ha.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Perhaps Neuro-Tick?


----------



## hbr (Dec 13, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

Maybe we need a picture of a skier skiing down hill as that is the direction that this thread has gone from the beginning. ;D


----------



## hbr (Dec 14, 2016)

*Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap*

neuroanatomist,
I so love your animations! Keep it up.


----------

