# Canon needs to respond with SOMETHING



## Kcray85 (May 1, 2014)

http://store.sony.com/sony-alpha-77-m2-dslr-zid27-ILCA77M2/cat-27-catid-All-Alpha-77-Cameras

Sony just release what appears to be an awesome camera, especially for the price. I am committed to Canon myself, but I think some people are starting to think about switching because these others like Sony are upping the quality of their products.

Canon doesn't have anything close to the 24mp, 79 AF points and 12 FPS...especially under $1500.

Curious to see what everyone else's thoughts are on this new Sony and where you think Canon falls within the competition.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 1, 2014)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20740.msg392064;topicseen#new


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2014)

_Re: Canon needs to respond with SOMETHING_

Why?

Case in point…



Kcray85 said:


> I am committed to Canon myself...



Sony dSLRs aren't even close to competitive with Canon (or Nikon) from a market share standpoint, and this new Sony camera isn't going to change that.


----------



## tolusina (May 1, 2014)

Looks to have a crooked sensor. New feature? New way to market consumer devices?








 



.​


----------



## SecundumArtemRx (May 1, 2014)

Looks to have the features I want. For that price point, who cares about waiting another five years for a crippled 7dmk2.


----------



## Solar B (May 1, 2014)

This is a game of leapfrog. My *hope* is that Canon's next generation will be way ahead of the rest.

Right Canon?

Right?


----------



## ksagomonyants (May 1, 2014)

From what I've read on SAR so far, many current Sony shooters are not very excited about this release. I think within the next few months we'll start hearing first CR1 rumors about new Canon 5d iv, and I'm sure Canon has a lot of nice surprises for us


----------



## Woody (May 1, 2014)

Looks like Sony hopes their rebooting of the SLT line can grab them some market shares... but I seriously doubt it's going to change anything...


----------



## unfocused (May 1, 2014)

Kcray85 said:


> Canon doesn't have anything close to the 24mp, 79 AF points and 12 FPS...especially under $1500.



Canon 70D street price $999. Canon 6D Refurbished $1,291. (Source: Canon Price Watch) 

Not the exact same specs, but certainly close, with better high ISO performance, no translucent mirror to reduce the light entering the sensor, better manufacturer and better lens selection.


----------



## grey4 (May 1, 2014)

Sony DSLR cameras use electronic viewfinders.


----------



## mb66energy (May 1, 2014)

Kcray85 said:


> http://store.sony.com/sony-alpha-77-m2-dslr-zid27-ILCA77M2/cat-27-catid-All-Alpha-77-Cameras
> [...]
> Curious to see what everyone else's thoughts are on this new Sony and where you think Canon falls within the competition.



(1) Roughly 500 shots per battery charge (CIPA) would be a main caveat for me - if I pay 1000 € or above I think sth. like 1000 is the right amount of shots per battery charge.

(2) Needing an EVF to precheck a possible photo is a further caveat for me - I really like to check things powerless, directly by using an SLR and the focus ring.

Bringing new products to the market every month might show some progress. On the other hand REAL progress in e.g. dynamic range, sensor resolution, etc. is cancelled by some "degression" in the hardware quality of the controls. Comparing my 40D with a 70D will shurely show better IQ but the feel of control over the camera is much better with the 40D. Bad control over camera parameters costs time and photos.

So I am willing to wait for e.g. a 7Dii with better IQ, better control switches, better AF system. Slow net progress has saved a lot of bucks ...


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 1, 2014)

Uh, about those "World’s most AF points1"

The footnote reads: "1. Among interchangeable-lens digital cameras equipped with a dedicated phase-detection AF sensor as of May 1, 2014." 

So it has more AF points than any dedicated SIR AF system.

Its own detailed specifications read: "Focus Points : 19 points (11 points cross type)"

So it has a 19-point dedicated phase detection AF sensor. The others, I presume, are similar to the 70D (sensor plane AF). As such, I find that highlight misleading on its face.


----------



## Zv (May 1, 2014)

Kcray85 said:


> http://store.sony.com/sony-alpha-77-m2-dslr-zid27-ILCA77M2/cat-27-catid-All-Alpha-77-Cameras
> 
> Sony just release what appears to be an awesome camera, especially for the price. I am committed to Canon myself, but I think some people are starting to think about switching because these others like Sony are upping the quality of their products.
> 
> ...



Maybe you should switch. Sony sure could use your help by the looks of things ...

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27234511


----------



## ahsanford (May 1, 2014)

If your brand needs to *respond*, please ask yourself why. Think long and hard about your answer.

Sony has -- _constantly_ -- been trying to take Canon and Nikon business with:

[list type=decimal]
[*]A faster product pipeline.
[*]A steadier stream of releases over time (they rarely go more than X months/quarters before announcing something new, whereas Canon and Nikon can have crickets chirping while we wait for new products (cough) a new 50 (cough cough) the 7D2, etc.)
[*]A positive take on innovation -- I won't call it Apple-like, but they are the 'brave' enough to risk being the first to market with enthusiast-desired offerings like autofocusing FF mirrorless fixed lens camera, autofocusing FF mirrorless with interchangeable lenses, etc.
[*]Great sensors and (for the price point) awesome fps rates.
[/list]

*Yet, beyond the specs and pipeline speed, their products seem to be off-target.* We see light leak issues, AF issues, ergonomic issues, and the bodies are saddled with terrible menu drilling-down interfaces. The tech is there but the details and needs of a photographer are not.

As a result, Sony is amazing at making a buzz with a big first-ever announcement and riling up the Canon and Nikon camps to 'respond', but the products don't live up to the hype. Ask yourself this -- how many Sony products are crushing it at overall-use reviews? We all know about their sensors and high burst rates, but how many people are raving about their cameras in an overall usage sense? Not that many.

So until Sony starts lovingly dialing-in their designs, I'll think of them as a 2nd-tier designer and not take them seriously. They'd do well do follow the Fuji X and Sigma Art examples of buzz followed _by copiously well-reviewed substance_. Then we can start talking about Canon needing to 'respond'.

- A


----------



## AlanF (May 1, 2014)

Sony is making a bigger loss than expected, announced today, and it is rated at junk bond status.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27234511


----------



## AcutancePhotography (May 1, 2014)

All these manufacturers are just falling into Canon's trap. Canon, by letting all the other manufacturers innovate first, will lure them into a sense of security and profit. Just want Canon wants them to do. ;D

Then, like a puma, Canon will pounce!

Canon is breaking the old paradigm that innovation needs to be done faster than its competitors. A new business plan. ;D


----------



## dak723 (May 1, 2014)

Perhaps us old-timers think differently, but what I want in a camera is reliability and the ability to take good pictures easily. I'm amazed at the number of folks that need a new camera every couple years. I would rather have a camera that lasts for as long as possible - cameras are expensive!

I had the original digital rebel since it was introduced. I only bought a new Canon 6D when the AF started going wacky. It still took pictures that were plenty good enough for outdoor use. I don't need more megapixels, higher ISO, more than 1 AF point, or many of the newfangled bells and whistles. If you like bells and whistles, check out the Sony. If you want a camera that lasts 10 years, has an excellent lens lineup, and takes excellent photos than you can stick with old-reliable Canon.


----------



## mackguyver (May 1, 2014)

Specmanship works, but not as well these days with highly educated consumers. Yes, 79 points, and yes 12fps, but 15 cross points, and 60 JPEG burst, but I don't even see the specs for RAW burst.

Sony has a nice camera on their hands, no doubt, but without a deep offering of pro lenses and a professional support program like CPS, it's still a tough sell to pros and semi-pros.

The other thing they are doing that others have pointed out is the shotgun approach. A new system, new SLR, new mirrorless, seemingly every month or two. Which one will they stand behind? Will they support firmware upgrades of older gear? Having gone through their Blu-ray players and some other stuff, I can say that their quality isn't what it used to be and once you buy it (unless it's a PlayStation) they rarely support any updates. Panasonic on the other hand had supported cameras and other gear years and years past their release.

New and cool is great and will sell to some people, but solid, reliable, and supported is why Canon and others continue to dominate. If you look at most successful companies, you'll see that innovators rarely succeed. The iPod was not a new device, MP3 players had been around for year, same with the iPad and tablets.

For me, Canon innovates where it counts (dual pixel, 200-400 1.4x) and as long as it produces excellent photos day after day, I'm not worried about having the latest, greatest thing. When I was young, yes, but I'm older and wiser now


----------



## ahsanford (May 1, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Sony is making a bigger loss than expected, announced today, and it is rated at junk bond status.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27234511


One might imagine -- if Sony's imaging systems are to be sold-off or downsized -- that Canon or Nikon might make a formal play to buy-out their sensor business.

Imagine a 5D4 with the next-gen of the D800 sensor... :

- A


----------



## jrista (May 1, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Sony is making a bigger loss than expected, announced today, and it is rated at junk bond status.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27234511



This is no surprise. Sony has been taking a shotgun approach to their markets for a while now. They crank out as many products as they can think of in as many submarkets as they can, and see what sticks. That costs an immense amount of R&D, with no guarantee of payoff.


----------



## unfocused (May 1, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Imagine a 5D4 with the next-gen of the D800 sensor...



I'd rather not.


----------



## mackguyver (May 1, 2014)

unfocused said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine a 5D4 with the next-gen of the D800 sensor...
> ...


Me, too. I bet my new 64GB Sandisk Extreme CF card would only hold about 100 photos


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



That's what Small JPGs are for…


----------



## JorritJ (May 1, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> One might imagine -- if Sony's imaging systems are to be sold-off or downsized -- that Canon or Nikon might make a formal play to buy-out their sensor business.
> 
> Imagine a 5D4 with the next-gen of the D800 sensor... :



Even more ... if canon buys away Sony's sensor division ... what is Nikon going to put in it's next high-end ? They can't match that with their own sensors, it seems. Sounds like a solid move for Canon.


----------



## mackguyver (May 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...


And the DX crop mode ;D


----------



## jrista (May 1, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Sony is making a bigger loss than expected, announced today, and it is rated at junk bond status.
> ...



Sony won't be selling off their sensor business. Sensors is what Sony does now, and it's one of their more stable and reliable divisions (even if it isn't making much money.) Sony might sell off other electronics divisions, like they are dumping PCs, they may even sell off their camera business, but I highly doubt Sony will be dumping their sensor business. It's one of the primary reasons their bond status is junk...they have poured billions into sensor fabs and sensor R&D. And like it or not, Sony sensors are beginning to show up everywhere. Video cameras, security cameras, astro imaging cameras, DSLR and mirrorless cameras, etc. Within a decade, the Sony sensor business should be profitable (assuming they slow down on the shotgun approach to R&D and products/markets.)


----------



## Faaier (May 1, 2014)

I do agree that Canon still has a convincing portfolio at the high end. We have had megapixelraces in the past and AFpoints-races seems next... We all know that only the final result counts and not the specs .

However, marketshare and past successes are quickly forgotten. My past Nokia 6310 still IS a fantastic product, has fantastic battery life, perfect radio (antenna), rock solid and weatherproof... And easy to repair if something was broken.
Still we all decided to choose for a large screen, crappy batterylife and phones that fail when they are even close to a damp cloth.
We all know that a phone is not a camera  ... not a DSLR anyway! 

Canon might be technically strong, but their mid-range is always crippled somewhere (fps,iso,af). The 7d got it right when it was launched, but the 70d is only special (compared to the other brands) for its video af. This only means that the other brands get opportunities to steal customers with specification-rich products.

So yes, some real launches instead of press releases of sold lenses, cps changes or other "delay-releases".


----------



## JorritJ (May 1, 2014)

Yes, 7d2 with 5d3 noise/iso performance please!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2014)

JorritJ said:


> Yes, 7d2 with 5d3 noise/iso performance please!


----------



## Don Haines (May 1, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> All these manufacturers are just falling into Canon's trap. Canon, by letting all the other manufacturers innovate first, will lure them into a sense of security and profit. Just want Canon wants them to do. ;D
> 
> Then, like a puma, Canon will pounce!
> 
> Canon is breaking the old paradigm that innovation needs to be done faster than its competitors. A new business plan. ;D



How about "slow and steady wins the race"...


----------



## Don Haines (May 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...


----------



## JorritJ (May 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> JorritJ said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, 7d2 with 5d3 noise/iso performance please!



Isn't that what the best (astro)physicists do for a living? (laws, theories, meh)


----------



## sdsr (May 1, 2014)

Kcray85 said:


> http://store.sony.com/sony-alpha-77-m2-dslr-zid27-ILCA77M2/cat-27-catid-All-Alpha-77-Cameras
> 
> Sony just release what appears to be an awesome camera, especially for the price. I am committed to Canon myself, but I think some people are starting to think about switching because these others like Sony are upping the quality of their products.
> 
> ...



The 70D, 6D and 5DII/III are all close to 24mp, and we don't know yet how well the AF points and FPS work in practice (how many people who buy cameras, let alone to the extent that Canon & Nikon should care, care about either of those things anyway?) For all I know, it may be a very good camera, but have you ever used an SLT? The IBIS is nice, the EVF is nice (though I realize they're not for everyone), but Sony's previous SLTs suffer from lousy high ISO performance, due in part to the focus mechanism which diverts some light from the sensor. Unless Sony has done something (aside from jacking up in-camera JPEG noise reduction) to improve this, I'm not interested - I wish they would just make these things fully mirrorless and be done with it (is there any reason why an A-mount dslr-looking camera can't be mirrorless?). 

I'm not anti-Sony at all (I love my A7r, for all that I occasionally yell at it), but barring some revelation in forthcoming reviews it's hard to imagine why someone who doesn't already own a Sony A-mount body would choose this over a 70D or D7100 or even a Pentax K-3 (or whatever the newest one's called).


----------



## Joe M (May 1, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Sony is making a bigger loss than expected, announced today, and it is rated at junk bond status.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27234511



I noticed that today as well. It seems it's Sony that has to respond with something, to their shareholders. 

As for "some people are starting to think about switching", that's nothing new. Though I personally have never given switching brands much thought as it's financially not viable. I like my Canon lenses so I use their bodies and actually, I'm pretty happy with what I have. More, bigger, better is always great but I have learned to be happy with the present and the future will bring what it will. Maybe that makes me the perfect Canon customer. Maybe some will consider jumping ship but just remember, you'll have to ditch your gear and buy Sony's or third party stuff. It would have to be something so stellar and amazing as well as something Canon could or would never match for me to even give it a thought. Then again, my crop days are behind me and everyone's circumstances are different.


----------



## Rudeofus (May 1, 2014)

If you look at the latest announcements here on CR, you see lots of new, and sometimes innovative products from Canon's competitors, followed by discounted offers for Canon products. Sigma releases a new lens that crushes Canon's similar products? Canon offers a discount on some semi pro camera body. Sony produces new camera that many folks here lust for? Canon takes US$ 200 off their 6D. And so on ...

Some here may remember a semi recent thread here about the rapidly declining photographic market, DSLRs down 19% last year, precipitous decline in lens sales. This may not be the correct time for big investments in new, risky products.

Like it or not, but given current market conditions Canon could well make the most sensible business decisions at the moment.


----------



## Orangutan (May 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


>



(Time mark 2:25)


The Firm - "Star Trekkin'" - ORIGINAL VIDEO - HQ


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 1, 2014)

Canon does not respond, simply because they are making money while Sony and other imaging companies are losing a ton of money. Sales of digital cameras in general are poor, with P&S and Mirrorless being weakest. Introducing a major new product incurs a huge amount of cost, which comes directly out of profits. Unless the new product is going to make a profit, its better to stick with the existing one that has all the development and tooling costs already paid for, so every sale is quite profitable. Its not a good time to be throwing money away on new product releases that won't generate enough income to break even. 


When Canon does come up with a major new product, you can be sure that it will have been researched and will sell. Profits are never guaranteed, but Canon has a good track record. In the meantime, look for products that are minor upgrades, basically a new label and a couple of software features added, but nothing that requires huge tooling expenses.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 1, 2014)

dak723 said:


> Perhaps us old-timers think differently, but what I want in a camera is reliability and the ability to take good pictures easily. I'm amazed at the number of folks that need a new camera every couple years. I would rather have a camera that lasts for as long as possible - cameras are expensive!
> 
> I had the original digital rebel since it was introduced. I only bought a new Canon 6D when the AF started going wacky. It still took pictures that were plenty good enough for outdoor use. I don't need  more megapixels, higher ISO, more than 1 AF point, or many of the newfangled bells and whistles. If you like bells and whistles, check out the Sony. If you want a camera that lasts 10 years, has an excellent lens lineup, and takes excellent photos than you can stick with old-reliable Canon.



I disagree


----------



## Dylan777 (May 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



PROs don't shoot JPEGs ;D


----------



## Niki (May 1, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon does not respond, simply because they are making money while Sony and other imaging companies are losing a ton of money. Sales of digital cameras in general are poor, with P&S and Mirrorless being weakest. Introducing a major new product incurs a huge amount of cost, which comes directly out of profits. Unless the new product is going to make a profit, its better to stick with the existing one that has all the development and tooling costs already paid for, so every sale is quite profitable. Its not a good time to be throwing money away on new product releases that won't generate enough income to break even.
> 
> 
> When Canon does come up with a major new product, you can be sure that it will have been researched and will sell. Profits are never guaranteed, but Canon has a good track record. In the meantime, look for products that are minor upgrades, basically a new label and a couple of software features added, but nothing that requires huge tooling expenses.



+100


----------



## mackguyver (May 1, 2014)

Niki said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Canon does not respond, simply because they are making money while Sony and other imaging companies are losing a ton of money. Sales of digital cameras in general are poor, with P&S and Mirrorless being weakest. Introducing a major new product incurs a huge amount of cost, which comes directly out of profits. Unless the new product is going to make a profit, its better to stick with the existing one that has all the development and tooling costs already paid for, so every sale is quite profitable. Its not a good time to be throwing money away on new product releases that won't generate enough income to break even.
> ...


Also, who's to say that Canon doesn't have a 7DII, 1D X II EOS M X(?) and lots of other goodies ready to go to production? 

As Mt Spokane says, product launches, especially international ones cost millions of dollars and need to be timed carefully to ensure maximum effect. If people are still buying their current products and aren't as likely to be excited by new products, why launch now in a depressed economy? Demand and likelihood of success are the drivers. 

Some may remember when DVDs came out way back in 1997. Everyone wanted Star Wars, but George Lucas said that he wanted to wait until more people had the players. By waiting several years, he built up a massive demand and made far more money. Canon is likely doing this, especially with the 7DII.


----------



## DRR (May 1, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps us old-timers think differently, but what I want in a camera is reliability and the ability to take good pictures easily. I'm amazed at the number of folks that need a new camera every couple years. I would rather have a camera that lasts for as long as possible - cameras are expensive!
> ...



The reason that new cameras are nothing like old cameras, is because they're no longer only cameras. In the film days, camera development moved a lot slower, because at the end of the day, it was a box with a shutter, highly dependent on what type of film you loaded inside of it.

In that sense, a digital camera, is both a camera and film. Sure it's always nice to have more AF points, but when you upgrade a digital camera, you instantly upgrade the film of every camera you are about to take, also. 

This is also why I contend that the old idiom of "upgrade glass first" is less true these days. An upgraded body may make a huge difference in the quality of photograph you are able to take - potentially much greater than upgrading lenses. Would you rather shoot with the 35mm f/2 IS on a 1DX, or a 35mm f/1.4L on a Rebel XT? The former's going to give you much better pictures in a much wider range of situations, that's for sure.


----------



## Don Haines (May 1, 2014)

JorritJ said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > JorritJ said:
> ...


It's a quite ironic quote from "Scotty"..... Star Trek regularly violated the laws of physics.....


----------



## ahsanford (May 1, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > All these manufacturers are just falling into Canon's trap. Canon, by letting all the other manufacturers innovate first, will lure them into a sense of security and profit. Just want Canon wants them to do. ;D
> ...



Canon is more like the old Radiohead tune: "No alarms and no surprises, please."

- A


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 1, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> The other thing they are doing that others have pointed out is the shotgun approach. A new system, new SLR, new mirrorless, seemingly every month or two. Which one will they stand behind? Will they support firmware upgrades of older gear? Having gone through their Blu-ray players and some other stuff, I can say that their quality isn't what it used to be and once you buy it (unless it's a PlayStation) they rarely support any updates. Panasonic on the other hand had supported cameras and other gear years and years past their release.



+1.

It is really sad seeing the decline of a company like Sony. They used to stand for the pinnacle of quality in the fields of television, consumer laptops, portable music players and video game devices. Playstation 4 is very nice but not revolutionary, especially if you look at the competition. Portable music players are completely out of the market- iPods and smartphones are ruling the field. And Sony TVs are suffering from major losses. The laptop division has been sold out. 
I think whoever Sony is getting their strategy guidance from, is doing a terrible job.


----------



## cbphoto (May 1, 2014)

Some day soon we'll see

[CR2] Canon smartphone with EF mount to be announced at Photokina.

Until then we'll have to suffer through dozens of inane camera "enhancements".


----------



## Eldar (May 1, 2014)

I have been out playing with my new toy today, the Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art. I have shot lots of rubbish pictures, just to verify if this lens delivers or not. I have now spent the better part of this evening looking through the images and, reflecting on the topic of this thread, I wonder what I am missing. Color, sharpness, bokeh and all the rest of it, which in sum constitutes my images are just superb (the images are still mostly rubbish though ...)

Yes, I want a higher MP camera. Yes, I want more DR. Yes, I want better manual focus ability. Yes I want improved AF and yes I want a lot more. But having seen the sharpness, resolution, color and everything else I get from what I have, I wonder if anyone (other than the pixel peepers at CR ) will be able to see/tell if I got the new 14 f-stop sensor, with 45MP and ... all the rest of it. 

(I will get it though, regardless of the answer to the question above )


----------



## unfocused (May 1, 2014)

unfocused said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine a 5D4 with the next-gen of the D800 sensor...
> ...



Let me explain. Two quotes from the same reviewer.



> While the D800 managed to hold noise to a Low or better rating only up to ISO 800, it remained in acceptable territory up to ISO 3200. If you apply heavy noise reduction, you should be able to bring ISO 6400 down to acceptable levels while maintaining a lot of resolving power. If you don’t plan to print an image very large, you will occasionally be able to get good results at ISO 6400.





> Looking for clean images in very low light? Welcome to Mark III country. The camera earned an Extremely Low rating from ISO 50 through 400, stepping up to Very Low from ISO 800 through 3200, and Low at ISO 6400 and 12,800. It doesn’t become Unacceptable, and then only barely so, at ISO 51,200. Even at ISO 102,400, the noise score is only 4.4—compared with 4.9 at ISO 25,600 on the Mark II.



It seems you cannot change the laws of physics. I don't have anything against megapixels, but if the price you pay is higher noise, I'd rather not.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 1, 2014)

I'd love an interchangeable sensor camera someday 

[I know, I know it exists in the MF territory- I'm talking about dSLRs. Although at this time it is counter-productive from a marketing standpoint]


----------



## tolusina (May 1, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I'd love an interchangeable sensor camera someday
> 
> [I know, I know it exists in the MF territory- I'm talking about dSLRs. Although at this time it is counter-productive from a marketing standpoint]



Film?



.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 1, 2014)

tolusina said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love an interchangeable sensor camera someday
> ...




Not really. Changing films allowed flexibility in terms of ISO and look, graininess, etc. The availability of different ISOs and post-processing (software like DxO Filmpack) have made that unnecessary. 
I'm talking more about resolution, responding to the posts above re 5DIII and D800. 
It will be nice if you can switch to a high-MP back for, say, landscapes for large prints, or to a low-MP back for low-light work.
It will probably happen someday if competition and the market forces it. For now, it will be suicidal.


----------



## JorritJ (May 2, 2014)

Eldar said:


> I have shot lots of rubbish pictures. I wonder what I am missing.
> 
> Yes, I want a higher MP camera. Yes, I want more DR. Yes, I want better manual focus ability. Yes I want improved AF and yes I want a lot more. But having seen the sharpness, resolution, color and everything else I get from what I have, I wonder if anyone (other than the pixel peepers at CR ) will be able to see/tell if I got the new 14 f-stop sensor, with 45MP and ... all the rest of it.



As always it depends on the situation, doesn't it ?

Most of my shooting, my 5D3 does just fine with any number of the lenses I have at my disposal. I dare say the limiting factor is myself in most shots.

But right now I'm primarily looking for the perfect gear for me to bring on my next safari. Sure, I could go out, flex the ol' creditcard and buy a 1D X and a 200-400 1.x (or multiple bodies and some long primes), but aside from the costs being ridiculous, who wants to lug all that around if they don't really have to? Not to mention that it would be overskill.

So both of these have been rumored for a long time, but if a 7D2 were to drop and come with an improved sensor and 5D3 AF, coupled with a 100-400 II (can we keep push-pull? nay-sayers be damned!), well then hot diggity I'll be pretty excited.

Are there alternatives? Sure. Do I _need_ it? Nope. Will I bail to Sony/Nikon if it doesn't happen? Probably not for quite a while longer. But it sure as hell would be nice to have. I think most people here have their own situation they want feature X or Y for.

In the end though, Canon does what Canon does. There's enough big boys in that company and I'm sure they've done the numbers. Canon is not driven by the same excitement a lot of photographers are, they just exist to make money. If they have the technology, then they will release it at what they think is the most opportune moment. If they don't have the technology, then it really doesn't matter either way what we or they think about it, as you can't sell something you don't have. I'm sure they have a bunch of people working on making the next big thing though - but that doesn't mean they'll succeed.


----------



## tolusina (May 2, 2014)

JorritJ said:


> ..... Not to mention that it would be *overskill*.....


Oh, how I love a good typo! 
More, I'd love to have some of that overskill, I'd have to spare and could spread some around!!
Overskill, a good word that, good accidental invention there Jorrit!! :thumbup:
---


sagittariansrock said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...


Film, never had to clean a sensor either.
I was just trying to lighten things up a bit, this thread has gone way too serious for what, to me, is a fairly frivolous topic.

So, I went out to shoot today, it was grey and bland, pictures were too. If only I'd been shooting that new whatever it is Sony, MoMa would be knocking on my door already for the prints.
---
Meanwhile, back to the interchangeable sensor idea, I like it, but how does the shutter synch with image capture by the sensor? I mean, they do it in MF, how is it done?

Back in history, there were three head to head competing bodies in the pro, 35mm SLR market, 
Pentax LX, Nikon F3 and Canon F-1.
All three had changeable screens, finders and backs, roll magazines, motor drives, data backs.
I guess I only daydreamed a digital back for the LX, I just googled the topic, found my own daydream post on CR from last October, sheesh......
I hadn't been aware of digital backs for any of these, though it seems they'd have been good candidates.
So I googled some more, found this nikonweb thread regarding a Nikon F3 Hawkeye, digital backed F3 from long ago, http://www.nikonweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=530
Then I found about a Kodak Hawkeye II / Nikon F3 for NASA at http://nikonrumors.com/2014/04/16/the-kodak-hawkeye-ii-nikon-f3-was-one-of-the-first-electronic-stills-cameras-used-by-nasa-in-space.aspx/
---
Ah yes, for a full frame 35mm format replaceable back built with current technology, we can dream.

As I told Carole so many years ago, _"You have to let Joe have the dream. You don't have to let him have the car"_.

I don't think we're getting the car....................


----------



## dak723 (May 2, 2014)

DRR said:


> The reason that new cameras are nothing like old cameras, is because they're no longer only cameras. In the film days, camera development moved a lot slower, because at the end of the day, it was a box with a shutter, highly dependent on what type of film you loaded inside of it.
> 
> In that sense, a digital camera, is both a camera and film. Sure it's always nice to have more AF points, but when you upgrade a digital camera, you instantly upgrade the film of every camera you are about to take, also.
> 
> This is also why I contend that the old idiom of "upgrade glass first" is less true these days. An upgraded body may make a huge difference in the quality of photograph you are able to take - potentially much greater than upgrading lenses. Would you rather shoot with the 35mm f/2 IS on a 1DX, or a 35mm f/1.4L on a Rebel XT? The former's going to give you much better pictures in a much wider range of situations, that's for sure.



I agree that old cameras were essentially a box that held the film and that the digital camera is much more than that. That was not my point. My point was - and is - that the changes in each new generation of camera are comparatively small, in my opinion. As an average hobbyist, the pictures I take with my original rebel and those I took with a 60D I rented - and even the 6D I now own - are just about the same in IQ when viewed on a computer screen or printed 4 x 6 size (and perhaps even slightly larger). Of course, the marketing of each new camera will tell how much improved they are - and the consumer wants to believe it, too - so that they feel great about their new purchase. Twice I upgraded over the years and each time the camera was returned because the pictures I was taking with the original rebel were just as good. In fact, my percentage of accurately exposed pics is still probably higher with the original rebel than my 6D. I returned the first 2 6Ds I purchased because of exposure issues (one under exposed, the other over exposed!) until I found one that was accurate.

Granted, for those taking pics in low light, huge strides have been made in high ISO performance. Other than that, the IQ in the first digital cameras has held up surprisingly well, in my opinion.


----------



## David Hull (May 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> _Re: Canon needs to respond with SOMETHING_
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...



Not only that, Sony isn't Canon and it is going to be a long time before they are truly competitive (if ever) as a full service camera company. Canon has a huge service organization that will fix just about anything that breaks in a week or less -- try that with Sony. Canon has a lot more lenses to choose from and even if you don't own them, there are dozens of places where you can rent them -- once again, try that with Sony.

Why is it that all reason goes out the window every time some other manufacturer releases a camera with some new "wiz-bang" feature. Let's see, IBIS was supposed to be a hit out of the park for Sony but it wasn't. The awesome sensor technology hasn't done it for them either.


----------



## tolusina (May 2, 2014)

David Hull said:


> .......Why is it that all reason goes out the window every time some other manufacturer releases a camera with some new "wiz-bang" feature.......


Well put.


----------



## ramonjsantiago (May 2, 2014)

Canon doesn't just "needs to respond with SOMETHING".
Canon needs to hit a home run with their next product.

If you look at it from my point of view, that of a high end amateur, Can hasn't produced anything competitive in the last four years other than the 200-400mm L. At a fairly astronomical price at that.

And no, the 5dm3 was not a home run. Maybe a single. Every other manufacturer for the level I consider has surpassed Canon in both lenses and cameras.

Even Sigma, a third-party, has produced superior glass with their 35mm and 50mm ART lenses.
Canon's answer? another mediocre Powershot.

Producing those kinds of products is keeping Canon very profitable, but I don't consider them a technological advance, nor a reason to upgrade.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (May 2, 2014)

I think most of us that frequent CR are open minded enough to accept other products outside of Canon. I know many already own Sony, Olympus and Fuji products, mostly in the mirrorless lines.

When a company excels at something, it makes sense to buy their products over another, even if it's a favorite like Canon.

I haven't ever been drawn to Sony for their DSLR line but I have loved Sony ever since I was a kid in the early '70's for soooo many other things. I am saddened to see the Sony brand diminish over the years.

The only non-Canon DSLR that I have seriously considered (but haven't jumped on yet) has been the Pentax K-3 with a couple of the WR lenses. This fits with my heavy outdoor use and Pentax has a great following and a solid reputation. I just haven't wanted to get into a whole other system yet.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 2, 2014)

ramonjsantiago said:


> Canon doesn't just "needs to respond with SOMETHING".
> Canon needs to hit a home run with their next product.
> 
> If you look at it from my point of view, that of a high end amateur, Can hasn't produced anything competitive in the last four years other than the 200-400mm L. At a fairly astronomical price at that.
> ...



I am so glad that Canon hasn't tried to do some technological acrobatics and provided us with a nice, reliable ecosystem.
I have a friend who really wants to buy the A7r but is worried about the lack of lenses. Getting an adapter is the only answer, but that defeats the purpose of a compact camera. Shouldn't Sony be focusing on making lenses for that system?

Innovation will not help if you keep bombarding tropical consumers with excellent room heaters.

In any case, I hope Sony and Nikon keep making excellent cameras, and do good business. I don't think it is a good thing for one company to have monopoly and no competition. We as consumers will suffer as a result.


----------



## distant.star (May 2, 2014)

.
Canon is a *business*.

For a good while now they have been better at their business than any other company. They continue to be far better at their business than any other company.

It seems distressingly arrogant to me that anyone would suggest what Canon "needs" to do. Better would be to sit quietly, listen, watch and learn how a successful business is run.


----------



## traingineer (May 2, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I'd love an interchangeable sensor camera someday
> 
> [I know, I know it exists in the MF territory- I'm talking about dSLRs. Although at this time it is counter-productive from a marketing standpoint]



I believe this is what you are looking for.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 2, 2014)

traingineer said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love an interchangeable sensor camera someday
> ...


----------



## RGF (May 2, 2014)

SecundumArtemRx said:


> Looks to have the features I want. For that price point, who cares about waiting another five years for a crippled 7dmk2.



a body is not a system. What about lenses, flashes, migration path - what if sony decides that they can not compete in the dSLR market - could happen. Then what?


----------



## atkinsr (May 2, 2014)

Yes, there is a LOT more to a camera than this, but...

DxOMark: 1Dx vs A6000. 

Seriously, do people at Canon not feel embarassed? I look at the beautiful pictures I take with my $400 Pentax K-30 (with $100 50mm 1.8) and the scores for that tiny Sony A6000, and wonder why I just dropped $6k for this 5Dm3, flash, and 2 lenses.

I love this Canon, but have to admit to a slight bit of mumbling when full frame Nikon owners and anyone with a Sony asks what I'm shooting.


----------



## jrista (May 2, 2014)

traingineer said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I'd love an interchangeable sensor camera someday
> ...



YIKES!!


----------



## Lawliet (May 2, 2014)

RGF said:


> a body is not a system. What about lenses, flashes, migration path



Factor in 3rd party devices - eg. Tamrons 24-70/70-200, an Odin and a A7(7/r) are about as much as a 5D3 kit. Or go for Sigmas new primes, perhaps an adapter for lenses you already own.
Basically you can get the equipment to do almost any job for the price of just the Canon body. This makes migration, even system stability a rather moot point as you don't loose money even in the case of a complete change. Anything less is your gain. Just from a utility maximizing perspective.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 2, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > a body is not a system. What about lenses, flashes, migration path
> ...



I didn't know Tamron and Sigma make lenses for the Sony E-mount. Now, if you are talking about an adapter (read: bulk), then what is the point of getting an A7?
I don't know if designing one camera after another thinking third party manufacturers will cover the lens end (pun unintended) is a sound business strategy.

The A7/r can be someone's second or third body, and definitely is (e.g., Dylan). But I doubt any high-end photographer will invest entirely in the A7/r. That is losing a big market share, right there.


----------



## EchoLocation (May 2, 2014)

Sony always has lots of crazy specs, I'm sure Canon isn't too worried about it.
Personally, the thing that is most interesting to me about this camera is the kit lens. A 16-50 2.8 sounds a ton better than any of the kit lenses offered with the 7D.


----------



## azizjhn (May 2, 2014)

Sony always create a huge buzz about non usable product see that what I am talking about (http://youtu.be/8AyVh1_vWYQ) ;D


----------



## danski0224 (May 2, 2014)

I have purchased Sony consumer electronic items in the past. 

If you look up "hit or miss" in the dictionary, you may very well see a Sony logo.

With the exception of CRT televisions, product longevity has been an issue in my limited experience.

I haven't purchased a Sony item in many years- the last one for me was a Dell branded Trinitron monitor. Still works, but no longer used. Other consumer electronic items always seemed to fail soon after the warranty elapsed.

A Sony camera far exceeds the cost of any single item I have purchased with the Sony name, and truthfully, I'm not about to try one today- unless one is given to me.

The few people I know with either a Canon DSLR or a point and shoot of any brand barely use the features available. The person I know with the basic Canon still has the kit lens and no external flash, despite having used a couple of Canon lenses I own and an external flash *and* seeing a marked improvement in images. I suspect that describes plenty of camera kit owners.

People crying for "Canon to respond" must be such a small segment of a small market slice. I really can't envision these cries even registering on the Canon radar screen.

Professionals that make money with images must also use the Canon CPS system. Does Sony have an equivalent?

Even a million people tossing their "outdated Canon's" into the trash and buying a Sony replacement are a small percentage of Canon users. Where are the Sony lenses? Oh, that's right...

I'm not saying that the Sony system is bad, but the market scales are not even close to being in the same league.

I bet Canon has something in the skunkworks. The question is what will it cost.







Kcray85 said:


> http://store.sony.com/sony-alpha-77-m2-dslr-zid27-ILCA77M2/cat-27-catid-All-Alpha-77-Cameras
> 
> Sony just release what appears to be an awesome camera, especially for the price. I am committed to Canon myself, but I think some people are starting to think about switching because these others like Sony are upping the quality of their products.
> 
> ...


----------



## Don Haines (May 2, 2014)

Sony is like a dog chasing a car... it is amusing to watch, but it's never going to catch it..... and even if it did, what's it going to do?

I stay with Canon because I like their lenses. I stay with Canon because I like their ergonomics. I stay with Canon because I like their flashes. I stay with Canon because the camera works day in and day out with no surprises. I stay with Canon because unlike companies like Olympus and 4/3, (NOT micro 4/3), you can depend on them staying in the game for the long run. I bought into a system, not the component of the day.

You don't respond to the competition by releasing a new camera.... a new camera takes several years to put to market... Canon probably started work on the 7D2 before the launch of the 7D... The 5D5 is probably started as a project.... what comes next will be what comes next in the timeframe planned and the latest release by X or Y will not affect the schedule one bit because Canon already knows what the completion is doing.

Is there anyone here who does not think that the people at Canon know far more about what is coming down the pipes from Sony and Nikon than we do? Ever hear of industrial espionage? They have a team devoted to gathering info on the competition, while we are grasping at straws and going hyper over source-less rumours...

So like the car being chased by a dog, Canon might slow down or swerve to keep from getting a Chihuahua stuck in the tire tread, but it's going where it was planning to and the yapping dog is just noise.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 2, 2014)

atkinsr said:


> Yes, there is a LOT more to a camera than this, but...
> 
> DxOMark: 1Dx vs A6000.
> 
> ...



I strongly suggest selling your 5DIII kit and getting the A6000 ASAP. You'll be able to fund a vacation with the money you save, especially considering the more expensive camera gives you nothing but embarrassment.
Me, I've taped up my camera and lens with gaffer's tape. I don't advertise what I use, and hope someday my images will speak for themselves.


----------



## Lawliet (May 2, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I didn't know Tamron and Sigma make lenses for the Sony E-mount. Now, if you are talking about an adapter (read: bulk), then what is the point of getting an A7?


Well, the battery grip is mandatory anyway, just to make it big enough to hold for exended times, or that the additional bulk compared to some Moves plus their heads/LSTs is nonexistent...
The point is obviously to get more sellable images, preferable for the same or less production costs, partially because of the sensor, partially because of things Canon just could throw into a firmware update, plus a bit of this and that.



> I don't know if designing one camera after another thinking third party manufacturers will cover the lens end (pun unintended) is a sound business strategy.


They're actually releasing native lenses quite rapidly. About as fast as the overhead of changing production lines for different models would likely permit.
From the users perspective - what gives me the most sellable image? ATM files from the A7r net me the most money...



> The A7/r can be someone's second or third body, and definitely is (e.g., Dylan). But I doubt any high-end photographer will invest entirely in the A7/r. That is losing a big market share, right there.


Considering that(aside from brand ambassadors) I don't know a single high end photographer who is invested entirely in a single brand...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 2, 2014)

atkinsr said:


> Yes, there is a LOT more to a camera than this, but...
> 
> DxOMark: 1Dx vs A6000.
> 
> ...



Nice to know that the idea that camera = sensor is alive and well. If you really dropped $6K on new Canon gear and are embarassed, I'm sorry for you.

If people are judging you by the gear you use and not the images you produce, and you care about their judgement, again, I'm sorry for you.

If you spent $6K on something without knowing why, seek help. 

Regarding DxOMark's Biased Scores (abbreviated BS), be sure you understand what they mean. First off, they score the sensor only, not the camera. Also, for example, the 1D X has better dynamic range than the A6000 starting at ISO 400, close to 2 stops better DR at higher ISOs. But DxOMark's Score considers only ISO 100. If all you do is shoot landscapes from a tripod at ISO 100, DxOMark's Sensor Scores may be relevant for you, and in that case you should have bought a Nikon D800E and 14-24 lens and called it a day.


----------



## DRR (May 2, 2014)

dak723 said:


> I agree that old cameras were essentially a box that held the film and that the digital camera is much more than that. That was not my point. *My point was - and is - that the changes in each new generation of camera are comparatively small, in my opinion. As an average hobbyist, the pictures I take with my original rebel and those I took with a 60D I rented - and even the 6D I now own - are just about the same in IQ when viewed on a computer screen or printed 4 x 6 size (and perhaps even slightly larger)*. Of course, the marketing of each new camera will tell how much improved they are - and the consumer wants to believe it, too - so that they feel great about their new purchase. Twice I upgraded over the years and each time the camera was returned because the pictures I was taking with the original rebel were just as good. In fact, my percentage of accurately exposed pics is still probably higher with the original rebel than my 6D. I returned the first 2 6Ds I purchased because of exposure issues (one under exposed, the other over exposed!) until I found one that was accurate.
> 
> Granted, for those taking pics in low light, huge strides have been made in high ISO performance. Other than that, the IQ in the first digital cameras has held up surprisingly well, in my opinion.



(emphasis mine)

I do not disagree - up to a point though. Recently, there was an article posted on the photo blogs that put an iPhone 5 camera up against a Hasselblad. The shot was of a whiskey glass with some ice. The iPhone 5 held its own _incredibly_ well! It would be simple to say that the Hasselblad offers only an incremental image quality increase over the iphone, right?

Of course not - just as in your Original Rebel vs 60D example, so much depends on the _situation_ you shoot in. In a controlled setting, in a studio, tabletop, with lights and strobes and whatever else you need, you are correct, there is hardly going to be a difference at all between the Rebel and the 60D, or the Rebel and a 1DX or a Hasselblad or whatever.

You say "the IQ in the first digital cameras has held up surprisingly well" and that is true, up to a point. In controlled settings the IQ is rather comparable. My point however, was that advances in sensor and camera tech have enabled the range of possibilities to increase, tenfold. "the IQ in the first digital cameras has held up surprisingly well" would not be a statement that holds up in low light situations, or tracking action, or extreme cropping situations either.

So I agree with you up to a point. While you can easily point to an image or a setup where the IQ for the Rebel and a modern camera is not very different, I can also easily point to ten images that were taken with a modern camera, that simply would not be possible with a Rebel. I am not knocking old tech, it has always served me well, but I do appreciate and welcome new advances!


----------



## mackguyver (May 2, 2014)

Now I see that we're saying image quality (IQ) is what matters most. If that were true, most people would be pretty happy with a iPhone or Rebel. The other thing to consider is capability. People, myself included, don't buy a 1D X for the image quality alone. We buy it because you can't take super telephoto pictures of fast moving objects at 12FPS in near darkness with nearly any other camera. There are many cameras that have the same or better IQ (take a trip to DxOMark... ) but other than the D4(S), you're not going to find much out there than can give you that capability. Watching the Sochi coverage, I don't remember seeing much other than 1D _s and D3/D4s on the sidelines. For anyone who wants to sell their work, it's all about getting the shot that the majority of other people are not able to get. Part of that is the photographer's eye/creativity/preparations, but the other part is the capability of their equipment.


----------



## sdsr (May 2, 2014)

ramonjsantiago said:


> Canon doesn't just "needs to respond with SOMETHING".
> Canon needs to hit a home run with their next product.
> 
> [....]
> ...



If it doesn't "hit a home run with its next product", then what, exactly? You won't buy it? I won't buy it? Posters at Canonrumors will complain loudly? The cameras and lenses that keep Canon's camera department going stronger than anyone else's (in terms of market share) haven't been "home runs" in years and probably don't interest most posters here in the least, but they still sell well. And I don't think it's true that every other manufacturer has surpassed Canon in both lenses and cameras - this or that body may do something better, this or that lens may be better than its Canon equivalent, but overall? I don't think so, for all that I'm very fond of my Olympus OM-D and Sony A7r. But if you think so, why does it matter if Canon doesn't satisfy your desires? It's far easier to jump ship than some people around here seem to think (but even more fun to be promiscuous if you can afford it and sample more than one brand at a time).


----------



## gsealy (May 2, 2014)

I think you have to align yourself with a manufacturer and stay with it. It's too expensive and time consuming to change when the next 'best of market' product is released. For me Canon is the whole package in terms of quality of products, camera software, lens, support, and stability. They might not always be on the cutting edge, but we do know that they will competitive. They can't afford not to be.


----------



## sdsr (May 2, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Yes, I want a higher MP camera. Yes, I want more DR. Yes, I want better manual focus ability. Yes I want improved AF and yes I want a lot more. But having seen the sharpness, resolution, color and everything else I get from what I have, I wonder if anyone (other than the pixel peepers at CR ) will be able to see/tell if I got the new 14 f-stop sensor, with 45MP and ... all the rest of it.



I think your (perfectly reasonable) comment invites two opposite lines of response, both of them right. If you don't pixel peep (I sometimes wonder if those who disapprove do so because they don't like what they see when they do...), just how much better do images taken with the new Sigma's images look than those taken with other 50mm lenses? Depending on how you view them, perhaps not much - maybe not at all. But if you do like pixel peeping (I do, when I like what I see - perhaps there's some AA equivalent: "Hi, my name is X and I like to pixelpeep..."), you will be able to see a difference when you switch sensors (I certainly see a difference when I attach my favorite Canon lenses, such as the 100L, to my Sony A7r, for instance). Whether the differences are significant, and whether they matter, depends entirely on who's looking.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 2, 2014)

sdsr said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I want a higher MP camera. Yes, I want more DR. Yes, I want better manual focus ability. Yes I want improved AF and yes I want a lot more. But having seen the sharpness, resolution, color and everything else I get from what I have, I wonder if anyone (other than the pixel peepers at CR ) will be able to see/tell if I got the new 14 f-stop sensor, with 45MP and ... all the rest of it.
> ...



Can you share your results so we can objectively look at them? (your 100L on the A7r and a Canon dSLR?)

Personally, I feel those who disapprove of pixel peeping indeed do not like what they see when they do- a beautiful image in subject and composition can suddenly be rendered worthless when you start to pay more attention to the minutiae. I think pixel peeping is a good way to waste a good thing. 
Let's face it, if your image looks great when fitted to a desktop LCD monitor and you don't plan on an enormous print, what are you gaining by the extra resolution at 100%? What does pixel peeping provide other than vanity? (I regularly pixel peep for my research, but then I am trying to find tiny fluorescent neurons among a ton of luminous gunk)


----------



## Sporgon (May 2, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I think pixel peeping is a good way to waste a good thing.


 ;D

Like it !

I've started checking my images at 50% and find it's a better reference for checking real resolution. 

I still maintain that 22 mp on FF _is_ 'high mp'. If I want more than this I want a larger format.


----------



## jrista (May 2, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Pixel peeping has it's place, but it should be thought of as a tool, not the end result. I zoom to 100% when I am denoising or sharpening, to see what the effect looks like at the pixel level. It's how I choose the right attenuation of the various denoising or sharpening settings. 

But pixels aren't a picture, they are only components of a picture. You have to look at the whole picture to see the photograph. The problem with "pixel peepers" is that those are the whiny group of individuals who see nothing BUT the pixels, or to steal a phrase "missing the photo for the pixels".


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 2, 2014)

gsealy said:


> I think you have to align yourself with a manufacturer and stay with it. It's too expensive and time consuming to change when the next 'best of market' product is released. For me Canon is the whole package in terms of quality of products, camera software, lens, support, and stability. They might not always be on the cutting edge, but we do know that they will competitive. They can't afford not to be.



If your in this as a business, then a decision to buy is not made off of, gotta have the next best thing. It's made on an assessment of budget, and the illusive question, will those features make a grand impact on your bottom line: IE do you stand to sell more/take on more clients/up your prices enough to absorb the purchase cost of the equipment. 

This is one of the reason why I think Canon does so well with the pro segment. It's why we won't see a 5d4 announcement in thisyear. Why, they know that the 5d3 in the right hands can and will hold it's own with anything else in the market in the right hands. the also know that most who bought it are working pros who are on a budget. Yeah they could toss a 5d4 out there now, but -- as another poster said, bodies are expensive, and, part of that cost IS durability - this body is meant to last you for more than 2 years!!!


----------



## daemorhedron (May 2, 2014)

I don't understand the doomsaying in a lot of posts. Surely you must see that loyalty is a two way street, and that sometimes singular focus bleeds into fanatacism.

For one thing, if you are invested completely in canon glass, you can easily get an adapter that lets you use them on Sony so it's not really a valid excuse in my books.

Myself, I am wildly impressed with Sony's offerings. I shoot on a humble EOS M, the camera that everyone seems to love to hate. It's spoiled me in a few ways, and it is far more fabulous than people make it out to be, but I did buy a Sony a7 to try out since I largely do portrait work and want to upgrade to FF. The camera itself is wonderfully impressive in the IQ, the dynamic range and skin tones in particular was very impressive! However, a lack of touchscreen and honestly the worst ergonomics of any camera I have ever held drove me to madness and it had to go back.

I also bought an EOS M2 to try out, but found that it did not offer anything substantial over the M and was in fact worse since I lost my beloved Magic Lantern which allowed, amongst many other things, focus peaking. So it too went back.

I feel Canon does need to answer with something, but I am also quite confident that they will do so appropriately. It would seem likely they will release an improved M and ideally a full frame M too. One can only hope that it also supports wired tethering at the very least.

Regardless of vendor, we do seem to live in exciting times with lots of innovation. =)


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 2, 2014)

daemorhedron said:


> Myself, *I am wildly impressed with Sony's offerings*. I shoot on a humble EOS M, the camera that everyone seems to love to hate. It's spoiled me in a few ways, and it is far more fabulous than people make it out to be, but *I did buy a Sony a7* to try out since I largely do portrait work and want to upgrade to FF. The camera itself is wonderfully impressive in the IQ, the dynamic range and skin tones in particular was very impressive! However, a lack of touchscreen and honestly the worst ergonomics of any camera I have ever held *drove me to madness and it had to go back*.



I like that you were so wildly impressed that you returned the camera. 

It's a really important point that many manufacturers in many fields seem to forget/ignore…putting up impressive specifications and/or excelling in one particular feature is all well and good, but at the end of the day user satisfaction is critical. I think that's why Canon gained and has kept their position as the market leader for many years – their cameras are well-designed and easy to use, and generally do a good job of meeting customers' expectations and needs.


----------



## mackguyver (May 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> daemorhedron said:
> 
> 
> > Myself, *I am wildly impressed with Sony's offerings*. I shoot on a humble EOS M, the camera that everyone seems to love to hate. It's spoiled me in a few ways, and it is far more fabulous than people make it out to be, but *I did buy a Sony a7* to try out since I largely do portrait work and want to upgrade to FF. The camera itself is wonderfully impressive in the IQ, the dynamic range and skin tones in particular was very impressive! However, a lack of touchscreen and honestly the worst ergonomics of any camera I have ever held *drove me to madness and it had to go back*.
> ...


Having used Sony and Panasonic cameras, that's what drove me nuts, too. How many damn menus can one camera have??? The EOS M for all it's shortcomings absolutely nails things for usability. Ever since I bought my humble SD110 back in 2003, I have been enamored with the simplicity and ease of use that every camera has. You can pick up any Canon camera from compact to 1D X and begin using them within minutes.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 2, 2014)

daemorhedron said:


> However, a lack of touchscreen and honestly the worst ergonomics of any camera I have ever held drove me to madness and it had to go back.



That's the problem with Sony right now. That's what bothers me about a company that has brought out so many amazing innovations that it puts Apple to shame. Their engineering is top notch, but whoever is driving their product development and marketing strategies need to take a long vacation.
I am surprised that they didn't make the A7/r perfect in every way before shipping them out. This could have been the iconic turnaround for Sony- such a widely anticipated camera. No competition, it is like scoring into an empty net. 
Six months since its release, all we have is one f/4 zoom and two prime lenses. Shouldn't they prioritize converting some of their top FF A-mount lenses to E-mount and drag in as many adopters as possible? Instead they are using aggressive pricing to rope in customers. I don't think people want cheaper cameras- there are plenty of those. Sony should have exploited the USP of the A7/r, and IMO they have missed the bus on that one.



daemorhedron said:


> Regardless of vendor, we do seem to live in exciting times with lots of innovation. =)



+1. That is the most important thing. We all benefit from healthy competition.


----------



## sdsr (May 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> Pixel peeping has it's place, but it should be thought of as a tool, not the end result. I zoom to 100% when I am denoising or sharpening, to see what the effect looks like at the pixel level. It's how I choose the right attenuation of the various denoising or sharpening settings.
> 
> But pixels aren't a picture, they are only components of a picture. You have to look at the whole picture to see the photograph. The problem with "pixel peepers" is that those are the whiny group of individuals who see nothing BUT the pixels, or to steal a phrase "missing the photo for the pixels".



I don't see why it has to be either-or; just because a photo is well composed and looks good overall, and was taken with a view to being seen as such, doesn't mean that there aren't details in it that one might want to peer into as well or that it can't be cropped to create a different composition that stands as well on its own. Some photos lend themselves to it more than others, perhaps, but we don't all see and look in the same ways. (And if there really are people who take photos merely to peer at pixels, that's their business, not mine - unless they whine in my presence...). 

To answer someone else's point - maybe pixel-peeping could be a vanity exercise, but when I'm impressed technically by what I see when pixel-peeping I'm impressed not by me but by whoever made the equipment in question.


----------



## traingineer (May 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> traingineer said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Don't forget Canon's offering! ✌ﾟ∀ﾟ✌


----------



## jrista (May 2, 2014)

sdsr said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Pixel peeping has it's place, but it should be thought of as a tool, not the end result. I zoom to 100% when I am denoising or sharpening, to see what the effect looks like at the pixel level. It's how I choose the right attenuation of the various denoising or sharpening settings.
> ...



Cropping does not change anything I've stated. A cropped photo is still a conglomerate of millions of pixels. Maybe not the tens of millions your sensor has, but still millions. If you are cropping so much that your final image can only be printed at native size on a 4x6, or cannot be downsampled, then your cropping way too much, and you seriously need a better camera.  

As for detail to draw viewers in, sure, but again...you are either downsampling to some acceptable "web size", or printing, and in both cases, the amount of detail that can be effectively displayed at a comfortable viewing distance is generally going to be significantly less than what your photo started out with at 100%.

Now, as 4k displays hit the market and eventually become mainstream, we as photographers will certainly have more demanding viewers expecting better results. But even then, the pixels of 4k screens are going to be even farther below the resolving limit of most viewers, and harder to resolve for viewers with exceptional vision, which again mitigates the impact of pixel-level IQ details.


----------



## Lawliet (May 2, 2014)

jrista said:


> Cropping does not change anything I've stated. A cropped photo is still a conglomerate of millions of pixels. Maybe not the tens of millions your sensor has, but still millions. If you are cropping so much that your final image can only be printed at native size on a 4x6, or cannot be downsampled, then your cropping way too much, and you seriously need a better camera.
> 
> As for detail to draw viewers in, sure, but again...you are either downsampling to some acceptable "web size", or printing, and in both cases, the amount of detail that can be effectively displayed at a comfortable viewing distance is generally going to be significantly less than what your photo started out with at 100%.



Thats unless you do, for example, commercials - first the final crop will depend on the layout, framing tight might make the image unuseable. Second the file is expected to hold up when zoomed in, because you have details from the overall image enlarged in dead spaces. The whole image to set the mood, the and enlargements to sell the actual product or draw attention to specific details. Enough resolution is approximatly when you can go from a full length shot with some scenery to a closeup of a piece of jewellery...


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2014)

arco iris said:


> Sony as one example sold more cameras in South Korea than Canon and Nikon in 2013



Sony sold 0.1% more than Canon. In one country. Worldwide, how did Sony compare to Canon for 2013? :


----------



## daemorhedron (May 3, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> daemorhedron said:
> 
> 
> > Myself, *I am wildly impressed with Sony's offerings*.
> ...



You'll note I did the same to Canon. =)

It's pretty simple: the technology is *easily* available and I am tired of paying for sideways upgrades. Ergonomics, lack of touchscreen and wired tethering were the tipping points for me to take the camera back because it does me little good to wrestle with it. I will point out that I have almost the exact same complaints about Canon, and any existing vendor.

This does not detract from the simple fact that it takes absolutely amazing pictures. The sensor is absolutely phenomenal, but I won't use it because the ergonomics and layout of the device is counterintuitive and arduous. It does little good that it takes great pics when I have to spend so much time setting up each shot.

I am one of those 'crazies' that supposedly doesn't exist: I want a mirrorless full frame camera with touch screen, ideally articulated, and wired tethering. Hot shoe, lens adapter compatability, focus peaking and speedbooster. When you compare my wants with existing systems, the only two that really come close are Sony A7 and EOS M. 

The Sony A7 is MUCH closer, but touchscreen won out, what can I say. Keep in mind that Magic Lantern helped to make that decision, which is really another strike against Canon. How the hell can you not have focus peaking standard is beyond me.

I don't understand why people love to hate all over such a camera, often spouting doom filled prophecies of non existence and outrageous expense, but the second it's out (regardless of vendor) that's what I'll be getting. =) 

This is not an unreasonable request, and frankly I am truly shocked/disappointed it's not already available.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2014)

daemorhedron said:


> I am one of those 'crazies' that supposedly doesn't exist: I want a mirrorless full frame camera with touch screen, ideally articulated, and wired tethering. Hot shoe, lens adapter compatability, focus peaking and speedbooster.



Oh, you're not crazy, and people with your set if requirements certainly exist. Just not enough of you, it seems...at least in terms of Canon's market research.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 3, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> Thats unless you do, for example, commercials - first the final crop will depend on the layout, framing tight might make the image unuseable. Second the file is expected to hold up when zoomed in, because you have details from the overall image enlarged in dead spaces. The whole image to set the mood, the and enlargements to sell the actual product or draw attention to specific details. Enough resolution is approximatly when you can go from a full length shot with some scenery to a closeup of a piece of jewellery...



You make one (of quite a few) good cases for horses for courses. This is a bonafide situation where a Canon user needs to migrate or add a D800 to his arsenal, and by your own previous post (and I agree) this is painless to do given the right motivation. High-res sensor with wide range of DR is not Canon's forte, it would be very bad strategy to try to outrun competitors in their own turf. We as Canon users have to accept that, migrate or add a different system. Personally, it doesn't concern me or (evidently) the majority of dSLR users.



sdsr said:


> To answer someone else's point - maybe pixel-peeping could be a vanity exercise, but when I'm impressed technically by what I see when pixel-peeping I'm impressed not by me but by whoever made the equipment in question.



Don't take it personally, we are all vain in some way or the other, and often subconsciously. And we are as often vain about what we own than about what we have accomplished. 
In any case, that didn't answer my point- I was hoping you can share some comparison between the IQ of A7r vs whichever Canon dSLR you use. Not that I am doubting you, I am just curious. I have heard very good things about the A7r and just recently almost coerced a friend into buying it (he is a Sony person- I did try forcing 6D down his throat first, unsuccessfully).

[What? Bonafide is not in the dictionary? ]


----------



## Zv (May 3, 2014)

daemorhedron said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > daemorhedron said:
> ...



Although I would love to have seen Canon put focus peaking in as standard on the EOS M I think their reasoning behind not including it is simply because the vast majority of people using it would not be using manual focus lenses with it. It's very much a consumer level camera aimed at the amateur. Most of whom will just use the kit lens. To be fair for static subjects you can easily just tap the zoom button to help focus. Focus peaking is more for useful for video. I have ML installed and after the initial "wow - focus peaking!!" moment I haven't really needed it, and I have two FD leneses that I regularly use with it. For me the Magic Zoom function is better especially in bright sunlight.


----------



## Orangutan (May 3, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> arco iris said:
> 
> 
> > Sony as one example sold more cameras in South Korea than Canon and Nikon in 2013
> ...



Is it just me, or do the few posts from arco iris seem somewhat familiar?


----------



## tolusina (May 3, 2014)

Canon does not need to respond to anything Sony does.

Here's an article about a new development by Sony engineers in the magnetic tape technology field, they've come up with some pretty amazing developments in that field.

But, this is Sony so there's a BUT, well, here, you read it......
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/02/sony_tape/

Keep in mind to the technically superior Betamax video tape format that failed so miserably, nor should the Memory Stick be forgotten.

As far as the flashy and marvelous new baubles Sony has long been know for and the company based on, they've largely been supplanted by Apple.

Canon does not need to respond to Sony's latest imaging bauble, it's a Sony, it's ******* and ******* by virtue of being a Sony. It has patches of brilliance supported by fail.



.


----------



## jrista (May 3, 2014)

arco iris said:


> You should change your metaphor, it is is Canon who are chasing today .
> Sony as one example sold more cameras in South Korea than Canon and Nikon in 2013 and I think the rest of the world will go the same way , from large SLR to smaller but with a FF sensor.



Canon has never chased anyone. They never chased anyone in the past, and they are not chasing anyone now. Canon does what Canon does, for whatever reasons Canon decides to do them. People are constantly complaining about how "Canon hasn't *responded* to <pickyourpoison>" and "Canon MUST *respond* to <yaddayadda>"...they constantly complain, because Canon is not in the business of "responding" to anyone for anything...never have, and I don't have reason to suspect they ever will.

Canon builds products for THEIR customers. They build EXCELLENT products for THEIR customers. The fact that Canon builds excellent products for their customers is the reason why they are one of the top imaging companies in the world, and the top photography company in the world. Canon delivers what their customers ASK for, and they make sure that what they deliver lives up to the expectations their customers have, and their own reputation.

Nikon is a very different company. Nikon has practically made a reputation out of doing two things: Responding to competitors products (and responding extremely late, well beyond the time when the ship sailed and the train left the station), and creating _hyperniche_ products like the Df or a_ 24karat gold plated, lizard-skin gripped $12,000 trophy camera_ that no one cares about other than as a curiosity on the internet every so often (oh yes, that thing really does exist...which actually blows my mind... ???). Sony doesn't even seem to _have _a plan, it's just "*BLAMM!* Shotguun and Ho'yeah! Let's see wut sticks! " wild-west product design and production that's burning their funds and burying them in a hole so deep and filled to the top with debt they will never be able to see sunlight again (let alone pay off). 


Canon is not, and will not, be _*responding *_with anything to any competitor's product any time soon. Canon will release the 7D II, or the 5D IV, or the 1D XI or whatever the next big thing is when THEY decide it meets the necessary requirements and is capable of maintaining and building up Canon's reputation as the worlds top (and most profitable) photography company. When the next big thing is released, it WILL be a phenomenal product that DOES live up to Canon's reputation as a top-notch photography company, _and even if it doesn't have 25 stops of DR, 150 megapixels, 100fps, a 900 image frame buffer, a 200 point AF system that works in both mirror mode and live view/video mode, a 12000ppi 10-bit full-color high DR 60fps EVF and quad memory card slots supporting both CF and CFast2 all for the *rock bottom low price of $500*_....good grief ppl....do you realize what you all sound like when you bring up the "Canon MUST respond!" and "Canon charges too much!" and "I want this, and _this_, and *that*, and *OH YEAH THIS THING TOO*! AND IT HAS TO BE $1500!!!!!!1!1!111111~~! *gimmegimmehgimmeeeenglfheee* *gasp* *GASP* *SUUCKING IN AIR....*"?  :

Bleh...it would be a wonderful day if everyone could just be happy with the fact that pretty much every single camera on the market today puts nearly every camera from the film era to complete and total, utter shame when it comes to IQ. Even when it comes to drum-scanned large format film, while you gain in resolution, even that can't really touch the color depth and brilliance of a high resolution digital sensor these days.


----------



## philmoz (May 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> Bleh...it would be a wonderful day if everyone could just be happy with the fact that pretty much every single camera on the market today puts nearly every camera from the film era to complete and total, utter shame when it comes to IQ. Even when it comes to drum-scanned large format film, while you gain in resolution, even that can't really touch the color depth and brilliance of a high resolution digital sensor these days.



So true; but unfortunately many cameras end up in the hands of talentless hacks, or people who won't take the time to understand the art.

They blame the technology for their own shortcomings, then vent on forums like this - believing their failure to capture compelling images is somehow the manufacturers fault.

Phil.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> Nikon is a very different company. Nikon has practically made a reputation out of doing two things: Responding to competitors products (and responding extremely late, well beyond the time when the ship sailed and the train left the station), and creating _hyperniche_ products like the Df or a_ 24karat gold plated, lizard-skin gripped $12,000 trophy camera_ that no one cares about other than as a curiosity on the internet every so often (oh yes, that thing really does exist...which actually blows my mind... ???). Sony doesn't even seem to _have _a plan, it's just "*BLAMM!* Shotguun and Ho'yeah! Let's see wut sticks! " wild-west product design and production that's burning their funds and burying them in a hole so deep and filled to the top with debt they will never be able to see sunlight again (let alone pay off).



Relax, I am sure Sony and Nikon needn't be bashed either


----------



## jrista (May 3, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon is a very different company. Nikon has practically made a reputation out of doing two things: Responding to competitors products (and responding extremely late, well beyond the time when the ship sailed and the train left the station), and creating _hyperniche_ products like the Df or a_ 24karat gold plated, lizard-skin gripped $12,000 trophy camera_ that no one cares about other than as a curiosity on the internet every so often (oh yes, that thing really does exist...which actually blows my mind... ???). Sony doesn't even seem to _have _a plan, it's just "*BLAMM!* Shotguun and Ho'yeah! Let's see wut sticks! " wild-west product design and production that's burning their funds and burying them in a hole so deep and filled to the top with debt they will never be able to see sunlight again (let alone pay off).
> ...



Hmm, not so sure about that. Given how much people _slobber and drool all over them like love-sick puppies_ all the time, I think a little dose of *SoNikon Reality* was in order. ;P It does boggle my mind that anyone actually bought Nikon's gold-plated lizard skin camera....


----------



## traingineer (May 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> arco iris said:
> 
> 
> > You should change your metaphor, it is is Canon who are chasing today .
> ...



It looks like the Hasselblad Lunar seems to be better value compared to that Nikon, and unlike the Nikon, the Lunar comes with a "luxurious starter" lens. ;D


----------



## dak723 (May 3, 2014)

Perhaps I am a bit dense, but I guess I don't understand this company loyalty business. People are "rooting" for Canon, or dismayed with Canon for not "competing" adequately against their opponents. This is not sports! If you aren't happy with their products, get the product you are happy with. Yes, for professionals or those with a lot of money invested in lenses, this may not be easy. But used lenses sell for a pretty good percentage of their original cost on Ebay and going from one system to another is not a total loss of money. If Canon does not adequately produce products you are satisfied with, move elsewhere. Why not? As I mentioned in my previous posts (although most would probably disagree), I buy a camera to last for many years as the incremental improvemetns are considerably minor, so the system I choose will not cost me in reinvestment every 2 or 3 years. 

In my time I have owned Olympus and Canon cameras. When my Original Rebel finally bit the dust, I bought a 6D. When I realized that the full frame 6D did not meet my needs for more zoom and less DOF for macro and shooting flowers (and was a bit heavy for casual walk-around use), I bought an Olympus EM-1. Neither camera does everything I wanted, but together they do. I was able to sell my Canon Macro lens as well as some other APS-C lenses that I no longer need and that covered a considerable percentage of the Olympus lenses I bought. If Nikon or Sony had made a camera that better suited my needs I would have bought that. The reality (at least from my perspective) is that all of these companies make excellent cameras. As someone else mentioned, compared to film cameras, all of them are heads and shoulders better. So, why does it matter so much what Canon does?


----------



## Orangutan (May 3, 2014)

dak723 said:


> Perhaps I am a bit dense, but I guess I don't understand this company loyalty business. People are "rooting" for Canon, or dismayed with Canon for not "competing" adequately against their opponents.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The reality (at least from my perspective) is that all of these companies make excellent cameras. As someone else mentioned, compared to film cameras, all of them are heads and shoulders better. So, why does it matter so much what Canon does?



Quite right. Generally the pro- Canon talk is in response to the anti-Canon talk. There seems to be a small, vocal group who think their photo needs are broadly representative of the entire market, so they're put out when Canon doesn't give them exactly what they want, and they try to argue that Canon's business will decline if they don't listen to their customers. Others, including me, point out that Canon is selling quite well, and has a history of incorporating tech and features when demanded by the market, but that they are a conservative, consistently profitable business.

That's really it, there seem to be two camps: (1) those who believe their niche demand represents the market as a whole; (2) those who may have individual preferences for new features, but acknowledge that the customer base (the "market") speaks with its own voice.

Of course we all want all the best features of the competing products, without losing the benefits of what we already have, or suffering an increase in price. Well, that ain't gonna happen. As you rightly point out, those with particular needs should choose the gear that meets those needs.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 3, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps I am a bit dense, but I guess I don't understand this company loyalty business. People are "rooting" for Canon, or dismayed with Canon for not "competing" adequately against their opponents.
> ...



-100...how dare you bring sound logic into this...  LOL


----------



## jrista (May 3, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps I am a bit dense, but I guess I don't understand this company loyalty business. People are "rooting" for Canon, or dismayed with Canon for not "competing" adequately against their opponents.
> ...



+1 Well put.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 3, 2014)

arco iris said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > arco iris said:
> ...



What is contradictory is that you are still using Canon cameras. No offense, but isn't it a bit silly to LONG for high-res, high-DR when all you need to do is BUY a D800/A7r? 
Hopefully you will answer this question instead of further BS-ing in your next post.


----------



## jrista (May 3, 2014)

arco iris said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > arco iris said:
> ...



It's only contradictory if you assume that the sensor is the sole source of image quality, or that Canon's sensor IQ is the single source of their success as a photography company. Clearly, given the plethora of evidence, the fact that Canon's sensor IQ is no longer "the best of the best of the best" has nothing to do with the fact that Canon makes excellent cameras, excellent lenses, has the best customer service department of any camera company, and sells more cameras than any other camera company.

It's also only contradictory if you assume Canon is incapable of progressing and leapfrogging the competition, again. There is only one individual I know of who has persistently pushed the notion that Canon is literally incapable of competing. He was permanently banned from these forums for his constant antagonism...I certainly hope you are not him.

The fact that you insist that Canon specifically provide you with a high megapixel, high DR camera indicates that you seem to rely on Canon more than I do. Unless one of Canon's next camera releases has a notable improvement on DR, I myself will be picking up a Sony A7r for my high DR, high resolution landscape work. If you really, truly, honestly NEED more dynamic range, and you are really, truly, honestly not completely and utterly dependent upon Canon, then you would have stopped complaining about Canon offering a high DR camera a very long time ago...because *there are other options out there that already* offer what you supposedly need!


----------



## traingineer (May 3, 2014)

jrista said:


> arco iris said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Would that individual be the person who thinks the D800's sensor beats any other camera in every single way and is the best sensor in history?


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 3, 2014)

traingineer said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > arco iris said:
> ...



AFAIK, MR's posts were longer and more passionate. I think this is a new entity.


----------



## traingineer (May 3, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> AFAIK, MR's posts were longer and more passionate. I think this is a new entity.



Well I was thinking of Risendal but I have met some people who really do think the sensor is better than any lens/body out there.


----------



## AvTvM (May 4, 2014)

As far as i am concerned, Canon needs to respond with a full frame mirrorless line (cameras + native lenses) very soon. 
To be precise, before sony (or fuji) come up with an A8 or A8R that improves on the 3 things the A7/R are still lacking in (af performance including tracking, battery charge 500 shots+ and totally silent and vibration-free electronic shutter). 

I would prefer that camera to have a canon UI, but if canon does not make one in time, I'll definitely and happily buy another brand. And no, I will not buy another chunky mirror-slapper. 

And yes, i count for one camera, but i am not the only one.


----------



## sdsr (May 4, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > To answer someone else's point - maybe pixel-peeping could be a vanity exercise, but when I'm impressed technically by what I see when pixel-peeping I'm impressed not by me but by whoever made the equipment in question.
> ...



Well, I'm very fond of my 6D (not sure I'm vain about it, though; I mean, how could one be with all the 1DX owners around here...) and don't feel inclined to part with it (and as you or someone else said, I rather doubt I would ever regard the Sony as more than an adjunct fancy toy, at least for now). I probably will post some photos I've taken with my A7r (there's a thread elsewhere where others have occasionally done so) with a Canon lens or two attached, but so far, at least, I've not done any direct comparisons of the sort that a camera tester/reviewer would do; the closest I've come is to walk around Longwood Gardens with 5DIII + 100L and repeat the process with Sony A7r + 100L relying solely on focus peaking (as an experiment), at times trying to reproduce a photo I took earlier; but of course that doesn't count if you want a direct comparison because I wasn't in exactly the same place, the light had changed, etc. If you don't care about direct comparisons, however....

(I'll also repeat what I've said before, that I would really prefer it if Canon came out with something similar, but with better ergonomics - which wouldn't be surprising - and IBIS - which would. I certainly don't feel any special fondness for Sony (though if Canon does come through I would seek out an adapter for the Sony/Zeiss 55mm 1.8...).


----------



## sdsr (May 4, 2014)

dak723 said:


> Perhaps I am a bit dense, but I guess I don't understand this company loyalty business. People are "rooting" for Canon, or dismayed with Canon for not "competing" adequately against their opponents. This is not sports! If you aren't happy with their products, get the product you are happy with. Yes, for professionals or those with a lot of money invested in lenses, this may not be easy. But used lenses sell for a pretty good percentage of their original cost on Ebay and going from one system to another is not a total loss of money. If Canon does not adequately produce products you are satisfied with, move elsewhere. Why not? As I mentioned in my previous posts (although most would probably disagree), I buy a camera to last for many years as the incremental improvemetns are considerably minor, so the system I choose will not cost me in reinvestment every 2 or 3 years.
> 
> In my time I have owned Olympus and Canon cameras. When my Original Rebel finally bit the dust, I bought a 6D. When I realized that the full frame 6D did not meet my needs for more zoom and less DOF for macro and shooting flowers (and was a bit heavy for casual walk-around use), I bought an Olympus EM-1. Neither camera does everything I wanted, but together they do. I was able to sell my Canon Macro lens as well as some other APS-C lenses that I no longer need and that covered a considerable percentage of the Olympus lenses I bought. If Nikon or Sony had made a camera that better suited my needs I would have bought that. The reality (at least from my perspective) is that all of these companies make excellent cameras. As someone else mentioned, compared to film cameras, all of them are heads and shoulders better. So, why does it matter so much what Canon does?



I think you're exactly right, including the sport analogy (I mentioned a while back in the some Sigma 50mm 1.4 thread, all this talk of what Canon "needs" to do reminds me of fans who need their team to have the best of everything). Like you, I enjoy owning both Canon and Olympus M43, and recently added a Sony. In some ways it's a silly extravagance, I suppose, and for many/most it's probably not feasible or sensible or even interesting, but I rather enjoy trying out new stuff, and as you say they're all good in different ways (and much of the time the differences in image quality are pretty trivial). Promiscuity, in this context at any rate, is fun; and if divorce is warranted, well, it's easier than many think (when I switched from Pentax to Canon I lost on the body but not on the lenses, and, as I learned quite a lot from using the body that wasn't really a loss anyway).


----------



## sdsr (May 4, 2014)

Zv said:


> Although I would love to have seen Canon put focus peaking in as standard on the EOS M I think their reasoning behind not including it is simply because the vast majority of people using it would not be using manual focus lenses with it. It's very much a consumer level camera aimed at the amateur. Most of whom will just use the kit lens. To be fair for static subjects you can easily just tap the zoom button to help focus. Focus peaking is more for useful for video. I have ML installed and after the initial "wow - focus peaking!!" moment I haven't really needed it, and I have two FD leneses that I regularly use with it. For me the Magic Zoom function is better especially in bright sunlight.



Aside from all that, don't you think focus peaking can be rather tricky to master? In my experience it works most reliably on fairly simple subjects that are fairly close; but if you have, say, a building 100 yards away with a large tree close in front of it, and want to focus on one rather than the other, good luck - all of it will likely get focus peaking and you may get an unpleasant surprise when you examine the result. Magnification is more reliable (though it's nice if they're combined - a sort of belt-and-suspenders combination that works rather well on the Sony A7s, at least (perhaps others too, I can't remember).


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 4, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> And yes, i count for one camera, but i am not the only one.



Certainly not, but the number of people who share that viewpoint is so small relative to Canon's market share that it becomes insignificant. 

I think you'd best hope Sony decides to make an a8R with the features you want, before they decide to abandon yet another market segment.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 4, 2014)

sdsr said:


> I probably will post some photos I've taken with my A7r (there's a thread elsewhere where others have occasionally done so) with a Canon lens or two attached, but so far, at least, I've not done any direct comparisons of the sort that a camera tester/reviewer would do; the closest I've come is to walk around Longwood Gardens with 5DIII + 100L and repeat the process with Sony A7r + 100L relying solely on focus peaking (as an experiment), at times trying to reproduce a photo I took earlier; but of course that doesn't count if you want a direct comparison because I wasn't in exactly the same place, the light had changed, etc. If you don't care about direct comparisons, however....



Direct comparisons have their place, but personal observations are also valuable to me, because that is what makes a person keep or sell an equipment.
Looking forward to the pictures. Thanks.


----------



## Hillsilly (May 4, 2014)

Sony's problem is that cameras are a fairly mature product. Apart from some minor tinkering, there isn't a lot that is going to make a large segment of target purchasers (ie those who will likely buy multiple lenses) sit up and pay attention. This new Alpha 77ii is a classic example. It looks like a nice camera and seems well specc'd. But I struggle to see how it differs noticeably from, say, a 70D. Given that most serious camera buyers have an entrenched "Canon (or Nikon) is best" attitude, the new 77ii won't win a lot of converts. In many ways, its no different to the Pentax K3 - another nice camera which few people seem to care about.

Although, if you were starting afresh, it might be a different story. The Sony "G" and "Zeiss" lenses are very nice and the lenses can be used (with an adapter) on the a7/a7r. And almost everyone seems to like the image quality from Sony sensors. I can see why people would be interested in buying into the Sony system. But if you had the budget for their top of the line lenses, would you really be buying a 77ii? I doubt it.


----------



## Sporgon (May 4, 2014)

arco iris said:


> It is obvious, for anyone who like real, natural, virtually-analog capture , we need a high resolution DR camera
> 
> Therefore it is obvius for anyone who wants rugged data that doesn't depend on luck of alignment of pixels and subject transients, and survives geometrical processing like CA, distortion, and perspective correction, rotation, and arbitrary resampling in practically lossless manner.
> 
> For someone who doesn't care about imaging quality, I guess it can be sufficient and they can use low resolution cameras with inferior DR.



Halla ! Biggie


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 4, 2014)

arco iris said:


> *It is obvious, for anyone who like real, natural, virtually-analog capture , we need a high resolution DR camera to our best canon lenses and not a Sony 7R*
> 
> Therefore it is obvius for anyone who wants rugged data that doesn't depend on luck of alignment of pixels and subject transients, and survives geometrical processing like CA, distortion, and perspective correction, rotation, and arbitrary resampling in practically lossless manner.
> 
> For someone who doesn't care about imaging quality, I guess it can be sufficient and they can use low resolution cameras with inferior DR.



Boy, no one is going to accuse you of "excellent written communication skills"!


----------



## Hillsilly (May 4, 2014)

Only because I'm feeling particularly argumentative 



jrista said:


> Canon has never chased anyone. They never chased anyone in the past, and they are not chasing anyone now.


Canon were pretty quick to chase Sony's camera division (previously known as Minolta) when they introduced auto focusing SLRs. The Minolta Maxxum 7000 came out in February 1985. By the end of 1986, Auto focus SLR's accounted for more than 50% of SLR sales and was dominated by Minolta and Nikon. And where was Canon? (hint: The T80 doesn't count...)



jrista said:


> Bleh...it would be a wonderful day if everyone could just be happy with the fact that pretty much every single camera on the market today puts nearly every camera from the film era to complete and total, utter shame when it comes to IQ. Even when it comes to drum-scanned large format film, while you gain in resolution, even that can't really touch the color depth and brilliance of a high resolution digital sensor these days.


If you look at the popularity of instagram, camera phones and software from places like VSCO, NIK etc you get a strong impression that image quality isn't a high priority for a very large percentage people. Over the last year, I've noticed a huge trend in photographers moving away from image quality perfection towards quality destroying film and art filters in an attempt to give their photos a less clinical/digital look and add more "feeling". I'm left wondering if a rejection of perfection is part of our human psyche. I'm going to side with Canon's APS-C development team on this - IQ, DR, color depth etc are vastly over-rated.


----------



## Zv (May 4, 2014)

sdsr said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > Although I would love to have seen Canon put focus peaking in as standard on the EOS M I think their reasoning behind not including it is simply because the vast majority of people using it would not be using manual focus lenses with it. It's very much a consumer level camera aimed at the amateur. Most of whom will just use the kit lens. To be fair for static subjects you can easily just tap the zoom button to help focus. Focus peaking is more for useful for video. I have ML installed and after the initial "wow - focus peaking!!" moment I haven't really needed it, and I have two FD leneses that I regularly use with it. For me the Magic Zoom function is better especially in bright sunlight.
> ...



Hmmm ... Yeah it is a bit tricky. I have a trick for focus peaking - I put the camera into a monochrome picture style so that it's easier to see the focus peaking colors. The extra contrast helps determine where the peak is. 

In the situation you mentioned are you using a wide aperture? I'd imagine if the objects are that far away it would be quite hard to do selective focus. Usually in that type of scene I'm using hyperfocus as I want the tree AND the building in focus. It's only for relatively close subjects and wide apertures that I would consider using a focusing aid. 

For moving subjects I tend to use the focus scale to set the focus at a pre determined length (say 3 meters for instance) I then wait for the subject to get close to that distance and then fire away. A bit like trap focus, which you can do with ML too. I did that for a St. Patrick's day parade and it worked well. I'm always aware of subject distance and try and keep the focus ring at a distance that is relative so I only need to move it a little. 

I guess after a while you get a feel for manual focus and it's really only super critical stuff where I need the focus peaking. I also think you end up missing the moment if you are bogged down looking at a screen all the time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 4, 2014)

arco iris said:


> For someone who doesn't care about imaging quality, I guess it can be sufficient and they can use low resolution cameras with inferior DR.



Are you suggesting that 22 MP and 12-stops of DR are 'low resolution' and 'inferior DR'? Or perhaps you're suggesting that millions of professional image makers 'don't care about imaging quality'?

More likely, you're merely a familiar troll.


----------



## jrista (May 4, 2014)

Hillsilly said:


> Only because I'm feeling particularly argumentative
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, if you want to get right down to business. In the late 70's, Konika released a camera with a passive AF system. Everyone else followed suit, and released cameras with the same kind of AF system. Canon? Instead of simply "responding" with a "me too" product, they innovated...and created the first active AF system capable of focusing in the dark. 

The T-80, which does count, as it was well into development and just about ready for release when the Minolta AF cameras were released (I mean, it was less than two months later that the T80 hit), was Canon's first modern-ish DSLR AF system and was obviously in development for some time before it's release. That was 1985.

Canon released the first EOS in 1987, two years later, with a completely new CAMERA SYSTEM designed from the ground up. We aren't just talking AF, were talking about the platform that Canon launched to fuel their camera systems for decades, the same system that their current modern cameras are based on. Were talking about a mount system, a flash system, a camera system that spawned Canon's entire photography ecosystem. It takes more than two years to plan and develop such a huge thing, so one has to assume they were already working on it by the time the T-80, a-7000, etc. hit the streets.

So, did Canon "respond" with EOS, an entirely new camera system, just because of the a-7000's AF system? Or did Canon innovate their way into total dominance with a camera system built for a new era from the ground up to support the things their customers demanded? Personally, I think there was a little bit of both "response" and a lot of "lets build something kickass and new that will triple our bottom line". It just takes too much time to R&D up an entirely new camera system from scratch for it to just be purely in response to the AF dslrs that hit in '86. The plan had to have already been in motion before hand.


----------



## AvTvM (May 4, 2014)

F*ck focus peaking and all that video-style sh*t. All I want is a kick-butt, precise and fast af system. To hell with manual focus rings. I am done with that since the 1970s. 

I want an oculus rift grade evf instead of those laggard mickey mouse vga evfs. Along with a good af-system with af fields all over the place all the way out to the corners.


----------



## jrista (May 4, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> F*ck focus peaking and all that video-style sh*t. All I want is a kick-butt, precise and fast af system. To hell with manual focus rings. I am done with that since the 1970s.
> 
> I want an oculus rift grade evf instead of those laggard mickey mouse vga evfs. Along with a good af-system with af fields all over the place all the way out to the corners.



???


----------



## traingineer (May 5, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> I want an *oculus rift* grade evf instead of those laggard mickey mouse vga evfs. Along with a good af-system with af fields all over the place all the way out to the corners.



Zuckulus Rift*


----------

