A Brief 2013 Canon Roadmap [CR1]

[EchoLocation]

18-200mm is equivalent to 29-320mm on FF, and both Nikon and Canon offer 28-300mm full frame lenses.  My 28-300L does very well as a 'one lens solution'.

Neuro, problem is that the 28-300 is $3k.  The 18-200 and 270 can be had for $500-$600.  Big difference for a dad wanting to take decent pictures on vacation.  Also, I don't think I'd want to carry the L-series glass around my neck all day at Disney World.  I think on technicallity Roger is incorrect, but on intent he is spot on.

Nikon's 28-300 costs around $1k, while its 18-200 is $850 (new prices), so the gap in price is closing. I predict that the performance gulf between these two lenses will also be nullified whenever the next 28-300 comes out, considering how much of both Canon and Nikon's attention is going to developing new full frame lenses. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon developed a similar non-L lens considering the popularity of Nikon's 28-300.

I think the real discrepancy between full frame and crop is the prohibitive size and price of full-frame standard zooms. A third party 17-50 IS can be had for ~$600, and Canon's superb 17-55/2.8 IS is around $1k. The cheapest full-frame standard zoom with comparable performance is Tamron's $1300 24-70 VC, and I'm hesitant to spend that much on a third-party lens that has been shown to have build quality issues (Roger's report) and IQ inconsistencies (the-digital-picture's sample shots).

I'm considering the 24-120, but I've only been able to find mixed reviews; the consensus is that it's not as good as Canon's 24-105 while being more expensive. At $1300, it's the same price as Tamron's 24-70, which then makes me lust after Nikon's 24-70. Any such comparison makes me long for a reasonably priced standard zoom with fewer compromises than any currently available models. Ironically, I'd probably grab the upcoming 24-70/4 IS if I shot Canon considering the sharpness and light weight it promises. I had fun reading the chagrin on this forum the day it was announced while thinking that I'd love to have it here on the dark side 

if you shoot Nikon, and you're lusting after the 24-70 F4 IS, and the $1500 price isn't too much of an issue, why don't you just buy a Nikon 24-70 for 1500ish used? the Nikon 24-70 2.8 is an amazing lens, and I would never trade mine for an F4 of anything, no matter how sharp it claims to be or how much IS it has.

[c.d.embrey]

Will there be a set of new f/0.6 - f/0.9 prime lenses to accompany the next gen m4/3 sensors, or will the laws of physics be altered to give thin DoF with a 2x crop sensor?

Not everyone wants/needs paper-thin DOF. Most of my advertising still work is shot at f/5.6 to f/16. Most of my motion work at f/2.8 to f/5.6, f/3.5 is about normal.

Expect to see a paper-thin DOF art filter soon.

[c.d.embrey]

I'm pretty much lost for words after this statement...

Those who shoot full frame do so for a number of reasons. One of the biggest for me is the shallow DOF characteristics and closely following that is high ISO noise performance.

As Neuro said, the laws of physics tell me your theory is fundamentaly flawed.

Time doesn't stand still. Moore's law is still working, after all these years. Compare the sensor of the 1Ds to the sensor of the 4Ti ... which is better The 1Ds only has an ISO range of 100 to 1250, the 4Ti has an ISO range from 100 to 12800. Technology marches on. How good do you think the APS_C/DX and M4/3 sensors will be in five years

There are Pro winning awards and getting published in major newspapers and magazine using camera phones. There are amatuers still using wet-plate cameras. Big world out there.

In the near-future I think that many PJs and Editorial and Advertising photographers will be using Smart-Phones to shoot much of their work -- shallow DOF?, there will be an App for that Stick-around, the future is guaranteed to be different from the past.  

[Promature]

Nikon's 28-300 costs around $1k, while its 18-200 is $850 (new prices), so the gap in price is closing. I predict that the performance gulf between these two lenses will also be nullified whenever the next 28-300 comes out, considering how much of both Canon and Nikon's attention is going to developing new full frame lenses. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon developed a similar non-L lens considering the popularity of Nikon's 28-300.

Tamron 18-270 currently $550.
http://www.adorama.com/TM18270PEOS.html

[weekendshooter]

if you shoot Nikon, and you're lusting after the 24-70 F4 IS, and the $1500 price isn't too much of an issue, why don't you just buy a Nikon 24-70 for 1500ish used? the Nikon 24-70 2.8 is an amazing lens, and I would never trade mine for an F4 of anything, no matter how sharp it claims to be or how much IS it has.

Ideally I would prefer something a bit smaller as my main lens; I'm used to only having primes and the 24-70 is a behemoth. I agree that it's a phenomenal lens and I will most likely end up getting it used, but the size is going to take some getting used to. I would be willing to sacrifice f/2.8 if the lens added IS and had no optical compromises, as the 24-70/4 IS seems to promise.

[sanj]

If my 1D X is a brick, then I like bricks!

Amen...!

[sanj]

Do people actually care about APS-C cameras anymore?

I do! I do not own one yet (just sold my 7D) but am really interested in seeing what the next APS-C camera is like... If 5D3 like focus and stop and a half better noise, I am SOLD.

[sanj]

Do people actually care about APS-C cameras anymore?

Small sensors are the future, FF is the past. Expect to see more Pros drop FF and get APS-C/DX and M4/3 in the future.

In 5-7 years (maybe a lot sooner) people will look at FF the same way they do MFD today. Sensor technology gets better every generation -- the next generation m4/3 sensor will be better than a present-day 5D3, count-on-it.

Nope. Naaaa. Says who?

[Marsu42]

Small sensors are the future, FF is the past. Expect to see more Pros drop FF and get APS-C/DX and M4/3 in the future.

On thing won't be in the past: ef lenses are designed for ff sensors, you cannot "update" that fact. So for more mp an expensive ff lens will still have an edge on ff over aps-c, simply you don't just use the center.

[M.ST]

Small sensor cameras are only the future for hobby photographers and as a additional camera for pros which don´t want to use TC´s.

Compare the price of a APS-C camera body with the EF 70-300 IS (L) with the price of a ff camera with an EF 500 mm lens and you know why hobby photographers mostly prefer the APS-C solution if they need a long focal lenght lenses.

In the last few month a lot of pros add a medium format camera to the gear.

Even Art (Art Wolfe) now use a Phase One for Landscapes and the 1D X for wildlife shots.

RE to the big megapixel talk:
I can confirm that a Canon camera with over 40 megapixels is in the field test. But I can´t say if this product hit the market. There a a few different versionen in the field.

[GMCPhotographics]

Small sensor cameras are only the future for hobby photographers and as a additional camera for pros which don´t want to use TC´s.

In the last few month a lot of pros add a medium format camera to the gear.

Even Art (Art Wolfe) now use a Phase One for Landscapes and the 1D X for wildlife shots.

RE to the big megapixel talk:
I can confirm that a Canon camera with over 40 megapixels is in the field test. But I can´t say if this product hit the market. There a a few different versionen in the field.

I know plenty of pro shooters and some regularly use a 7D. As to medium format, I know of only one pro shooter who uses Digital Medium format. In fact all the pro landscapers I know are currently using either 5DII/III's or a 1DX due to their superior live view functionality. I've met a few amatuers using D800's who don't seem to have any tangible requirement for the 36mp other than bragging rights. There are very few photographers who need to enlarge to a massive size.

[neuroanatomist]

18-200mm is equivalent to 29-320mm on FF, and both Nikon and Canon offer 28-300mm full frame lenses.  My 28-300L does very well as a 'one lens solution'.

Neuro, problem is that the 28-300 is $3k.  The 18-200 and 270 can be had for $500-$600.  Big difference for a dad wanting to take decent pictures on vacation.  Also, I don't think I'd want to carry the L-series glass around my neck all day at Disney World.  I think on technicallity Roger is incorrect, but on intent he is spot on.

While I personally don't mind carrying the 28-300L around for a day at an amusement park (and have done so, in fact),  that's a Canon-centric viewpoint (not misplaced here, just saying) and Roger doesn't seem to have that mindset. 

While the IQ is not as good as the Canon L-series lens, Nikon's 28-300mm FX-format lens is cheaper than both Canon's and Nikon's 17-55mm f/2.8 IS/VC offerings, and it's about the same weight and (retracted) size as those 17-55/2.8 lenses.  True, it's about $400 more than the APS-C superzooms, but a FF camera is more costly, so that's not unreasonable at all, IMO, and doesn't make the 'one lens solution' club very exclusive for (Nikon) FF shooters.

[K-amps]

In some ways, Canon is like Intel... Nikon like AMD... AMD once beat Intel to the 1Ghz mark, caught it napping, because Intel was both arrogant and lazy... but then it came back with a Bang and AMD is still playing catch up after a decade...

Err, you are forgetting that Nikon used to be the 800 pound gorilla in the industry, not Canon.
So, according to your analogy, Nikon is now coming back to raclaim their leading position.

Nikon is already feeling the pressure and competatively pricing it's products trying to get back market share...

Again, incorrect.

Recently, Canon has been (grossly?) overpricing their products - in what looks like a misguided attempt to position themselves as the Apple of the camera industry (or something like that).

To see the results of this overpricing strategy, though, just look into the last quarterly results from Canon and Nikon.

Last quarter, Canon's DSLR sales were down compared to 2011.
Canon also lowered their outlook for the year ... for a second time this year.

In comparison, Nikon's DSLR sales were up compared to 2011.
Nikon also revised their yearly projections ... upwards.

FYI, Canon projects sales of 8.8 million DSLR units in 2012 vs 7.1 million for Nikon.
If the last quarter becomes a trend, it won't take too many quarters before Nikon passes Canon as the industry leader.

So, expect Canon's overpricing strategy to be abandoned sometime next year - after they have had two-three more quarters like the last one.

You are Cherry Picking data:

Nikon's price slashing will get them sales, but they will lose profitability.... which is what shareholders are looking for.

On the Canon side, I am not defending their high pricing (heck I have been one of the most vocal critic.. I own a 5d3 see)... But I do feel Canon needs;  and perhaps had their rear end's kicked and I really hope they can get back to the 2005 ways... I think they will because of lower sales and stale sensor tech will catch up.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

"And finally: the rumored high megapixel DSLR (at least 46MP) could be announced during Q3. Unfortunately no specs here, except that it will have 6fps, and a newly designed sensor with very good low ISO performance. No hints about the name, but it will not have the “D” in the name. It's said to be something “very new” and specifically aimed at studio photography. Prototypes already undergoing tests."

6 fps on 46 MP - Would double digic 5 + be able to achieve that? Perhaps double digic 6 down the line...

probably not unless they do some serious rounding up from low 5 point somethings hah

[Don Haines]

Talking about lens caps was getting bit much.

But I'm not done talking about lens caps..... I want canon to come out with a 46 megapixel lenscap......