Still waiting for high MP canon while Nikon is coming out with new 800

[Sella174]

Canon's so-so M is something of a failure but has niche uses ...

I am actually looking for one with the EF adapter to use on my copy-stand ... provided it can work off an AC adapter and save the (RAW) images directly to a computer ... very niche indeed, huh?

[AvTvM]

Actually, if you read most of my posts on this forum regarding mirrorless cameras, you'll notice that I in fact do say exactly that: that manufacturers must stop equating mirrorless with tiny.

I see it the other way round: Canon AND prosumers need to stop equating "small size" with "inadequate functionality" :-)

camera industry needs to make the same shift company cars made about 10 years ago. Up to then "small car" meant "cheap car" meant "weak, shitty uninspiring car with poor performance, poor safety, poor acceleration, poors brakes, poor heating, poor lights, poor experience, poor and shitty everything. No advanced functions or luxury whatsoever". Think of a Hyundai Pony 1990s. Or a Vauxhall/Opel Astra. Or a Volkswagen Polo back then.

And now think of a 2014 BMW Mini Cooper. Yes it is more expenseive than a large car was in 1995. BUT .. it delivers ... without any bulk.

I want a Canon FF-sensored SMALL mirrorless camera ... with FULL FUNCTIONALITY. AT a price that puts it relative to a fat 5D 3 or 1D-X exactly where a BMW Mini Cooper sits compared to a BMW 5-series sedan or 7-series or an X5.

It can be done. Some Japanese makers have learned the lesson - Sony, Fuji (albeit they try to sell a regular Mini /APS-C at Cooper/FF prices). Canon and Nikon will have to follow soon .. or they will be taught a lesson. :-)

[Chuck Alaimo]

Actually, if you read most of my posts on this forum regarding mirrorless cameras, you'll notice that I in fact do say exactly that: that manufacturers must stop equating mirrorless with tiny.

I see it the other way round: Canon AND prosumers need to stop equating "small size" with "inadequate functionality" :-)

camera industry needs to make the same shift company cars made about 10 years ago. Up to then "small car" meant "cheap car" meant "weak, shitty uninspiring car with poor performance, poor safety, poor acceleration, poors brakes, poor heating, poor lights, poor experience, poor and shitty everything. No advanced functions or luxury whatsoever". Think of a Hyundai Pony 1990s. Or a Vauxhall/Opel Astra. Or a Volkswagen Polo back then.

And now think of a 2014 BMW Mini Cooper. Yes it is more expenseive than a large car was in 1995. BUT .. it delivers ... without any bulk.

I want a Canon FF-sensored SMALL mirrorless camera ... with FULL FUNCTIONALITY. AT a price that puts it relative to a fat 5D 3 or 1D-X exactly where a BMW Mini Cooper sits compared to a BMW 5-series sedan or 7-series or an X5.

It can be done. Some Japanese makers have learned the lesson - Sony, Fuji (albeit they try to sell a regular Mini /APS-C at Cooper/FF prices). Canon and Nikon will have to follow soon .. or they will be taught a lesson. :-)

See, this is what I don't get.  As you (AVTVM) demand for smaller, FF, and mirrorless you - while on the other end you have sella who doesn't need FF and doesn't mind larger form factor.  This is all being said in a thread about how canon must respond to the new d800, which isn't a mirrorless camera. 

So that brings me right back to the question I asked - how many canon users are buying A7's because of DR/MP, vs how many do in fact want/desire/need mirrorless?  I would be willing to bet the latter is true, most are buying an A7 for DR/MP reasons.  I draw this conclusion because the A7 appeals to a segment of folks who like canon and want to stay with canon but want more DR/MP now - folks with 10k in glass that they don't want to sell it all off to switch systems nor do they have the $$$ to add the additional system.  these users can flirt with sony until canon does come out with a high MP body- because we all know it's gonna happen it's just a matter of when. 

[Roo]

Actually, if you read most of my posts on this forum regarding mirrorless cameras, you'll notice that I in fact do say exactly that: that manufacturers must stop equating mirrorless with tiny.

I see it the other way round: Canon AND prosumers need to stop equating "small size" with "inadequate functionality" :-)

camera industry needs to make the same shift company cars made about 10 years ago. Up to then "small car" meant "cheap car" meant "weak, shitty uninspiring car with poor performance, poor safety, poor acceleration, poors brakes, poor heating, poor lights, poor experience, poor and shitty everything. No advanced functions or luxury whatsoever". Think of a Hyundai Pony 1990s. Or a Vauxhall/Opel Astra. Or a Volkswagen Polo back then.

And now think of a 2014 BMW Mini Cooper. Yes it is more expenseive than a large car was in 1995. BUT .. it delivers ... without any bulk.

I want a Canon FF-sensored SMALL mirrorless camera ... with FULL FUNCTIONALITY. AT a price that puts it relative to a fat 5D 3 or 1D-X exactly where a BMW Mini Cooper sits compared to a BMW 5-series sedan or 7-series or an X5.

It can be done. Some Japanese makers have learned the lesson - Sony, Fuji (albeit they try to sell a regular Mini /APS-C at Cooper/FF prices). Canon and Nikon will have to follow soon .. or they will be taught a lesson. :-)

You really need to pick better examples:P  A BMW Mini Cooper is a much bigger car than the original Mini Cooper so it has plenty of 'bulk'.  Similarly a new Toyota Corolla is now bigger in every dimension than a 1990 Camry and even the current Polo is a little bigger than the Golf Mk2.  Hyundai were a developing brand in the 80s and 90s, much like the Japanese manufacturers were during the 60s and 70s, and now their pricing an features are much the same as everyone else.  The majority of cars are far superior than those of 10 or more years ago but that doesn't make us better drivers.

I could point out that mobile phones went smaller and smaller but started to grow in size again once we realised we liked the features of a smartphone but then this whole conversation is now so far off the original thread topic now it's ridiculous.

[johnf3f]

Children please stop squabbling!
If Canon don't make the high MP camera that you think you want/need the go buy from someone who does. It is pointless going on ad infinitum about what they don't make, if you really want 30+mp go buy it and stop whingeing. If there are enough of you then Canon will change their products - though when you discover (as I have) the advantages of more modest MP sensors we will welcome you back.

Yes that's right I am quoting myself!
I wish to retract this post as I feel it detracts from this thread, sorry for posting it folks.

I am having so much fun reading the complete ** here that I don't want it to stop! I am having a great laugh at it - please continue! It is a bit disappointing to read the lack of knowledge/experience of many posters (and I don't claim to be an expert) however it is quite amusing so please don't stop.

[sagittariansrock]

Actually, if you read most of my posts on this forum regarding mirrorless cameras, you'll notice that I in fact do say exactly that: that manufacturers must stop equating mirrorless with tiny.

I see it the other way round: Canon AND prosumers need to stop equating "small size" with "inadequate functionality" :-)

camera industry needs to make the same shift company cars made about 10 years ago. Up to then "small car" meant "cheap car" meant "weak, shitty uninspiring car with poor performance, poor safety, poor acceleration, poors brakes, poor heating, poor lights, poor experience, poor and shitty everything. No advanced functions or luxury whatsoever". Think of a Hyundai Pony 1990s. Or a Vauxhall/Opel Astra. Or a Volkswagen Polo back then.

And now think of a 2014 BMW Mini Cooper. Yes it is more expenseive than a large car was in 1995. BUT .. it delivers ... without any bulk.

I want a Canon FF-sensored SMALL mirrorless camera ... with FULL FUNCTIONALITY. AT a price that puts it relative to a fat 5D 3 or 1D-X exactly where a BMW Mini Cooper sits compared to a BMW 5-series sedan or 7-series or an X5.

It can be done. Some Japanese makers have learned the lesson - Sony, Fuji (albeit they try to sell a regular Mini /APS-C at Cooper/FF prices). Canon and Nikon will have to follow soon .. or they will be taught a lesson. :-)

You think a 2014 Mini Cooper is exactly the same as a BMW 5-series (not even mentioning the other two lines) in a smaller package? How?

On topic: Companies like Canon do a lot of market research before plonking a FF sensor in a mirrorless body (and similar new models). They do not rely on intuition or what a few people might want- because it has to be profitable.
So if Canon isn't bringing out a mirrorless FF (so haven't anyone other than Sony yet) there must be an economically valid reason.
Tell me, why hasn't Sony brought out those A7/r compatible lenses yet. Only 4 lenses for the world's only FF mirrorless camera, and they are more intent on bringing out a 3rd model. Please tell me this demonstrates an amazing demand of their existing FF models. IMO, it is because Sony is experiencing lower sales than expected in the mirrorless STILLS market and therefore brought out the A7s to give the line a shot in the arm through 4K video. They aren't sure of the viability of this line, so are not investing in new FF E-mount lenses until they see sales take off.
It's a guess, but an informed one.

[Sella174]

On topic: Companies like Canon do a lot of market research before plonking a FF sensor in a mirrorless body (and similar new models).

Proof? (And a budget isn't really proof ... it just means that the MR dept. knows how to spend money.)

They do not rely on intuition or what a few people might want- because it has to be profitable.

A marketing dept. is "a few people" ... but that is not my point. Rather it is that if you give the "trendsetters" what THEY want, then the sheeple will follow. Basic marketing theory.

So if Canon isn't bringing out a mirrorless FF (so haven't anyone other than Sony yet) there must be an economically valid reason.

They don't have the technology for it and purchasing said technology will make it unprofitable. So, yes, there is an economically valid reason.

Tell me, why hasn't Sony brought out those A7/r compatible lenses yet. Only 4 lenses for the world's only FF mirrorless camera, and they are more intent on bringing out a 3rd model. Please tell me this demonstrates an amazing demand of their existing FF models.

Yes, Canon has made dozens of lens models, but how many do you actually need? Is the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II not sufficient for nearly everyone's FF needs?

IMO, it is because Sony is experiencing lower sales than expected in the mirrorless STILLS market and therefore brought out the A7s to give the line a shot in the arm through 4K video. They aren't sure of the viability of this line, so are not investing in new FF E-mount lenses until they see sales take off.
It's a guess, but an informed one.

Good guess, only partially correct. MY guess is that Sony is optimizing the various cameras for the various needs of various photographers. For those people who primarily do video, there's now the A7s; for those who primarily do stills, there's the A7r; and for those on a budget, there's the A7. Is Canon not doing the same with the 1DC, the 5DIII and the 6D cameras, respectively? Yes, they are.

[RLPhoto]

Step 1: agree on the question.

Step 2: we'll never get to step 2.

We'll never get to step 1, because RLPhoto keeps changing the question.  Here's the quick summary:

RLP:  Sony sensors are better than Canon, anyone who disagrees is in denial.

Neuro:  The best Canon sensor is better than the best Sony sensor at higher than ISO 800

RLP:  You confirmed my statement, Sony sensor tech is better.  Check out the D4s.

Neuro:  Sony doesn't make the sensor in the D4s.

RLP:  I don't care if Nikon or Sony make the sensor.  Nikon uses sensors in their cameras that are better at every ISO setting when you compare equivalent bodies.

Neuro: The 6D has better DR at high ISO than the D600.

RLP:  What about some other cameras?

It's a tactic that some people trolls like to use on the Internet.  When shown information/data that contradict their statements, they pretend those data don't exist and then change their statements.  It's a tactic that's also frequently employed by petulant children who refuse to admit when they're wrong.

You seem like the child here neuro. Sony or Nikon sensor, it was a loose term but instead your egotism can't let you lose an argument so I decided to draw you out and yet you are still wrong.

1. Posting comparisons between incorrect bodies. (1dx-d800?)
2. Then denying the equivalent sensor is better. (D4s>1Dx)
3. Then posting childish images. (Who's the child here?)
4. Cherry picks the one camera in a lineup (6D-d600) and ignores the rest as proof of better sensors.

Quite frankly, I think all these threads have rotted your mind. I find it crazy that such a person as yourself continues to defend what is hopelessly wrong. Canon sensors are behind Nikon sensors.

I don't care if they are but it seems to hurt you very much. That's why I went along with this because again, your in denial.

Since this is all too complicated for you, let me make it real simple.

Who has better sensors canon or nikon?

I do not understand how you can make  statement  that one sensor is better than another above 800iso
This is DR and iso figures from 5dmk3 and D600.
Lars

Great, another person in denial.

[Roo]

Step 1: agree on the question.

Step 2: we'll never get to step 2.

We'll never get to step 1, because RLPhoto keeps changing the question.  Here's the quick summary:

RLP:  Sony sensors are better than Canon, anyone who disagrees is in denial.

Neuro:  The best Canon sensor is better than the best Sony sensor at higher than ISO 800

RLP:  You confirmed my statement, Sony sensor tech is better.  Check out the D4s.

Neuro:  Sony doesn't make the sensor in the D4s.

RLP:  I don't care if Nikon or Sony make the sensor.  Nikon uses sensors in their cameras that are better at every ISO setting when you compare equivalent bodies.

Neuro: The 6D has better DR at high ISO than the D600.

RLP:  What about some other cameras?

It's a tactic that some people trolls like to use on the Internet.  When shown information/data that contradict their statements, they pretend those data don't exist and then change their statements.  It's a tactic that's also frequently employed by petulant children who refuse to admit when they're wrong.

You seem like the child here neuro. Sony or Nikon sensor, it was a loose term but instead your egotism can't let you lose an argument so I decided to draw you out and yet you are still wrong.

1. Posting comparisons between incorrect bodies. (1dx-d800?)
2. Then denying the equivalent sensor is better. (D4s>1Dx)
3. Then posting childish images. (Who's the child here?)
4. Cherry picks the one camera in a lineup (6D-d600) and ignores the rest as proof of better sensors.

Quite frankly, I think all these threads have rotted your mind. I find it crazy that such a person as yourself continues to defend what is hopelessly wrong. Canon sensors are behind Nikon sensors.

I don't care if they are but it seems to hurt you very much. That's why I went along with this because again, your in denial.

Since this is all too complicated for you, let me make it real simple.

Who has better sensors canon or nikon?

I do not understand how you can make  statement  that one sensor is better than another above 800iso
This is DR and iso figures from 5dmk3 and D600.
Lars

I'm surprised the found a D600 clean enough to get a reading off 

[3kramd5]

I don't get why people want to shoot with high ISO or case so much.

I disagree. You do get it

At that point you've decided that getting the shot is more important than absolute IQ.

Exactly. It may not be as pretty as a low ISO studio shot, but you can't very well bring birds in flight into a studio setting. Noise > unintended motion blur.

[neuroanatomist]

I don't think it is me that is having trouble reading or comprehending

Person X: Vendor A's sensor is the best because the graph is better at ISO J

Person Y: NO! Vendor B's sensor is better because the graph is better at ISO K

If you don't think so, then I question your capacity for metacognition.

Here's what was actually stated, put in simple statements analogous to yours, which might help you comprehend:

Person R:  Vendor Q's sensor is the best.

Person N:  Vendor Q's sensor is not better at higher than ISO X, and here are data to support that claim.

I don't get why people want to shoot with high ISO or case so much. At that point you've decided that getting the shot is more important than absolute IQ.

'Getting the shot' is what photography is all about – getting the shot is ALWAYS more important than 'absolute IQ'.

If you actually believe that 'absolute IQ', I'd say your a hypocrite unless you own a Phase One IQ280...and despite owning one, you don't use it because you know that soon the IQ380 will be out, then the IQ480, etc., so any pictures you take today will eventually have pretty poor IQ relative to the soon-to-be-current 'absolute IQ'.

[Sella174]

... but you can't very well bring birds in flight into a studio setting.

Go tell that to the BBC ... Anyone remember that flying geese setup they did with the bicycle?

[sagittariansrock]

How many lenses a year does Canon introduce as new?
How many new EF-S lenses has Canon brought out in the last year?
How many new lenses for EOS-M did Canon announce with the new camera?

1. Canon has a long-term, stable range at the moment. They do not need to bring out a bunch every year.
2. Canon has vested interest in APS-C users going for EF lenses, as can be easily deduced. Nevertheless, point # 1 still works in this case.
3. Is it hard to see how much faith Canon has in the mirrorless market (which, ironically, validates my point). Just look at their investment in the last couple of years.

Yes, and?
Do you think Canon developed the entire line of EOS lenses in one year? Or a hand full of years?

There is nothing to think, I believe in cold, hard facts. Canon introduced the EOS range with 12 lenses and an extender. In a couple of years, yes.

Or that you have misunderstood how long it takes to develop one new lens, not to forget the cost and difficulty.

As I showed above, I don't rely on subjective understanding but on objective data. It does take a long time to develop a lens from scratch, but not so much to adapt A-mount lenses that already exist to FF E-mounts. It is a more long-term and expensive route than asking users to utilize the adapter, so Sony will do that only if they know the FF E-mount will be worthwhile.
FYI, you think developing the new sensor and tech for the A7s did not take time, money or labor?

Proof? (And a budget isn't really proof ... it just means that the MR dept. knows how to spend money.)

If I have to prove to you multi-million dollar firms conduct (effective) market research, then I give up. Do you also ask for proof that the earth revolves around the sun? How about a circumstantial evidence? Sony is down in the stocks and Canon turned a profit. Proof enough for you?

A marketing dept. is "a few people" ... but that is not my point. Rather it is that if you give the "trendsetters" what THEY want, then the sheeple will follow. Basic marketing theory.

Marketing (sic= should be market research) dept doesn't count as the few people. They record what people want, they don't impose their own wants.
Trendsetter based marketing is not a basic marketing theory. Is it what they taught you at school? You should ask for your money back.
This is a very risky technique that will work only under certain conditions: Is the number of trendsetter significantly large? How likely are they to influence the rest of the market? Can the company sustain the slow growth in the beginning until the trend catches? What is the likelihood of competition waiting the initial lag phase and then ramping up just as the log phase is reached.

They don't have the technology for it and purchasing said technology will make it unprofitable. So, yes, there is an economically valid reason.

Yes, that is one possibility. That is why I generalized it to an economically valid reason. However, unlike you I don't have access to Canon's business secrets to state it as a fact.

Yes, Canon has made dozens of lens models, but how many do you actually need? Is the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II not sufficient for nearly everyone's FF needs?

Don't make such comments that make you look silly just for the sake of arguments. So this is why Sony isn't bringing out FF E-mount lenses? Because very few people need them?
I am guessing you have never used a macro lens, or shoot small birds with a 70-200 f/2.8?

Good guess, only partially correct. MY guess is that Sony is optimizing the various cameras for the various needs of various photographers. For those people who primarily do video, there's now the A7s; for those who primarily do stills, there's the A7r; and for those on a budget, there's the A7. Is Canon not doing the same with the 1DC, the 5DIII and the 6D cameras, respectively? Yes, they are.

You are stating the obvious, and acting smug for doing so  . Of course the different A7 cameras cater to different markets; my point was, bringing out the A7s while the A7/r setup is still lacking the lenses might imply that the stills market isn't as profitable as they hoped, so they are trying to boost the entire line by bringing out the video-centric model.

[AvTvM]

Sony will have a 15 lens lineup for A7, A7R and A7S within a year. They published a roadmap and are sticking to it.
I have yet to see a roadmap from Canon. Would love to know in advance, what they want to bring next.

I also LOVE the way Sony brings a "vdieo-optimized" A7S and charges MORE money for it. Rather than Canon compromising their  stills cameras (DSLRs) with video vcrap and not charging anything for it. And then still being whined at all day long by the freakin magic lantern/video folks to give them even more video crap for free ... more zebra stripes, more peaking, more audio levels, more 4k, more mic inputs and other crap I do not want to have on my cameras and I do not want to pay for. I want video folks to buy freakin video cams .. Sony A7s or Canon C100, 200, 300, 400, 500 ... as they please. And PAY for it. Rather than trying to freeriding on bloody stills cameras all the time.

And I would want to buy a Sony A7/R because it is a COMPACT, CAPABLE and MIRRORLESS camera. Unfortunately it is NOT GOOD enough for me. Because Sony chose to put a 200 shot battery into that thing. Because Sony choose to put an inadequate AF-system into it. And most of all, beacause SOny did not get rid of all mechanical crap in i-t and chose to put a sub-par, vibration-inducing cheapo shutter MECHANISM into it, rather than a fully electronic, silent and vibration-free electronoc/global shutter. If they bring an improved A8R, I am going to buy it. Although I really prefer the Canon user interface and own a number of great Canon lenses.

[sagittariansrock]

Sony will have a 15 lens lineup for A7, A7R and A7S within a year. They published a roadmap and are sticking to it.
I have yet to see a roadmap from Canon. Would love to know in advance, what they want to bring next.

I also LOVE the way Sony brings a "vdieo-optimized" A7S and charges MORE money for it. Rather than Canon compromising their  stills cameras (DSLRs) with video vcrap and not charging anything for it. And then still being whined at all day long by the freakin magic lantern/video folks to give them even more video crap for free ... more zebra stripes, more peaking, more audio levels, more 4k, more mic inputs and other crap I do not want to have on my cameras and I do not want to pay for. I want video folks to buy freakin video cams .. Sony A7s or Canon C100, 200, 300, 400, 500 ... as they please. And PAY for it. Rather than trying to freeriding on bloody stills cameras all the time.

And I would want to buy a Sony A7/R because it is a COMPACT, CAPABLE and MIRRORLESS camera. Unfortunately it is NOT GOOD enough for me. Because Sony chose to put a 200 shot battery into that thing. Because Sony choose to put an inadequate AF-system into it. And most of all, beacause SOny did not get rid of all mechanical crap in i-t and chose to put a sub-par, vibration-inducing cheapo shutter MECHANISM into it, rather than a fully electronic, silent and vibration-free electronoc/global shutter. If they bring an improved A8R, I am going to buy it. Although I really prefer the Canon user interface and own a number of great Canon lenses.

A. I saw the roadmap. If Sony does stick to it then we will see. Till then, they will keep losing customers who don't want to wait. On the other hand, maybe they aren't sure there are so many customers to be had, and hence the slow, staggered roadmap- hedging bets.

B. Canon makes a lot of money selling dSLRs to videographers. That reduces cost for everyone, allows development of technology and provides excellent films made inexpensively to consumers. As a person who has personally never used his dSLR for videos, I congratulate the camera manufacturers on adding the excellent video features that don't compromise anything for stills.

C. The battery capacity is hampered by an EVF. You cannot expect all the bells and whistles on a small camera, and also expect great battery life. What would Sony do, put solar panels on the camera to generate electricity? And you talk of shutter shock. The A7 doesn't have it. The megapixels not enough for you?