Consistent loudness is a general marketing strategy. The R5's overheating chorus is an example.... don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.
MacRumors is saying that the headline announcement at next week's Apple Event will be around the iPhone 15, and in particular the high-end version's photo/video specs - so this could be a real thing:
I see the latest R5 II rumour includes a new moniker being 'DIGIC X2s'. Unclear whether it's even true, or just an internal naming convention, but I suspect Canon may wish to emphasise that there is a new generation chip being included, otherwise the unwary (ie like me!) will take one look at the Digic X name, and assume incorrectly it's been the same with no development over a period of years.
Yes, that rumour is for the telephoto lens but the one I was referring to is
The biggest improvement I suspect is using a smaller processor linewidth. Improvements in power consumption and efficiency are some of the benefits - both of which Canon is behind Sony on - at least using CIPA.
True, in terms of Tamron and Sigma later lenses, but there are some pretty terrible third-party lenses.
I see why you referred to next year's iPhone 16 now! Yes, I was thinking when I saw your earlier post that the software development going into VisionPro was likely to be behind that - being Apple they will want to interconnect their devices, and with such a camera-rich (and dependent) device as VisionPro, linking to an advanced, external camera like in the high-end iPhones seems like a natural thing to do.
I disagree.
With the EF 50mm 1.4 so popular and profitable, why do you think they haven't released and RF version yet. I would think it would sell just as well as the EF version. Why are they draging their feet?
and you are allowed to
In the FF mirrorless segment (which was all that I was referring to as Canon was certainly already in mirrorless from 2012/M ecosystem), Sony had it basically to themselves for 6 years.
I didn't say that Canon had to compete in the ff mirrorless segment but they were "late" compared to Sony in that segment. Canon made a commercial decision not to enter within that 6 year period. The R/RP appeared to be rushed ie rebadged versions of the 5Div/6Dii rather than the build-from-scratch R5/6. Maybe the R/RP were the original plan or maybe there was another factor delaying Canon's entry there. Maybe Canon considered that EVFs weren't good enough at the time for FF users to switch. The new LP battery capacity was also needed.
I agree that it wouldn't be a paradigm shift as live view (using the rear screen) was essentially the same. The disruption was due to the rise of camera phones at a cheap level and sharing ability that dedicated cameras couldn't match. The main difference for R mount was redesign of lenses for mirrorless bodies - and a bit of body weight loss/size and increased power consumption.
Canon are in good shape based on market share, profitability and R body range given the rapid product shift over the last 5 years. I believe that Canon (and particularly Nikon) lost a reasonable number of customers who went to Sony that maybe would have stayed if Canon has a competitive product but they haven't materially imapcted the overall financial figures.
I concur. The thing that determines a nice shot is rarely the ultra hair raising sharpness of the new designer lenses. In the age of influencer reviewers and test charts etc etc I think we have placed technique and skill on the back burner and hyperfocused on lens' performance. They get sponsored and paid by the camera companies, after all.
That does make a lot of sense.
Maybe it's a semantic thing. Later has a different connotation than late. If the event starts at noon and you arrive at 11:00a while I arrive at 11:30a, I was later than you, but neither of us was 'late'.
You can choose to believe that. However, the data showing that Canon's market share remained essentially stable, while Sony made substantial gains and Nikon suffered substantial losses, contravene that belief.
I have no idea, but I'm sure there's a good business case for it. Could be that the EF 50/1.4 still sells well enough. Could be that their data suggest giving buyers a choice between an inexpensive lens and an expensive lens is more profitable overall than offering a mid-level option (that does seem to be their general strategy). Could be that they plan to make an RF 50/1.4 but they've prioritized other lenses. Could be they just really don't like @ahsanford and their corporate strategy is intended to make him suffer.
CIPA is - at least for my uses - pretty useless. The R3 is rated at 860 shots/battery charge (in "power saving" mode), but I've gotten 4000 shots on an LP-E19 battery as I tend to chimp very little and shoot bursts (action).
You make money on the high end side and you make money on the entry level.
