Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Should

[9VIII]

For what it’s worth, my 2p is that I think Canon is getting it mostly right, but could also use some solid innovation in a few areas.

Really, in terms of DSLR, I think they’re pretty damn good. There are little things like the above-mentioned 4K crop in the 5Dmkiv, not to mention lack of focus peaking, zebras, etc., which, frankly, were a balls-up and probably lost them countless customers to other brands. That’s not even a question of innovation, they have the tech, that’s just some bizarre perceived need to ‘protect’ their video-centric cinema eos line. Sony also have a video-centric line, they sell tons of both types of camera, Canon could learn from that marketing strategy. Different markets which don’t need protecting from each other.

The biggest area for innovation is obvious: mirrorless. I’ve used a lot of mirrorless cameras, I’m surprised Canon are so late to the serious game. They still have time, but it needs to happen and soon and be great. Actually I think EF mount would be great, but then they could do with a line of EF lenses suited to mirrorless (e.g., an ‘L Junior’ series; a bit like Nikon’s 1.8 primes - fast enough, half the size and weight of the 1.4/1.2Ls, weather sealed, quiet, fast AF suited to stills and video, no focus by wire). They’d have time to develop these properly if the mirrorless were EF mount as everyone could use the wide range of EF lenses in the meantime. Stop holding back and put in the features competitors have but make it Canon colour science and build quality, but lighter weight.

Oh and IBIS, how could I forget? Having used that in a high-res Sony, it is very far from a gimmick, great stuff.

But who is IBIS actually great for?
https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gh5s/panasonic-gh5sA.HTM
"Additionally, Panasonic removed in-body image stabilization in the GH5S"

It's crystal clear that Canon does NOT focus on the enthusiast market, they're "consumer" and "professional" and they don't seem to get a lot of marketing data from the sliver of people inbetween.
I would say Canon needs to hire some more social media vloggers for internal testing, but those are the people already buying the SL2 and 6D2, and in general people do love those products.
So who is Canon actually missing?

 

[dak723]

I think part of the problem is that internet reviewers/bloggers/commenters tend to have a bias towards that which is new and novel, whether it is better or not. It gives them something to write about and justifies what they do.

So a company like Sony comes around and gives them quick iterations of camera models, and that gives them work. Canon updates less frequently, and when they release a feature, like Dual Pixel AF, they tend to get it right the first time, so they don't need so many updates.

Another example: ergonomics. Canon gets it right and has for years. So their new models tend to follow a familiar design layout for controls and ergonomics. That's a good thing, and it makes it easy for a user to go from one Canon model to another. But there's not much to comment on.

Sony seems to wrestle with its ergonomics with every release, and so internet pundits have something to write about.

With Canon, internet reviewers don't want to just write something like "well, it's another super solid, performing release from Canon."

Bottom line: that which makes for an interesting life as a reviewer is not the same that makes for a great product for customers, and is often the opposite.

Absolutely correct, in my opinion. Without the internet, the camera "conversation" would be about the important innovations - most of which were solved many years ago - color, AF, contrast, lenses, ergonomics. As someone who grew up before smartphones - where every new release has to be "innovative" and "exciting" - it is pretty obvious that digital photography was already a mature technology with the first few DSLR releases. Every generation after has been minor upgrades. Mirrorless is still fairly new and thus almost all the innovations that people crave are in the mirrorless realm. Since Sony has the head start of mirrorless FF, they are looked at as being the most innovative. Having tried the earlier Sonys and owning two mirrorless cameras, there is only one innovation that I have found really useful - and that happens to be Canon's rear-screen touch focusing.

I find it pretty humorous that folks expect Canon to just somehow - magically perhaps - become the leader in all aspects of camera-making. They ignore the fact that other companies have patents, too - some of which may be better and even if not, prevent Canon from solving particular problems. Some companies have more experience and are putting more effort into the video aspects - so it should be no surprise that they may be ahead on that front. What wold you prefer, that Canon makes less lenses every year and spends more of their resources trying to solve the heating issues that come with 4K? On the internet, the answer is probably pretty obviously 4K. Not sure most photographers would agree.

I can't speak for most photographers, but I would guess that many think that color is the most important aspect of their photography. In the opinion of many, Canon has the best color science. Why can't Sony innovate in the most basic element of photography? Well, you can't really measure it and it is subjective, so it's not important in the internet age. Perhaps most photographers would agree that lenses are the most important past of the system. But lenses aren't innovative, so they don't count much in the internet age. Same can be said for ergonomics and reliability.

 

[Don Haines]

I can't speak for most photographers, but I would guess that many think that color is the most important aspect of their photography. In the opinion of many, Canon has the best color science.

I’m not sure here.....

My impression of the “great unwashed masses” is that few of them realize that there is a difference, and that colour is colour.....

 

[Mikehit]

But who is IBIS actually great for?
https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gh5s/panasonic-gh5sA.HTM
"Additionally, Panasonic removed in-body image stabilization in the GH5S"

It's crystal clear that Canon does NOT focus on the enthusiast market, they're "consumer" and "professional" and they don't seem to get a lot of marketing data from the sliver of people inbetween.
I would say Canon needs to hire some more social media vloggers for internal testing, but those are the people already buying the SL2 and 6D2, and in general people do love those products.
So who is Canon actually missing?

They removed IBIS from the GH5s because that camera is aimed squarely at serious video production teams and those guys most commonly put their cameras on gimbals. And there has been a lot of comment from professionals that gimbal+IBS = not good. So they took it out.
Of course, internet forums and gear sites are full of wannabe and youtube vloggers who think it best to handhold so the most vociferous ones are likely the ones (in this particular instance) whose opinion does not matter in Panasonic's design criteria.

 

[privatebydesign]

But who is IBIS actually great for?
https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gh5s/panasonic-gh5sA.HTM
"Additionally, Panasonic removed in-body image stabilization in the GH5S"

It's crystal clear that Canon does NOT focus on the enthusiast market, they're "consumer" and "professional" and they don't seem to get a lot of marketing data from the sliver of people inbetween.
I would say Canon needs to hire some more social media vloggers for internal testing, but those are the people already buying the SL2 and 6D2, and in general people do love those products.
So who is Canon actually missing?

They removed IBIS from the GH5s because that camera is aimed squarely at serious video production teams and those guys most commonly put their cameras on gimbals. And there has been a lot of comment from professionals that gimbal+IBS = not good. So they took it out.
Of course, internet forums and gear sites are full of wannabe and youtube vloggers who think it best to handhold so the most vociferous ones are likely the ones (in this particular instance) whose opinion does not matter in Panasonic's design criteria.

It also allowed Panasonic to fit a bigger sensor in the body which meant they could maximize the crop ratios. They actually did an amazingly nice engineering job with the sensor size and the various aspect ratios that maximizes the image circle in each format at the expense of never using the entire sensor because of the vignetting in the corners. Very nice work.

 

[Tahoejr]

I probably should have stated that the 10X mirror-less growth figure since 2012 was for pro models only. Those costing more than $1000 for the body. In other words, those most likely to impact Canon's full frame share.

A small figure for sure, but definitely growing with all of the new models being announced.

 

[Jack Jian]

May I ask what the need is for full frame 4K? I don't find the crop in the 1d to be a terrible thing.

It's required only by Internet forum "video makers", all [or majority] serious project outside the Internet forum uses S35 format which is very close to APS-C crop, because of which Canon apply a similar crop to 5D IV and 1Dx II (targeting real video makers). Pros knows and appreciate it with no complains, but Internet forum pros rattles like a half empty vessel with a marble in it.

Hm, I do know what you’re saying and sort of partly agree, but with the caveat that while the 1Dxii 1.3 crop is pretty much fine, the 5Div crop of 1.7 is getting a bit unworkable once you consider you can’t use Canon EF-S lenses on it, so no much in the way of wide angles are easily achievable.

sigma says hi. samyang says helllo.

considering EF-S doesn't have cini lenses, and they have APS-C cini lenses...

1.3 crop is in the middle and you can't get UWA with 1.3 crop and you can't use APS-C lenses on it.

Neither Sigma nor Samsung say hello if you want reliable DPAF, which is one of the best things about Canon’s video right now.

As far as I know, when watching a video (movie) on a big screen, a shallow DOF is never pleasant and is often avoided (go watch a movie to see that). I believe the modern APS-C size is derived from the film videos days where a smaller format frame is crammed vertically in a reel and Anamorphically compressed to retain the wide screen format. now that in digital age, instead of going for Anamorphic compression, the digital sensor is stretched to give the Super 35 frame. 70mm in film days are to get higher resolution (rather than FOV) due to projection resolution limitations of the APSC/S35 frame in the 35mm film reel. That is now replaced by high resolution 4K/6K/8K etc sensors. We won't likely see MF or 700 equivalent video sensors.

S35/APS-C benefit in movie is a deeper DOF albeit larger aperture, and sharp corners, better vignetting, lower cost, less bulk etc.

And for some people commenting on wide angle FOV, in a movie or any 'Proper' video viewed on a big screen, UWA is not that great and how many scene is shot on UWA? 24mm to 85mm is the most common range which is in more natural FOV. Even if a wide landscape is shot, it's usually done on longer lens shoot from far distance. So, I do not find arguing on favoring FF because of UWA lens not practical.

I believe Canon came up with the APS-H, 1.3x crop to accommodate the speed requirement on the 1D series to achieve that speed, both mechanically and electronically, but now that technology has advanced, it's no longer an issue and is now back to proper FF.

All in all, that's what, Canon always consulted the real working Professionals (not to be confused with self style pros who buys skills via latest gadgets) and implements what is required in the field, which is practical and their tools does what it's suppose to do exactly without any hiccups which is why Canon leads the pack since a long time and will continue to be for long.

 

[Woody]

Canon invest a lot of their innovations in lens design. Yes, there are holes to plug. But they are generally quite well ahead of the rest of the pack.

 

[unfocused]

Looks like a lot of people need to go out and buy a dictionary. Most of what people are complaining about here has nothing to do with technological innovation. Rather most are simply complaining about implementation of existing technology.

The hard truth that some people don't want to accept is that by any objective standard Canon is one of the most innovative companies in the world. The consistently lead the market in patents. They are frequently showcasing new cutting edge technologies (Just look at some of their past videos on extreme low-light imaging, such as the one a few years back that was lit by fireflies). In fact, there has not been any big innovation in DSLRs by anyone since Canon's dual-pixel autofocus was developed.

The pace of innovation has slowed among all camera manufacturers, which is only natural, since we are now well into the second decade of affordable digital imaging. It's a maturing industry and like all mature industries, the pace of development slows down.

But, most of the people here are just whining because Canon has not implemented all the available technology in their lowest-priced full frame DSLR. Gee. What a shock.

The 6D has always been the budget DSLR, not the leading edge camera. Canon prices it at under $2,000 and then leaves enough room in the margins so it can be discounted to under $1,500 within a few months of introduction. Happened with the 6DI and now with the 6DII. What about entry-level do people not understand?

And, by the way, people might actually want to read the original article that CR Guy linked to. The whole premise of the article is that Canon actually does innovate, it's just that the innovations take the form of rock solid, reliable performance.

Canon makes cameras that have the most important and fundamental features right. Bells and whistles are fine and are things to get excited about, but if the core features of how a camera is supposed to operate are compromised then it's no longer practical. These are some of the reasons why Canon continues to dominate. The thing to consider here is that Canon has already innovated because they're still ahead when it comes to how their cameras perform for the majority of professionals. Their competitors just don't have the lenses, the autofocus features, or the color science they offer. Has Canon stopped innovating? Not at all if anything they have already provided the most important innovations and it's other companies that are playing catch-up.

 

[Jack Jian]

My problem with canon's innovation is strictly on the video side. Other companies are just giving you more for your money, I don't have to go down the list. I understand some things with other companies may not work how you would expect but if you have any skill with a camera it isn't hard to overcome. Also I do not appreciate that people are saying that you do not need 4k as if it were some future technology only available to NASA. 4k displays can be found for a cheaper price than I would pay for a battery grip and with a reasonable codec editing 4k footage on consume laptops and desktops is not an impossible task how people make it seem.

For stills I am not a pro but form observation sony has closed the gap with the a9 and riii. They may not have the color science down but in terms of detail and DR I would say they have the upper hand. Focus speed seems to be equal if not sony has the upper hand. In terms of low light performance I believe Sony has the upper hand here as well. It seems like the only thing holding sony back from pros is a mature line of glass and it is simply new to them. This makes me wonder why people are complacent with canon being complacent.

Other companies are just giving you more for your money: Most of it are just gimmicks especially targeted to internet enthusiasts. There are lot more than the "4K" label when it comes to video production.

Focus speed seems to be equal if not sony has the upper hand. (all system's pro line up works the same, all did what they are suppose to do) In terms of low light performance I believe Sony has the upper hand here as well. Most serious projects requires me to shoot between ISO 640 - 6400, where the base DR/ISO of the other system isn't even applicable. bright backlits always warrants for a lighting, even 16 stops of DR can't substitute flash in this kind of case, although there are few cases where DR helps, but still, it's never the money shot, so 11ev of DR is more than enough if you know what you are doing. (These are from my experience.)

 

[rrcphoto]

I probably should have stated that the 10X mirror-less growth figure since 2012 was for pro models only. Those costing more than $1000 for the body. In other words, those most likely to impact Canon's full frame share.

A small figure for sure, but definitely growing with all of the new models being announced.

got some info to back that up with? I'd love to see it.

in 2012 what mirrorless pro models were there anyways? none. your stats are a little flawed.

 

[alienman]

My problem with canon's innovation is strictly on the video side. Other companies are just giving you more for your money, I don't have to go down the list. I understand some things with other companies may not work how you would expect but if you have any skill with a camera it isn't hard to overcome. Also I do not appreciate that people are saying that you do not need 4k as if it were some future technology only available to NASA. 4k displays can be found for a cheaper price than I would pay for a battery grip and with a reasonable codec editing 4k footage on consume laptops and desktops is not an impossible task how people make it seem.

For stills I am not a pro but form observation sony has closed the gap with the a9 and riii. They may not have the color science down but in terms of detail and DR I would say they have the upper hand. Focus speed seems to be equal if not sony has the upper hand. In terms of low light performance I believe Sony has the upper hand here as well. It seems like the only thing holding sony back from pros is a mature line of glass and it is simply new to them. This makes me wonder why people are complacent with canon being complacent.

Other companies are just giving you more for your money: Most of it are just gimmicks especially targeted to internet enthusiasts. There are lot more than the "4K" label when it comes to video production.

I think the the GH5/GH5s are more than capable video production cameras with the only weakness being auto focus which will not be used in a serious production. Anamorphic 6k, DCI 4K, Log profiles........ You can go down the list. The only cameras that Canon makes that can compete when it comes to video are double the price.

Which sounds more reasonable to you, Buy two 1dx markii's to pair with my c200, or buy a gh5 and gh5s with a pair of speedboosters for my canon glass? Or buy 2 5d4's that are handicap when it comes to video or buy a gh5 and a gh5s?

 

[reef58]

Not complaining really but since this is the conversation:

What is wrong with the 6d2 nothing really expect they failed to raise the bar at all on image quality. Keep everything the same and use one of the updated sensors and they have a winner. They still may have a winner, but I am going to pass.

What is wrong with Canon: Nothing really. I am not jumping ship or predicting doom, but in 2018 if you want a good landscape camera with a tilt screen you have one choice a 6d2 with a very uninspiring sensor.

To me it is an easily fixable situation as a 5d4 with a tilt screen had pretty much all I need / want.

I had to decide between the 5d4 and 6d2 and went 5d4 as I can work around the lack of a tilt screen easier than I can stomach the update to the 6d2.

 

[ethanz]

May I ask what the need is for full frame 4K? I don't find the crop in the 1d to be a terrible thing.

It's required only by Internet forum "video makers", all [or majority] serious project outside the Internet forum uses S35 format which is very close to APS-C crop, because of which Canon apply a similar crop to 5D IV and 1Dx II (targeting real video makers). Pros knows and appreciate it with no complains, but Internet forum pros rattles like a half empty vessel with a marble in it.

Hm, I do know what you’re saying and sort of partly agree, but with the caveat that while the 1Dxii 1.3 crop is pretty much fine, the 5Div crop of 1.7 is getting a bit unworkable once you consider you can’t use Canon EF-S lenses on it, so no much in the way of wide angles are easily achievable.

sigma says hi. samyang says helllo.

considering EF-S doesn't have cini lenses, and they have APS-C cini lenses...

1.3 crop is in the middle and you can't get UWA with 1.3 crop and you can't use APS-C lenses on it.

Neither Sigma nor Samsung say hello if you want reliable DPAF, which is one of the best things about Canon’s video right now.

As far as I know, when watching a video (movie) on a big screen, a shallow DOF is never pleasant and is often avoided (go watch a movie to see that). I believe the modern APS-C size is derived from the film videos days where a smaller format frame is crammed vertically in a reel and Anamorphically compressed to retain the wide screen format. now that in digital age, instead of going for Anamorphic compression, the digital sensor is stretched to give the Super 35 frame. 70mm in film days are to get higher resolution (rather than FOV) due to projection resolution limitations of the APSC/S35 frame in the 35mm film reel. That is now replaced by high resolution 4K/6K/8K etc sensors. We won't likely see MF or 700 equivalent video sensors.

S35/APS-C benefit in movie is a deeper DOF albeit larger aperture, and sharp corners, better vignetting, lower cost, less bulk etc.

And for some people commenting on wide angle FOV, in a movie or any 'Proper' video viewed on a big screen, UWA is not that great and how many scene is shot on UWA? 24mm to 85mm is the most common range which is in more natural FOV. Even if a wide landscape is shot, it's usually done on longer lens shoot from far distance. So, I do not find arguing on favoring FF because of UWA lens not practical.

I believe Canon came up with the APS-H, 1.3x crop to accommodate the speed requirement on the 1D series to achieve that speed, both mechanically and electronically, but now that technology has advanced, it's no longer an issue and is now back to proper FF.

All in all, that's what, Canon always consulted the real working Professionals (not to be confused with self style pros who buys skills via latest gadgets) and implements what is required in the field, which is practical and their tools does what it's suppose to do exactly without any hiccups which is why Canon leads the pack since a long time and will continue to be for long.

I think I agree Jack. FF 4k really doesn't seem like that big of an issue to me. I'm not a professional videographer like in films or anything, but I do use the 1d for videos at my job. Using my 24-70 has never really been a problem with not being wide enough.

 

[Diltiazem]

As expected discussions have moved from the topic of the thrad: innovation.
Let us stick to the topic and see how Canon compared with others in last ten years or so.

Canon's two noteworthy innovations during this time, DPAF and BR element used 35/1.4 II. Most agree, DPAF is the best compared to other AF implementation in video or live view.. BR seems excellent, but available only in one lens.

What is Nikon's innovation during this time? Can't think of any.

How about Sony? People mistakenly attribute many new or relatively new features to 'Sony innovation'.
On sensor ADC? Not a Sony idea.
BSI? No. They were not even first to implement it.
IBIS? No again.
Pixel shift to increase resolution? No.
Mirrorless ILC. No.
Is there anything noteworthy Sony innovated in last 10 years? Can't think of any. Yet, internet pundits keep repeating the myth and we all believe in it.

I think Canon's image problem (among some users) stems from the fact they were late in implementing on chip ADC (DR issue) and mirrorless ILC. Canon is also blamed for limiting video features in ILCs. Some confuse limitation of features with lack of innovation. Not the same thing.

I do hope that Canon innovates more, especially in connectivity. People should be able to upload pictures in internet from the camera. And Canon should match or exceed Nikon in fast action AF for still photography without delay.

 

[Isaacheus]

May I ask what the need is for full frame 4K? I don't find the crop in the 1d to be a terrible thing.

It's required only by Internet forum "video makers", all [or majority] serious project outside the Internet forum uses S35 format which is very close to APS-C crop, because of which Canon apply a similar crop to 5D IV and 1Dx II (targeting real video makers). Pros knows and appreciate it with no complains, but Internet forum pros rattles like a half empty vessel with a marble in it.

Hm, I do know what you’re saying and sort of partly agree, but with the caveat that while the 1Dxii 1.3 crop is pretty much fine, the 5Div crop of 1.7 is getting a bit unworkable once you consider you can’t use Canon EF-S lenses on it, so no much in the way of wide angles are easily achievable.

sigma says hi. samyang says helllo.

considering EF-S doesn't have cini lenses, and they have APS-C cini lenses...

1.3 crop is in the middle and you can't get UWA with 1.3 crop and you can't use APS-C lenses on it.

Neither Sigma nor Samsung say hello if you want reliable DPAF, which is one of the best things about Canon’s video right now.

As far as I know, when watching a video (movie) on a big screen, a shallow DOF is never pleasant and is often avoided (go watch a movie to see that). I believe the modern APS-C size is derived from the film videos days where a smaller format frame is crammed vertically in a reel and Anamorphically compressed to retain the wide screen format. now that in digital age, instead of going for Anamorphic compression, the digital sensor is stretched to give the Super 35 frame. 70mm in film days are to get higher resolution (rather than FOV) due to projection resolution limitations of the APSC/S35 frame in the 35mm film reel. That is now replaced by high resolution 4K/6K/8K etc sensors. We won't likely see MF or 700 equivalent video sensors.

S35/APS-C benefit in movie is a deeper DOF albeit larger aperture, and sharp corners, better vignetting, lower cost, less bulk etc.

And for some people commenting on wide angle FOV, in a movie or any 'Proper' video viewed on a big screen, UWA is not that great and how many scene is shot on UWA? 24mm to 85mm is the most common range which is in more natural FOV. Even if a wide landscape is shot, it's usually done on longer lens shoot from far distance. So, I do not find arguing on favoring FF because of UWA lens not practical.

I believe Canon came up with the APS-H, 1.3x crop to accommodate the speed requirement on the 1D series to achieve that speed, both mechanically and electronically, but now that technology has advanced, it's no longer an issue and is now back to proper FF.

All in all, that's what, Canon always consulted the real working Professionals (not to be confused with self style pros who buys skills via latest gadgets) and implements what is required in the field, which is practical and their tools does what it's suppose to do exactly without any hiccups which is why Canon leads the pack since a long time and will continue to be for long.

I think I agree Jack. FF 4k really doesn't seem like that big of an issue to me. I'm not a professional videographer like in films or anything, but I do use the 1d for videos at my job. Using my 24-70 has never really been a problem with not being wide enough.

Bringing it all back to the original thread topic, it's not that everyone needs super wide 4k, it's more that canon is the only one out of the big three that doesn't offer it yet. It would fit the argument of canon being behind the others

 

[9VIII]

But who is IBIS actually great for?
https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gh5s/panasonic-gh5sA.HTM
"Additionally, Panasonic removed in-body image stabilization in the GH5S"

It's crystal clear that Canon does NOT focus on the enthusiast market, they're "consumer" and "professional" and they don't seem to get a lot of marketing data from the sliver of people inbetween.
I would say Canon needs to hire some more social media vloggers for internal testing, but those are the people already buying the SL2 and 6D2, and in general people do love those products.
So who is Canon actually missing?

They removed IBIS from the GH5s because that camera is aimed squarely at serious video production teams and those guys most commonly put their cameras on gimbals. And there has been a lot of comment from professionals that gimbal+IBS = not good. So they took it out.
Of course, internet forums and gear sites are full of wannabe and youtube vloggers who think it best to handhold so the most vociferous ones are likely the ones (in this particular instance) whose opinion does not matter in Panasonic's design criteria.

It also allowed Panasonic to fit a bigger sensor in the body which meant they could maximize the crop ratios. They actually did an amazingly nice engineering job with the sensor size and the various aspect ratios that maximizes the image circle in each format at the expense of never using the entire sensor because of the vignetting in the corners. Very nice work.

I'm still impatiently waiting for the day someone does that with APS-C.
I loved shooting 4:3 with the Sigma 18-35A on a 5D2 when I had it, but I want the ability to shoot "tall" in a compact body.
Sure, holding a camera sideways isn't that hard, but having native 4:3 support would be a big improvement, I might even stop complaining about the death of APS-H if they gave us a Rebel with multiple aspect ratios.

Better yet, they could start making octagonal sensors (that way you wouldn't waste any silicon off the wafer) and you'd be able to pick almost any aspect ratio without significant cropping.

 

[Talys]

Bringing it all back to the original thread topic, it's not that everyone needs super wide 4k, it's more that canon is the only one out of the big three that doesn't offer it yet. It would fit the argument of canon being behind the others

More accurately, Canon doesn't have a cheap super wide 4k.

 

[dsut4392]

And, as a side topic, perhaps someone can explain to me why the 6DII feature list was such a shock? The 6D cut into 5DIII sales. No doubt. I know enough people (myself included) who compared those cameras against each other when the time came to purchase a body, to understand that the difference was not enough to segregate their market placement. So, why did it come as a surprise that the 6DII held it's intended market position (to be the 'entry level' FF camera)? If you want more bells and whistles, you buy the 5DIV. Seems straight forward to me. Seems like good business practices for Canon, no?

/Rant over...

The 6D in my eyes was positioned as the Canon FF body without the features pros need (high frame rate, dual card slots, top AF system, ruggedness) but with sensor performance up there with the best. The 'shock' was that the 6D2 hasn't kept that market position at all; it's still in the same _price_ bracket, but sensor IQ isn't remotely up there with the best Canon has, and in some ways is worse than the original 6D.

I can't comment on whether it was a good business decision for Canon to widen the gap between 5D4 and 6D2, all I can say is I was expecting to buy one as soon as it was released, but haven't.

 

[Isaacheus]

Bringing it all back to the original thread topic, it's not that everyone needs super wide 4k, it's more that canon is the only one out of the big three that doesn't offer it yet. It would fit the argument of canon being behind the others

More accurately, Canon doesn't have a cheap super wide 4k.

Do they have FF 4k at all? I thought the cine line sensors were smaller than 135. The 1d series (mk2 and C) are both cropped to 1.3 as far as I know