Today i officially felt left behind with being a Canon shooter

[3kramd5]

I was referring to this exchange. But perhaps I misunderstood.

No, you didn’t, I just wasn’t complete in my own reading (wasn’t considering AVTVM’s second sentence, despite including it in the quote). He was absolutely right in that assessment, and the omission was my own. I often read "MILC can do x, y, and z that SLR can not," and that was largely what I had in mind in my reply.

 

[Ozarker]

Canon is too stodgy and conservative. They have missed out on the mirrorless market. Canon has never been a leader in innovation. Just look at what that little upstart Fuji has done in the same amount of time Canon has been fiddling with their M line. Canon's cachet is great lenses and , rugged, dependable bodies. It looks like they are sticking with that approach. They will still be producing DSLR's was after other company's have abandoned them.

LOL! And what has Fuji done? Nothing, really. Same with Ricoh, Olympus, etc.

 

[Ozarker]

I am not saying the market for DSLRs won't shrink (or even disappear). I'm simply stating that there is no reason to believe that FF MILCs will do any better.

Wisdom. For all I hear about how the ILC market is shrinking (dying) and that somehow MILC is going to save the industry... ^^^^^^^ that is the smartest thing I have read in a long time. There ain't no got dang way MILCs are going to change anything about the popularity of, or gravitation away from, ILC type cameras. Ain't happening.

 

[Don Haines]

Wisdom. For all I hear about how the ILC market is shrinking (dying) and that somehow MILC is going to save the industry... ^^^^^^^ that is the smartest thing I have read in a long time. There ain't no got dang way MILCs are going to change anything about the popularity, or gravitation away, from ILC type cameras. Ain't happening.

agreed. The masses will not notice the difference. The forum fanatics will be talking about earth shattering revolutionary paradigm shifts and the impending death of (insert camera and/or mount here) and expound upon how the never ending flow of Canon patents means that they have given up on research and are not innovative.... and the masses will continue to not notice the difference......

 

[Aglet]

true, thx. . overlooked the Pentax implementation.

@3kramd5 - I stand corrected, you were right to question my statement.

Still wondering whether IBIS in a DSLR will not also come with some "unwanted effects". At least image captured might be slightly off from the one seen in viewfinder, if IBIS moves sensor to an extreme position right at the moment of capture ... eg. in high fps sequence? Can CPU/software/algorithms really sort all of that out? Is that (one of the) reasons why K-1 II can only do 4.4 fps max speed?

Just speculating here:
IBIS processing might be part of it.
I think another reason Pentax may be a bit "slow" is that it's a tradeoff to the image quality.
They will usually extract just a little more IQ from a given sensor technology than Nikon. This might be due, in part, to running all the electronics a little slower for the sensor readout, providing a slightly cleaner image. (compare K-1 to D810, earlier crop bodies) And they do that at a considerably lower price point too. So, without knowing any details about how either company engineers the guts of their products, it may be that Pentax selects some lower grade components to reduce the cost but then runs them (slower) to optimize their performance to maximize IQ.

If anyone knows more on the topic, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[fullstop]

agreed. The masses will not notice the difference. The forum fanatics will be talking about earth shattering revolutionary paradigm shifts and the impending death of (insert camera and/or mount here) and expound upon how the never ending flow of Canon patents means that they have given up on research and are not innovative.... and the masses will continue to not notice the difference......

"the masses" will notice the difference, if they are offered decent cameras (and lenses) that are smaller, lighter, 21st century communicating and less expensive. But if Canon, Nikon and Sony all believe, their ILCs and lenses need to be made always "higher end, extra premium priced", then market shrinkage will continue and intensify.

 

[dtaylor]

"the masses" will notice the difference, if they are offered decent cameras (and lenses) that are smaller, lighter, 21st century communicating and less expensive. But if Canon, Nikon and Sony all believe, their ILCs and lenses need to be made always "higher end, extra premium priced", then market shrinkage will continue and intensify.

FF buyers want high end premium. If you want small, lightweight, decent cameras and lenses then look to crop.

I will admit that Canon is missing an opportunity here. Imagine how well the M series would sell if they just introduced a few more lightweight but high performing primes like the 22mm f/2, and zooms like the EF-M 11-22.

 

[fullstop]

FF buyers want high end premium. If you want small, lightweight, decent cameras and lenses then look to crop.

I will admit that Canon is missing an opportunity here. Imagine how well the M series would sell if they just introduced a few more lightweight but high performing primes like the 22mm f/2, and zooms like the EF-M 11-22.

no. i will not buy expensive crop lenses.
1. If it is expensive, then its gotta be perfectly FF capable or
2. If it is crop only, then its gotta be inexpensive (and really small + light)
as far as I am concerned. Up to now EF-M lenses have met criteria #2 perfectly well. 32/1.4 ... likely not.

But i will NOT buy anything, until i get mirrorfree FF in compact shape, decent IQ and at low price.
I DON'T HAVE to buy.
Canon, Nikon, Sony HAVE to sell.
Advantage on my end.

 

[3kramd5]

Just speculating here:
IBIS processing might be part of it.
I think another reason Pentax may be a bit "slow" is that it's a tradeoff to the image quality.
They will usually extract just a little more IQ from a given sensor technology than Nikon. This might be due, in part, to running all the electronics a little slower for the sensor readout, providing a slightly cleaner image. (compare K-1 to D810, earlier crop bodies) And they do that at a considerably lower price point too. So, without knowing any details about how either company engineers the guts of their products, it may be that Pentax selects some lower grade components to reduce the cost but then runs them (slower) to optimize their performance to maximize IQ.

If anyone knows more on the topic, I'd love to hear about it.

I do think the maximum frame rate of the K-1 is due to the selection of one component in particular. However I don’t think they cheaped out; it’s unquestionably the most expensive single part in the camera, and probably dominates the BOM cost.

 

[TAF]

The meaning has changed. As pointed out in an earlier post, Eye-AF means the AF locks onto the eye of the subject and makes sure it is in perfect focus. AF will remain glued to the subject's eye as the subject moves around. I have tried it with the RX10 IV and found it works remarkably well.

Interesting - and all along I thought we were talking about AF that tracks where the photographer was looking (like the EOS-3 film camera). That would be a very nice feature to have (assuming my glasses didn't screw it up).

Tracking the eye of a person in the photo? I would disable such a feature; it serves no useful purpose for me.

I wonder which it will be?

 

[lb]

Which one?

one of my friends has a Nikon DF and that has only one card slot no problems, in all the time i have been shooting i am the only one with my Canon with 2 slots that has had issues getting my images back from faulty camera problems.????

 

[Kit.]

no. i will not buy expensive crop lenses.

Someone else will.

 

[AlanF]

Interesting - and all along I thought we were talking about AF that tracks where the photographer was looking (like the EOS-3 film camera). That would be a very nice feature to have (assuming my glasses didn't screw it up).

Tracking the eye of a person in the photo? I would disable such a feature; it serves no useful purpose for me.

I wonder which it will be?

All features can be disabled, but they are there if you want them, which is better than not having a choice.

 

[AlanF]

The second slots in my 5Ds have been occupied by unused SD cards waiting for me to fill up the CFs, which has never happened - but one day it will.

 

[Sporgon]

The second slots in my 5Ds have been occupied by unused SD cards waiting for me to fill up the CFs, which has never happened - but one day it will.

I've never put an SD card in my 5Ds yet

Love the arguments over one slot being hopeless. I seem to remember that originally two card slots were fitted so one could be SD, that is SD instead of CF, and that seems to have morphed into having to write to two cards simultaneously in order not to lose all your data.

 

[Random Orbits]

I use the 2nd slot (record to multiple) on our vacations. I also bring a laptop to do editing at night, and then I clear out the memory cards a few weeks after getting home and confirming that all the pics I wanted are off the card. If I'm after framerate, then I write to CF only, but then I might copy the files to the 2nd card in camera afterwards. I've run out of space for the cards, so I often use a second set of CF/SD from the second body.

 

[scyrene]

it's clear the entire market focus is shifting over to mirrorless.

It is?? I must have missed that press release.

 

[jolyonralph]

It is?? I must have missed that press release.

Do pay attention then

 

[dtaylor]

It is?? I must have missed that press release.

Don't worry. The people who say those things don't actually look at sales numbers, where DSLRs still far out sell MILCs.

 

[scyrene]

Canon [has] missed out on the mirrorless market.

LOL what share of the mirrorless market does Canon command?