What if Canon were no longer #1?

[Don Haines]

Not #1 to who?

Apple

 

[dafrank]

First a little history.

I started out, in the 1970's, as a committed amateur photographer, scrimping like mad to purchase a Canon FTb and then an F-1, plus a few basic lenses (the budget Canon 35mm f/3.5 was a favorite). They were both great cameras, especially the F-1. Even then Canon's breech-lock bayonet lenses were especially good and not too expensive. When I decided to jettison my other ambitions and launch my now 40 year career as a successful professional photographer, I spent all of my savings and more, living on soup and optimism, over a couple of years time, to buy what I then considered "pro" film (of course) gear: a Hasselblad CM, the cheapest Sinar 4"x5", and a Nikon F2 with a few lenses for each. They all worked very well, but the Nikon was my least used and the Hassy my most. I shot mostly ad and editorial type people and product stuff then.

Slowly my work shifted more towards national magazine and feature news type work. Then I began using the Nikon more. When the Olympus OM-1 came out, it blew me away. I could replace the Nikons, with nearly identical quality (or sometimes better) results, while reducing my camera bag weight by almost half, and size by about 20%. And that sweet giant viewfinder image has never been bested in an SLR, even up until this day. That was a no brainer for someone who had to have all that could use carried on my shoulders all day.

All this gear lasted until I finally met my wife, and I decided that I needed to travel the world less in order to raise a family. So, I built a pretty impressive studio in order to expand my car shooting business, and went back to bigger format film again, this time selling off the Hassies and, after toying with a Pentax 6x7 for a brief time, going full bore with the Fuji GX680 system, adding 8"x10" to my large format system, and going back to Nikons (F3, F4, F5). Again, I used my medium format system the most, large format a close second, and 35mm film the least. However, those F5's were great cams. I had my own E-6 processing line in-studio for checking my shots 45 minutes after exposure. And, by 1996, I had a series of $50,000.00 high-res drum scanning units and was scanning my film and retouching it on the first serious, non-proprietary desktop computers capable of handling large color bitmap files. Soon thereafter, I then adapted my large format cams to Phase One digital backs.

For many a year I had hoped for some company to create a serious hand held digital camera that could create a decent digital file that could somewhat compare to either the results from a Phase One or from a drum-scanned 6x8 piece of Fuji Provia; there would be no hope of coming near the results from scanned 4x5 or 8x10 film for a very long time afterwards. I saw my first possibility in the Nikon D1X. I bought a couple of very early bodies, among the first to enter the US, so early that they hadn't yet created the firmware to change the menu system from Japanese to English. When Bibble raw file conversion software came along several months later, I could process the results from the odd-shaped native sensor's dimensions to yield a slightly up-res'd image as a decent sized Tiff file with a conventional 2x3 ratio, because only the total vertical pixel count had to be increased in order to achieve a 10 MP file at that ratio. I was almost there with professional hand held digital camera.

Then came the Canon 1DsII, and it changed everything. After testing some pre-production loaners from the local rep at my studio for a couple of weeks, I was flabbergasted. Not only could this cam replace my Nikon D1x's, but also, for me - not everyone - it could replace my Phase One gear, which by that time was only marginally better for most of the work I did. I called and wrote to Nikon brass to ask if they could give me any hope that they would soon, or even in a couple of years, match or exceed what Canon had then - a solid great performing full frame digital camera of 16 MP or more. They refused to comment, except to somewhat insult me in an arrogant tone for even asking them. My path was clear. I sold all my Nikon and Phase One gear and bought a couple of 1Ds's and a whole lot of Canon L glass. That's where I stand today, but now with 5D4's and even more glass. Plus, I have long jettisoned all of my medium and big format gear as well. For my work, I have achieved a great goal, a sort of gear list Nirvana - one system for everything. No it's not perfect, but it works for me, and for my clients.

Sorry for this long detailed story, but there's a point here to be made. Don't switch gear unless there is a very good reason, a goal to be met in your own work (or amateur output) that your current gear just can't meet. We're not talking about one-and-a-third stop of extra HDR here. Plus, eventually small, or even substantial, deficits in camera specs are almost always sea-sawing back and forth between brands over a couple of years time. A better rationale would be that you've switched your interests from macro still-lifes to sports action photography. Then, if had the resources and you could spare the costs, switching from a system that had little available with which to shoot action would be rational and a good reason to spend your available resources. Most people don't have the resources that I had to switch gear around as much as I did, and believe me, if anything, I have way understated the amount of gear, and the changes made to the types and brands that I used over many decades, and I only wish that I now had the cash saved that I sometimes needlessly spent when I wasn't contemplating major changes in my photo work itself. So not switching on a whim of wanting to have the "best" specified or number-one-selling gear is not a very effective position to take if what you want to do is take better pictures. That is rather obviously a matter for the improvement of your skills through self- or formal education and constant practice.

In summation, if Canon falls to number two in sales, but continues to offer what I need to make the pictures I want and need to take, I just don't care, even a little tiny bit.

Happy New Year to all.

Regards, David

 

[Isaacheus]

...peaking being available in the point and shoots but not in the higher end dlsr models. I'm sure there are others, but those do stand out a bit

Yeah, my EOS M and even my PowerShot S100 have in-camera HDR, but they omitted it from my 1D X. What greedy, camera-nerfing bastards, omiting such a critical feature.

Eh, I'm not saying you need to use all the features, but there are some that would be useful to have, peaking for manual focus is one for me personally.

Would I base a purchase on just one or two features not in a camera? Probably not, but having those features does mean I'd be more likely to upgrade /not look elsewhere to options that have more features in one unit.

The food program, yeah, I can live without. I'll give Canon a pass for not including that in the 1dx

Edited for proper sentences etc*

Also, not trying to imply Canon should put every feature into the top line cameras, I was just answering about some features that canon has but don't put in some cameras. Not trying to start a theme of Canon greedy etc (they are a company trying to make money so I don't expect freebies)

 

[neuroanatomist]

...peaking being available in the point and shoots but not in the higher end dlsr models. I'm sure there are others, but those do stand out a bit

Yeah, my EOS M and even my PowerShot S100 have in-camera HDR, but they omitted it from my 1D X. What greedy, camera-nerfing bastards, omiting such a critical feature.

Eh, I'm not saying you need to use all the features, but there are some that would be useful to proper, peaking for manual focus is one for me personally. Would I base a purchase on just one or two features not in a camera? Probably not, but having those features does mean I'd be more likely to upgrade /not look elsewhere to options that have more features in one unit.

The food program, yeah, I can live without. I'll give Canon a pass for not including that in the 1dx

Yes, I understand. Focus peaking is important to you, so they should add it. In-camera HDR is useful for my friend, Alexis, so they should add it. Miniature simulation mode for Mary. Zebras for Xavier (he loves safaris). Fall foliage mode for Fred. Underwater WB for Ulric. Oh, and food photography is the chosen genre of Alexis' brother, Alex, so they should add that, too...it had to go into Shooting Menu 17, that was the next available slot with so many amazing and important features to add. Sadly for Alex, by the time he scrolled to select food mode, the busboy had cleared his perfectly-presented but uneaten meal.

 

[Dylan777]

With featutres in M1and M3 Canon already good enough for #2...Welcome to Canon world :

Welcome to the real world. It's the place most people live, although that 'most' clearly excludes some CR forum members. :

Two different audiences, Canon clearly targeted a budget side. Those want and enjoy more features wouldn't have Canon in their bag. Canon will continue extracts the last juice out of Canon dslr users before they bring out decent mirrorless. Yup max profit for them and careless about their users. We all see how dslr vs mirrorless sale last few years :

 

[Isaacheus]

...peaking being available in the point and shoots but not in the higher end dlsr models. I'm sure there are others, but those do stand out a bit

Yeah, my EOS M and even my PowerShot S100 have in-camera HDR, but they omitted it from my 1D X. What greedy, camera-nerfing bastards, omiting such a critical feature.

Eh, I'm not saying you need to use all the features, but there are some that would be useful to proper, peaking for manual focus is one for me personally. Would I base a purchase on just one or two features not in a camera? Probably not, but having those features does mean I'd be more likely to upgrade /not look elsewhere to options that have more features in one unit.

The food program, yeah, I can live without. I'll give Canon a pass for not including that in the 1dx

Yes, I understand. Focus peaking is important to you, so they should add it. In-camera HDR is useful for my friend, Alexis, so they should add it. Miniature simulation mode for Mary. Zebras for Xavier (he loves safaris). Fall foliage mode for Fred. Underwater WB for Ulric. Oh, and food photography is the chosen genre of Alexis' brother, Alex, so they should add that, too...it had to go into Shooting Menu 17, that was the next available slot with so many amazing and important features to add. Sadly for Alex, by the time he scrolled to select food mode, the busboy had cleared his perfectly-presented but uneaten meal.

I think you've missed the point of my reply initially, i was just giving examples of technologies and features that Canon has available but doesn't include in some of the more expensive models.

The ones I listed are just ones I'm aware of as they would appeal to me.

It doesn't really worry me if Canon don't include certain features, I just won't buy that model if it doesn't fit my needs

 

[privatebydesign]

People have short memories and strange expectations. I remember buying my first F1N after using A1's for years and wondering where all the features were! If you wanted shutter priority you had to buy a grip, if you wanted aperture priority you had to buy a finder, and on it went.

 

[Don Haines]

...peaking being available in the point and shoots but not in the higher end dlsr models. I'm sure there are others, but those do stand out a bit

Yeah, my EOS M and even my PowerShot S100 have in-camera HDR, but they omitted it from my 1D X. What greedy, camera-nerfing bastards, omiting such a critical feature.

Eh, I'm not saying you need to use all the features, but there are some that would be useful to proper, peaking for manual focus is one for me personally. Would I base a purchase on just one or two features not in a camera? Probably not, but having those features does mean I'd be more likely to upgrade /not look elsewhere to options that have more features in one unit.

The food program, yeah, I can live without. I'll give Canon a pass for not including that in the 1dx

D
Yes, I understand. Focus peaking is important to you, so they should add it. In-camera HDR is useful for my friend, Alexis, so they should add it. Miniature simulation mode for Mary. Zebras for Xavier (he loves safaris). Fall foliage mode for Fred. Underwater WB for Ulric. Oh, and food photography is the chosen genre of Alexis' brother, Alex, so they should add that, too...it had to go into Shooting Menu 17, that was the next available slot with so many amazing and important features to add. Sadly for Alex, by the time he scrolled to select food mode, the busboy had cleared his perfectly-presented but uneaten meal.

I think you've missed the point of my reply initially, i was just giving examples of technologies and features that Canon has available but doesn't include in some of the more expensive models.

The ones I listed are just ones I'm aware of as they would appeal to me.

It doesn't really worry me if Canon don't include certain features, I just won't buy that model if it doesn't fit my needs

When the 7D2 came out, I was appalled that it did not have WiFi or a touch screen..... but I got one anyway.....

I think that there always going to be “missing” features based on what Canon thinks most people want (or don’t want) on each particular model. For example, no “green box” mode on the 1DX

 

[Isaacheus]

...peaking being available in the point and shoots but not in the higher end dlsr models. I'm sure there are others, but those do stand out a bit

Yeah, my EOS M and even my PowerShot S100 have in-camera HDR, but they omitted it from my 1D X. What greedy, camera-nerfing bastards, omiting such a critical feature.

Eh, I'm not saying you need to use all the features, but there are some that would be useful to proper, peaking for manual focus is one for me personally. Would I base a purchase on just one or two features not in a camera? Probably not, but having those features does mean I'd be more likely to upgrade /not look elsewhere to options that have more features in one unit.

The food program, yeah, I can live without. I'll give Canon a pass for not including that in the 1dx

D
Yes, I understand. Focus peaking is important to you, so they should add it. In-camera HDR is useful for my friend, Alexis, so they should add it. Miniature simulation mode for Mary. Zebras for Xavier (he loves safaris). Fall foliage mode for Fred. Underwater WB for Ulric. Oh, and food photography is the chosen genre of Alexis' brother, Alex, so they should add that, too...it had to go into Shooting Menu 17, that was the next available slot with so many amazing and important features to add. Sadly for Alex, by the time he scrolled to select food mode, the busboy had cleared his perfectly-presented but uneaten meal.

I think you've missed the point of my reply initially, i was just giving examples of technologies and features that Canon has available but doesn't include in some of the more expensive models.

The ones I listed are just ones I'm aware of as they would appeal to me.

It doesn't really worry me if Canon don't include certain features, I just won't buy that model if it doesn't fit my needs

When the 7D2 came out, I was appalled that it did not have WiFi or a touch screen..... but I got one anyway.....

I think that there always going to be “missing” features based on what Canon thinks most people want (or don’t want) on each particular model. For example, no “green box” mode on the 1DX

Yeah, I don't think any camera is going to have all the features everyone will want. It really comes down to whether the 'missing' features mean the camera can't do what the buyer is hoping to use it for

 

[Dylan777]

...peaking being available in the point and shoots but not in the higher end dlsr models. I'm sure there are others, but those do stand out a bit

Yeah, my EOS M and even my PowerShot S100 have in-camera HDR, but they omitted it from my 1D X. What greedy, camera-nerfing bastards, omiting such a critical feature.

Eh, I'm not saying you need to use all the features, but there are some that would be useful to proper, peaking for manual focus is one for me personally. Would I base a purchase on just one or two features not in a camera? Probably not, but having those features does mean I'd be more likely to upgrade /not look elsewhere to options that have more features in one unit.

The food program, yeah, I can live without. I'll give Canon a pass for not including that in the 1dx

D
Yes, I understand. Focus peaking is important to you, so they should add it. In-camera HDR is useful for my friend, Alexis, so they should add it. Miniature simulation mode for Mary. Zebras for Xavier (he loves safaris). Fall foliage mode for Fred. Underwater WB for Ulric. Oh, and food photography is the chosen genre of Alexis' brother, Alex, so they should add that, too...it had to go into Shooting Menu 17, that was the next available slot with so many amazing and important features to add. Sadly for Alex, by the time he scrolled to select food mode, the busboy had cleared his perfectly-presented but uneaten meal.

I think you've missed the point of my reply initially, i was just giving examples of technologies and features that Canon has available but doesn't include in some of the more expensive models.

The ones I listed are just ones I'm aware of as they would appeal to me.

It doesn't really worry me if Canon don't include certain features, I just won't buy that model if it doesn't fit my needs

When the 7D2 came out, I was appalled that it did not have WiFi or a touch screen..... but I got one anyway.....

I think that there always going to be “missing” features based on what Canon thinks most people want (or don’t want) on each particular model. For example, no “green box” mode on the 1DX

That why I didn't upgrade to 1dx ii, no greenbox ;D

 

[tron]

That's why I sold my 2 5D3 cameras... Oh wait I have 5D4, 5DsR and 7D2 so that's enough ;D

 

[neuroanatomist]

With featutres in M1and M3 Canon already good enough for #2...Welcome to Canon world :

Welcome to the real world. It's the place most people live, although that 'most' clearly excludes some CR forum members. :

Two different audiences, Canon clearly targeted a budget side. Those want and enjoy more features wouldn't have Canon in their bag. Canon will continue extracts the last juice out of Canon dslr users before they bring out decent mirrorless. Yup max profit for them and careless about their users. We all see how dslr vs mirrorless sale last few years :

A budget side? Yes, and a high-end side. The 5DIV costs more than the a7RIII, the 1DX II more than the a9. I guess the M-series is so far from decent that it only manages to outsell every other line of MILCs on the market (given that Canon has one line and is #2, whereas other makers have several MILC lines). Careless about users? If careless is giving the market the right feature sets at the right price points such that the majority of ILC buyers choose a Canon ILC, then...yes. I'm not sure what you see, but while the shrinking ILC market has resulted in an increase in MILC share, absolute MILC sales have been flat for years and dSLRs still hold the solid majority of the market.

 

[Dylan777]

With featutres in M1and M3 Canon already good enough for #2...Welcome to Canon world :

Welcome to the real world. It's the place most people live, although that 'most' clearly excludes some CR forum members. :

Two different audiences, Canon clearly targeted a budget side. Those want and enjoy more features wouldn't have Canon in their bag. Canon will continue extracts the last juice out of Canon dslr users before they bring out decent mirrorless. Yup max profit for them and careless about their users. We all see how dslr vs mirrorless sale last few years :

A budget side? Yes, and a high-end side. The 5DIV costs more than the a7RIII, the 1DX II more than the a9. I guess the M-series is so far from decent that it only manages to outsell every other line of MILCs on the market (given that Canon has one line and is #2, whereas other makers have several MILC lines). Careless about users? If careless is giving the market the right feature sets at the right price points such that the majority of ILC buyers choose a Canon ILC, then...yes. I'm not sure what you see, but while the shrinking ILC market has resulted in an increase in MILC share, absolute MILC sales have been flat for years and dSLRs still hold the solid majority of the market.

"The 5DIV costs more than the a7RIII, the 1DX II more than the a9" ==> I know you don't believe in Sony specs, both 7r III and A9(mirrorless) are much better cameras compared to 5D IV & 1DX II(DSLR) - from MP, AF points to fps. I strongly don't believe 5D and 1Dx are the main foods to keep Canon alive --- my crystal ball telling me is their budget models(rebels and cheap lenses).


" I guess the M-series is so far from decent that it only manages to outsell every other line of MILCs on the market (given that Canon has one line and is #2, whereas other makers have several MILC lines) " ==> you should be thanksful that mirrorless market are pressure Canon to release M5 & M6. Otherwise you would have shooting your M6 with an AF speed from M1.


"If careless is giving the market the right feature sets at the right price points such that the majority of ILC buyers choose a Canon ILC," ==> this is where Canon has an upper hand over other companies. They have much larger loyal customers willing to wait and buy Canon products, regardless, how behind they are. As long it has Canon logo on it, it's good as gold for them. Here an Exp: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34133.0 , Yup it's in patent for Canon and hoping it will go into production. At same time, Sony A9 and others compact models are ready in their customer hands.

"MILC sales have been flat for years and dSLRs still hold the solid majority of the market. " ==> I'm not good reading graph, maybe you can tell me??? Look at Oct numbers for 2017 in CIPA.

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html

 

[neuroanatomist]

"The 5DIV costs more than the a7RIII, the 1DX II more than the a9" ==> I know you don't believe in Sony specs, both 7r III and A9(mirrorless) are much better cameras compared to 5D IV & 1DX II(DSLR) - from MP, AF points to fps. I strongly don't believe 5D and 1Dx are the main foods to keep Canon alive --- my crystal ball telling me is their budget models(rebels and cheap lenses).

I don't believe in Sony specs? What, do I think they're lying or something? However, it's true that I don't believe a spec list makes a better camera. Do you?

I have no doubt that Canon profits from both ends of their lineup, but I agree that the lower end generates more revenue for them. By the same token, Sony generates vastly more revenue from selling tiny sensors to smartphone manufacturers than from their ILC line.

" I guess the M-series is so far from decent that it only manages to outsell every other line of MILCs on the market (given that Canon has one line and is #2, whereas other makers have several MILC lines) " ==> you should be thanksful that mirrorless market are pressure Canon to release M5 & M6. Otherwise you would have shooting your M6 with an AF speed from M1.

The M and M2 are what put Canon into the #3 MILC position, and the M3 put them into #2. With only one line, it's clear that Canon has chosen to make only a limited investment in mirrorless so far. What pressure are you talking about?

"If careless is giving the market the right feature sets at the right price points such that the majority of ILC buyers choose a Canon ILC," ==> this is where Canon has an upper hand over other companies. They have much larger loyal customers willing to wait and buy Canon products, regardless, how behind they are. As long it has Canon logo on it, it's good as gold for them. Here an Exp: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34133.0 , Yup it's in patent for Canon and hoping it will go into production. At same time, Sony A9 and others compact models are ready in their customer hands.

So it's your contention that people are mainly driven by brand loyalty and are willing to purchase inferior products just because of the logo on them? I'm sorry that your view of humanity is so cynical and dim. I believe people purchase the products that best meet their needs. But many on this forum seem to think their own personal needs represent the majority, and that's plain foolish.

"MILC sales have been flat for years and dSLRs still hold the solid majority of the market. " ==> I'm not good reading graph, maybe you can tell me??? Look at Oct numbers for 2017 in CIPA.

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html

I don't get your point here. The graph you attach shows exactly what I stated, MILC sales flat (and due to decreasing dSLR sales, MILC share is increasing, but still the minor fraction of ILCs). The Oct 2017 CIPA data show that dSLRs are 65% of the ILC market for October and the year to date. 65/35 is a solid majority.

 

[rrcphoto]

With featutres in M1and M3 Canon already good enough for #2...Welcome to Canon world :

Welcome to the real world. It's the place most people live, although that 'most' clearly excludes some CR forum members. :

Two different audiences, Canon clearly targeted a budget side. Those want and enjoy more features wouldn't have Canon in their bag. Canon will continue extracts the last juice out of Canon dslr users before they bring out decent mirrorless. Yup max profit for them and careless about their users. We all see how dslr vs mirrorless sale last few years :

thom hogan prefers the M5 over the Sony A6xxx series camera bodies. Even sonydpreview editors have stated the same exact thing. when they are out shooting they'd shoot with the M5 over Sony bodies.

Perhaps it's more Canon knows more about the market and what people will actually use over other companies.

There's more to cameras than simply spec sheets. fun fact. the M5 is the only mirrorless camera out of both companies that you can change iso/wb/shutter/aperture/ec/af without moving your eye from the viewfinder or fiddling with a menu.

canon has posted significant sales increases this year in mirrorless, if mirrorless is overtaking DSLR sales, the reason for it is Canon. Not sony that still to this day is stuck with a 17% or less marketshare.

fun fact #2. Sony to this day has never bragged about it's overall marketshare in the ILC market since 2006-8 timeframe. Since that time, they have bragged about isolated or niche segments of the market or regionally for their marketshares. They even stopped reporting the % of Mirrorless marketshare they feel they hold in 2015.

 

[Mikehit]

"If careless is giving the market the right feature sets at the right price points such that the majority of ILC buyers choose a Canon ILC," ==> this is where Canon has an upper hand over other companies. They have much larger loyal customers willing to wait and buy Canon products, regardless, how behind they are. As long it has Canon logo on it, it's good as gold for them. Here an Exp: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34133.0 , Yup it's in patent for Canon and hoping it will go into production. At same time, Sony A9 and others compact models are ready in their customer hands.

You call it brand loyalty. I call it a reality check that demonstrates the much-claimed advantages of Sony of Canon mean little to the average camera buyer: those 'advantages' are not enough to make them switch brands.

And if you 'crystal ball' is right in that Canon's position is held up by people buying lower end models then you sort of shoot yourself in the foot.
Research time after time has shown that 70% of people buy their first camera and lens (body+ 1 or 2 zooms) and never buy another camera or lens in their life. So your crustal ball would interpret this as year-on-year sales being driven by people with no brand loyalty. So after nearly 10 years of so-called advantages (starting with their supposedly magnificent sensors) Sony have still not manage to grab superiority. In any other tech business, the sort of advantages claimed on behalf of Sony have would have resulted in them zipping to first place yet they have barely 20% of the market.
Which brings us back to the first point: the gizmos in Sony cameras don't actually mean much to most people. To some like yourself, yes. But not to most.

 

[dak723]

With featutres in M1and M3 Canon already good enough for #2...Welcome to Canon world :

Welcome to the real world. It's the place most people live, although that 'most' clearly excludes some CR forum members. :

Two different audiences, Canon clearly targeted a budget side. Those want and enjoy more features wouldn't have Canon in their bag. Canon will continue extracts the last juice out of Canon dslr users before they bring out decent mirrorless. Yup max profit for them and careless about their users. We all see how dslr vs mirrorless sale last few years :

A budget side? Yes, and a high-end side. The 5DIV costs more than the a7RIII, the 1DX II more than the a9. I guess the M-series is so far from decent that it only manages to outsell every other line of MILCs on the market (given that Canon has one line and is #2, whereas other makers have several MILC lines). Careless about users? If careless is giving the market the right feature sets at the right price points such that the majority of ILC buyers choose a Canon ILC, then...yes. I'm not sure what you see, but while the shrinking ILC market has resulted in an increase in MILC share, absolute MILC sales have been flat for years and dSLRs still hold the solid majority of the market.

"The 5DIV costs more than the a7RIII, the 1DX II more than the a9" ==> I know you don't believe in Sony specs, both 7r III and A9(mirrorless) are much better cameras compared to 5D IV & 1DX II(DSLR) - from MP, AF points to fps.

Each person is entitled to their opinion - and each person will have different preferences in what they consider important, but folks who love specs can't seem to see beyond them. Saying that the A7 II and A9 are much better cameras than the 5D IV and 1DX ii is not a fact, but merely your opinion. More MPs do not necessarily make a better camera (in fact, it can be quite the opposite), nor do more AF points (which can make it more difficult for non-action shots). But all that aside, it ignores other attributes that spec lovers tend to ignore. Is the build quality better on the Sony's? The ergonomics? Color rendition (which some may argue is by far the most important quality of a camera)? How about exposure accuracy? How about weather sealing?

I have not tried the newer Sony models, so I can not speak directly to them, but based on the earlier Sony models, they have a long way to go in those areas. Oh, but there aren't really any specs to measure those things, so I guess they don't count.

 

[dak723]

"If careless is giving the market the right feature sets at the right price points such that the majority of ILC buyers choose a Canon ILC," ==> this is where Canon has an upper hand over other companies. They have much larger loyal customers willing to wait and buy Canon products, regardless, how behind they are. As long it has Canon logo on it, it's good as gold for them.

Not saying there aren't brand loyal folks as you describe, but I am not one of them. I probably have had more Olympus cameras than Canon, and bought the Sony A7 II with no hesitation to replace my Canon 6D. (It didn't replace my Canon, nor my Olympus E-M1 either). I bought the M5 mainly due to curiosity and was quite prepared to return it if not satisfied. I didn't return it because I would consider it to be a very good camera. Not because it is a Canon, but because it takes excellent photos, is small and light, fun to use, is easily customizable, and the lens choice (while small) fits my needs and the quality of lenses is very high for the price. Unless someone really needs FF or a wider lens selection, I would recommend the M5 over the Sony A7 II without a doubt. It has nothing to do with the brand. It has to do with photography. Yes, photography (perhaps people here have heard the word although it is rarely mentioned compared to the word specs...)

 

[neuroanatomist]

It has nothing to do with the brand. It has to do with photography. Yes, photography (perhaps people here have heard the word although it is rarely mentioned compared to the word specs...)

I don't know what you mean. Photography is central to this forum. For example, we could discuss how to frame a portrait.

Or geometric art.

 

[reef58]

With featutres in M1and M3 Canon already good enough for #2...Welcome to Canon world :

Welcome to the real world. It's the place most people live, although that 'most' clearly excludes some CR forum members. :

Two different audiences, Canon clearly targeted a budget side. Those want and enjoy more features wouldn't have Canon in their bag. Canon will continue extracts the last juice out of Canon dslr users before they bring out decent mirrorless. Yup max profit for them and careless about their users. We all see how dslr vs mirrorless sale last few years :

I generally don't insert myself in these debates, but I am curious. I sell all of my Canon gear two camera bodies and 7 lenses along with other accessories. I then place my order for new Sony gear. It arrives. I take it down to the beach at sunset, place the camera on the tripod and take some pictures. The next day I take the new Sony and a long lens to do some wildlife work. I download the photos into Lightroom. Now what do I get for the effort? What will I see that I didn't with the 5d4? What are all of the advantages I have gained? This is a serious question. I am curious. I won't lie the D850 got my attention.