A Canon DSLR Rumor Roundup Heading into 2018

[R1-7D]

Weak cameras are 7D M2, 5DsR,

When the Canon camera that makes the best picture files in the world from any DSLR and beats the 5DIII in each and every aspect except fps (but is close) gets designated "weak"... : : :

No kidding. I have a 5D3, 5DSR, 1DX and 1DX2 ...and the 5DSR is definitely not 'weak'. In fact, I just came back from a European vacation and I chose to take both the 5DSR and the 1DX2, with the 5DSR getting by far the most usage. Its got plenty of dynamic range, and the noise levels are quite acceptable, in my opinion, up to 3200 ISO.

The 5DSR is just a fantastic camera. Anyone who uses one regularly will tell you so.

 

[transpo1]

This translates to: Canon knows it needs to add 4K to its APS-C camera line FASTER than their usual product cycle. Which should put to bed all the 4K "oh, it's not important" naysayers on this thread. Canon's awesome market research is about to prove you wrong.

takes a very "special" person to talk smack about a rumor that is for a year from now and may not even come to fruition.

Takes a very "special" person to refute a rumor that is less than a year from now and may come to fruition.

Fixed that for you 8)

 

[dak723]

...
And as for your other points, well - actually, 4K content takes a lot longer to download/is much more demanding to stream no matter where you live. Is it worth the extra wait/lower reliability? Is 4K tv worth the extra cost (even assuming it's available, which is not the case in the UK for most content)? I'd argue for most stuff, it doesn't matter. It's not like classic tv and films became obsolete the moment HD came along. Content always trumps presentation. To an extent, higher res *is* a gimmick - when it's presented as an end in itself, rather than a tool to improve content (which is only the case for certain genres, I'd argue).

Extremely well said.

 

[transpo1]

Again objectively 4K for the average person is not really suitable, the rig needs to be substantial to edit the video and most people wont have 4k monitors but maybe a TV. 4K is well and truly here but I would argue it is still a niche for prosumers delivering content. Saying that I dont see average wedding videographers using canons cinema line because its too big of an investment so most shoot with panasonic or sony cameras which offer similar features at less than half the price. Although their rigs do look like transformers and a complete pain to use as they weren't designed to primarily be video cameras.

I agree that 4K in dslrs/mirrorless is extremely niche in its use - doesn't stop consumers demanding it, sadly. If only camera companies would focus on top notch HD video and leave 4K to the proper video cameras! The internet can't currently cope with huge volumes of 4K streams and TV still only offers a handful of HD channels, let alone 4K. Also, the cost to set up a computer to edit 4K is huge.

I think the question is - Why bother buying new expensive high-res cameras? If you don't have a proper UHD display and a computer to handle it in the first place. You have to upgrade all of your toys accordingly to keep everything in balance. Otherwise some things will always seem like overkill, while other (dated) things will struggle to keep up.
And another question is - Don't you know that 4K is being used for producing superior 1080p content? For downsampling, cropping, stabilizing, etc. It's not a gimmick. You don't need it, because you don't use it. But it doesn't mean that the stuff you are watching in 1080p wasn't shot in 4K or even more K.
Conservatism is bad for progress and development. And who's watching TV in the 21st century anyways? The Internet can't cope with 4K? Really? Well, maybe in Africa or North Korea. I'm watching 4K regularly (no problem) and it's beautiful on 40"(ish) UHD monitors. Even on 1080p display there's an obvious quality boost when viewing 4K (2160p) or 2.5K (1440p) content.

*Bats away straw men* 4K *in DSLRs* is what was being discussed. Nobody denies higher video resolution is coming, nor that it can have its uses in cropping or stabilising footage. But a point I've seen made here and elsewhere is, are DSLRs the platform to produce good 4K? There was a time - pretty brief, it seems to me - when DSLRs were being used to make some films and tv shows (the 5D2, right?), but I don't think it's unfair to say they are not, and never will be, a major player in that regard.

As for conservatism, sometimes you want a device that, above all else, works well. Innovation is great, but there's a balance to be struck.

And as for your other points, well - actually, 4K content takes a lot longer to download/is much more demanding to stream no matter where you live. Is it worth the extra wait/lower reliability? Is 4K tv worth the extra cost (even assuming it's available, which is not the case in the UK for most content)? I'd argue for most stuff, it doesn't matter. It's not like classic tv and films became obsolete the moment HD came along. Content always trumps presentation. To an extent, higher res *is* a gimmick - when it's presented as an end in itself, rather than a tool to improve content (which is only the case for certain genres, I'd argue).

The obtuseness of the anti-4K crowd always gets me. No one ever argued when Canon comes out with a megapixel bump on their latest camera but when talk turns to increased video resolution (yes, even on DSLRs and ILCs, as video is becoming as important as stills), people like you always shoot it down. Sorry, but video quality is getting to the point where it's equally important on almost ANY camera and stills photographers will just have to play along. Canon is an imaging company, and the video image they output should be of the utmost quality as well.

 

[Loswr]

The obtuseness of the anti-4K crowd...

The anti-4K crowd is just like the anti-DR crowd. Neither actually exist.

 

[Mikehit]

Sorry, but video quality is getting to the point where it's equally important on almost ANY camera ...

Very true.
But 'equally important' does not mean 'important'. It can mean it is equally irrelevant in all cameras, or it is equally of interest or it can mean it is equally vital.

I will give you a hint - it does not mean what you like it to mean

 

[BillB]

Again objectively 4K for the average person is not really suitable, the rig needs to be substantial to edit the video and most people wont have 4k monitors but maybe a TV. 4K is well and truly here but I would argue it is still a niche for prosumers delivering content. Saying that I dont see average wedding videographers using canons cinema line because its too big of an investment so most shoot with panasonic or sony cameras which offer similar features at less than half the price. Although their rigs do look like transformers and a complete pain to use as they weren't designed to primarily be video cameras.

I agree that 4K in dslrs/mirrorless is extremely niche in its use - doesn't stop consumers demanding it, sadly. If only camera companies would focus on top notch HD video and leave 4K to the proper video cameras! The internet can't currently cope with huge volumes of 4K streams and TV still only offers a handful of HD channels, let alone 4K. Also, the cost to set up a computer to edit 4K is huge.

I think the question is - Why bother buying new expensive high-res cameras? If you don't have a proper UHD display and a computer to handle it in the first place. You have to upgrade all of your toys accordingly to keep everything in balance. Otherwise some things will always seem like overkill, while other (dated) things will struggle to keep up.
And another question is - Don't you know that 4K is being used for producing superior 1080p content? For downsampling, cropping, stabilizing, etc. It's not a gimmick. You don't need it, because you don't use it. But it doesn't mean that the stuff you are watching in 1080p wasn't shot in 4K or even more K.
Conservatism is bad for progress and development. And who's watching TV in the 21st century anyways? The Internet can't cope with 4K? Really? Well, maybe in Africa or North Korea. I'm watching 4K regularly (no problem) and it's beautiful on 40"(ish) UHD monitors. Even on 1080p display there's an obvious quality boost when viewing 4K (2160p) or 2.5K (1440p) content.

*Bats away straw men* 4K *in DSLRs* is what was being discussed. Nobody denies higher video resolution is coming, nor that it can have its uses in cropping or stabilising footage. But a point I've seen made here and elsewhere is, are DSLRs the platform to produce good 4K? There was a time - pretty brief, it seems to me - when DSLRs were being used to make some films and tv shows (the 5D2, right?), but I don't think it's unfair to say they are not, and never will be, a major player in that regard.

As for conservatism, sometimes you want a device that, above all else, works well. Innovation is great, but there's a balance to be struck.

And as for your other points, well - actually, 4K content takes a lot longer to download/is much more demanding to stream no matter where you live. Is it worth the extra wait/lower reliability? Is 4K tv worth the extra cost (even assuming it's available, which is not the case in the UK for most content)? I'd argue for most stuff, it doesn't matter. It's not like classic tv and films became obsolete the moment HD came along. Content always trumps presentation. To an extent, higher res *is* a gimmick - when it's presented as an end in itself, rather than a tool to improve content (which is only the case for certain genres, I'd argue).

The obtuseness of the anti-4K crowd always gets me. No one ever argued when Canon comes out with a megapixel bump on their latest camera but when talk turns to increased video resolution (yes, even on DSLRs and ILCs, as video is becoming as important as stills), people like you always shoot it down. Sorry, but video quality is getting to the point where it's equally important on almost ANY camera and stills photographers will just have to play along. Canon is an imaging company, and the video image they output should be of the utmost quality as well.

Actually, quite a few people are saying that they won't upgrade their 5DIII or 6D to get the megapixel bump that comes with the replacement cameras. How many people are going to buy a camera to get 4K video? Asking the question doesn't make anybody anti-4K.

 

[ecka]

Again objectively 4K for the average person is not really suitable, the rig needs to be substantial to edit the video and most people wont have 4k monitors but maybe a TV. 4K is well and truly here but I would argue it is still a niche for prosumers delivering content. Saying that I dont see average wedding videographers using canons cinema line because its too big of an investment so most shoot with panasonic or sony cameras which offer similar features at less than half the price. Although their rigs do look like transformers and a complete pain to use as they weren't designed to primarily be video cameras.

I agree that 4K in dslrs/mirrorless is extremely niche in its use - doesn't stop consumers demanding it, sadly. If only camera companies would focus on top notch HD video and leave 4K to the proper video cameras! The internet can't currently cope with huge volumes of 4K streams and TV still only offers a handful of HD channels, let alone 4K. Also, the cost to set up a computer to edit 4K is huge.

I think the question is - Why bother buying new expensive high-res cameras? If you don't have a proper UHD display and a computer to handle it in the first place. You have to upgrade all of your toys accordingly to keep everything in balance. Otherwise some things will always seem like overkill, while other (dated) things will struggle to keep up.
And another question is - Don't you know that 4K is being used for producing superior 1080p content? For downsampling, cropping, stabilizing, etc. It's not a gimmick. You don't need it, because you don't use it. But it doesn't mean that the stuff you are watching in 1080p wasn't shot in 4K or even more K.
Conservatism is bad for progress and development. And who's watching TV in the 21st century anyways? The Internet can't cope with 4K? Really? Well, maybe in Africa or North Korea. I'm watching 4K regularly (no problem) and it's beautiful on 40"(ish) UHD monitors. Even on 1080p display there's an obvious quality boost when viewing 4K (2160p) or 2.5K (1440p) content.

*Bats away straw men* 4K *in DSLRs* is what was being discussed. Nobody denies higher video resolution is coming, nor that it can have its uses in cropping or stabilising footage. But a point I've seen made here and elsewhere is, are DSLRs the platform to produce good 4K? There was a time - pretty brief, it seems to me - when DSLRs were being used to make some films and tv shows (the 5D2, right?), but I don't think it's unfair to say they are not, and never will be, a major player in that regard.

As for conservatism, sometimes you want a device that, above all else, works well. Innovation is great, but there's a balance to be struck.

And as for your other points, well - actually, 4K content takes a lot longer to download/is much more demanding to stream no matter where you live. Is it worth the extra wait/lower reliability? Is 4K tv worth the extra cost (even assuming it's available, which is not the case in the UK for most content)? I'd argue for most stuff, it doesn't matter. It's not like classic tv and films became obsolete the moment HD came along. Content always trumps presentation. To an extent, higher res *is* a gimmick - when it's presented as an end in itself, rather than a tool to improve content (which is only the case for certain genres, I'd argue).

The obtuseness of the anti-4K crowd always gets me. No one ever argued when Canon comes out with a megapixel bump on their latest camera but when talk turns to increased video resolution (yes, even on DSLRs and ILCs, as video is becoming as important as stills), people like you always shoot it down. Sorry, but video quality is getting to the point where it's equally important on almost ANY camera and stills photographers will just have to play along. Canon is an imaging company, and the video image they output should be of the utmost quality as well.

Actually, quite a few people are saying that they won't upgrade their 5DIII or 6D to get the megapixel bump that comes with the replacement cameras. How many people are going to buy a camera to get 4K video? Asking the question doesn't make anybody anti-4K.

Well, maybe these people won't upgrade their 5D3 or 6D ONLY to get more pixels, BECAUSE of the feature stagnation in those new cameras.

 

[Loswr]

The problem is that the vastly ignorant majority is preaching their ignorance to high-tech-hungry minority...

So, you believe that those who don't share your opinion and priorities are ignorant. Please take your bigotry somewhere else, we don't need it here.

 

[YuengLinger]

I regret having dipped into this sadly familiar thread. So many pointless repetitions of Canon bashing. Is there a word for deriving pleasure from aggravating others purely for the sake of aggravating others?

Not sure why I or anybody engages with trolls. Reflex?

 

[BillB]

because these days Canon is a real lackluster in some departments.

"because these days Canon don't build in functions that a small but very vocal and noisy minority believe they should pander to."
Fixed that for ya!

You didn't.
The problem is that the vastly ignorant majority is preaching their ignorance to high-tech-hungry minority, while they don't even need a big modern camera for the snapshots they shoot. Your "Stop evolving!" T-shirt isn't very popular around here on tech forums. Please, go home . Your camera isn't going to producing worse images after a new and better one is released, I promise. You don't have to defend your conservatism.

There is some satisfaction in learning that we in the vastly ignorant majority are thwarting the yearnings of the high-tech-hungry minority by stubbornly refusing to subsidize the development of the features that they hope for, just by refusing to buy cameras that we don't want or need.

 

[Loswr]

Bigotry?

Yes.

big·ot·ry ˈbiɡətrē noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself

 

[LonelyBoy]

because these days Canon is a real lackluster in some departments.

"because these days Canon don't build in functions that a small but very vocal and noisy minority believe they should pander to."
Fixed that for ya!

You didn't.
The problem is that the vastly ignorant majority is preaching their ignorance to high-tech-hungry minority, while they don't even need a big modern camera for the snapshots they shoot. Your "Stop evolving!" T-shirt isn't very popular around here on tech forums. Please, go home . Your camera isn't going to producing worse images after a new and better one is released, I promise. You don't have to defend your conservatism.

1) Why should I subsidize your hunger for unnecessary features?
2) Do you really want the "ignorant majority" to stop buying big cameras (for snapshots or otherwise) and shrink the market further and drive prices even higher?

Just remember, evolution sometimes drives species to extinction...

 

[Talys]

There is some satisfaction in learning that we in the vastly ignorant majority are thwarting the yearnings of the high-tech-hungry minority by stubbornly refusing to subsidize the development of the features that they hope for, just by refusing to buy cameras that we don't want or need.

For some reason, I couldn't stop laughing when I read this.

 

[transpo1]

Again objectively 4K for the average person is not really suitable, the rig needs to be substantial to edit the video and most people wont have 4k monitors but maybe a TV. 4K is well and truly here but I would argue it is still a niche for prosumers delivering content. Saying that I dont see average wedding videographers using canons cinema line because its too big of an investment so most shoot with panasonic or sony cameras which offer similar features at less than half the price. Although their rigs do look like transformers and a complete pain to use as they weren't designed to primarily be video cameras.

I agree that 4K in dslrs/mirrorless is extremely niche in its use - doesn't stop consumers demanding it, sadly. If only camera companies would focus on top notch HD video and leave 4K to the proper video cameras! The internet can't currently cope with huge volumes of 4K streams and TV still only offers a handful of HD channels, let alone 4K. Also, the cost to set up a computer to edit 4K is huge.

I think the question is - Why bother buying new expensive high-res cameras? If you don't have a proper UHD display and a computer to handle it in the first place. You have to upgrade all of your toys accordingly to keep everything in balance. Otherwise some things will always seem like overkill, while other (dated) things will struggle to keep up.
And another question is - Don't you know that 4K is being used for producing superior 1080p content? For downsampling, cropping, stabilizing, etc. It's not a gimmick. You don't need it, because you don't use it. But it doesn't mean that the stuff you are watching in 1080p wasn't shot in 4K or even more K.
Conservatism is bad for progress and development. And who's watching TV in the 21st century anyways? The Internet can't cope with 4K? Really? Well, maybe in Africa or North Korea. I'm watching 4K regularly (no problem) and it's beautiful on 40"(ish) UHD monitors. Even on 1080p display there's an obvious quality boost when viewing 4K (2160p) or 2.5K (1440p) content.

*Bats away straw men* 4K *in DSLRs* is what was being discussed. Nobody denies higher video resolution is coming, nor that it can have its uses in cropping or stabilising footage. But a point I've seen made here and elsewhere is, are DSLRs the platform to produce good 4K? There was a time - pretty brief, it seems to me - when DSLRs were being used to make some films and tv shows (the 5D2, right?), but I don't think it's unfair to say they are not, and never will be, a major player in that regard.

As for conservatism, sometimes you want a device that, above all else, works well. Innovation is great, but there's a balance to be struck.

And as for your other points, well - actually, 4K content takes a lot longer to download/is much more demanding to stream no matter where you live. Is it worth the extra wait/lower reliability? Is 4K tv worth the extra cost (even assuming it's available, which is not the case in the UK for most content)? I'd argue for most stuff, it doesn't matter. It's not like classic tv and films became obsolete the moment HD came along. Content always trumps presentation. To an extent, higher res *is* a gimmick - when it's presented as an end in itself, rather than a tool to improve content (which is only the case for certain genres, I'd argue).

The obtuseness of the anti-4K crowd always gets me. No one ever argued when Canon comes out with a megapixel bump on their latest camera but when talk turns to increased video resolution (yes, even on DSLRs and ILCs, as video is becoming as important as stills), people like you always shoot it down. Sorry, but video quality is getting to the point where it's equally important on almost ANY camera and stills photographers will just have to play along. Canon is an imaging company, and the video image they output should be of the utmost quality as well.

Actually, quite a few people are saying that they won't upgrade their 5DIII or 6D to get the megapixel bump that comes with the replacement cameras. How many people are going to buy a camera to get 4K video? Asking the question doesn't make anybody anti-4K.

Hopefully, one day that question will be answered when Canon implements better 4K throughout their product range. By the way, people around here do more than ask the question- they question the validity of the ask and label those who do ask "trolls."

 

[ecka]

because these days Canon is a real lackluster in some departments.

"because these days Canon don't build in functions that a small but very vocal and noisy minority believe they should pander to."
Fixed that for ya!

You didn't.
The problem is that the vastly ignorant majority is preaching their ignorance to high-tech-hungry minority, while they don't even need a big modern camera for the snapshots they shoot. Your "Stop evolving!" T-shirt isn't very popular around here on tech forums. Please, go home . Your camera isn't going to produce worse images after a new and better one is released, I promise. You don't have to defend your conservatism.

1) Why should I subsidize your hunger for unnecessary features?
2) Do you really want the "ignorant majority" to stop buying big cameras (for snapshots or otherwise) and shrink the market further and drive prices even higher?

Just remember, evolution sometimes drives species to extinction...

1) There are plenty of unnecessary features in these cameras already. Why not add a few more? It wouldn't hurt.
2) No. The ignorant majority is not buying the same big cameras (big cameras meaning not smartphones or point&shoots). They are buying lesser cameras, but even those are too much for them, so they think that a better camera is an absolute overkill for anyone and nobody could possibly ever need it.

 

[BillB]

because these days Canon is a real lackluster in some departments.

"because these days Canon don't build in functions that a small but very vocal and noisy minority believe they should pander to."
Fixed that for ya!

You didn't.
The problem is that the vastly ignorant majority is preaching their ignorance to high-tech-hungry minority, while they don't even need a big modern camera for the snapshots they shoot. Your "Stop evolving!" T-shirt isn't very popular around here on tech forums. Please, go home . Your camera isn't going to produce worse images after a new and better one is released, I promise. You don't have to defend your conservatism.

There is some satisfaction in learning that we in the vastly ignorant majority are thwarting the yearnings of the high-tech-hungry minority by stubbornly refusing to subsidize the development of the features that they hope for, just by refusing to buy cameras that we don't want or need.

You are imagining things
I'm just explaining why Canon will make less money than they could have and you feel offended for some reason. Get over it.

Thanks for clearing that up. You sure had me fooled

 

[transpo1]

The obtuseness of the anti-4K crowd...

The anti-4K crowd is just like the anti-DR crowd. Neither actually exist.

Ha! You make me laugh, Neuro. There is most definitely an anti-4K squad here, labeling those who want the features "trolls" at the drop of a hat.

 

[transpo1]

Bigotry?

Yes.

big·ot·ry ˈbiɡətrē noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself

Neuro, you accusing someone else on here of "bigotry" is the height of irony. How many have been at the receiving ends of snide or condescending remarks because their opinion differs from yours? I had another good laugh, though- "Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story."

 

[dak723]

The obtuseness of the anti-4K crowd...

The anti-4K crowd is just like the anti-DR crowd. Neither actually exist.

Ha! You make me laugh, Neuro. There is most definitely an anti-4K squad here, labeling those who want the features "trolls" at the drop of a hat.

Squad: A small group...

Crowd: A large number of persons...

Perhaps unwittingly, your choice of words has reinforced Neuro's point.