All is Quiet, but the Good Stuff is Coming

[ahsanford]

Canon's goal is not your goal.

+1

Neuro's comment above + the realities/circumstances of Canon's leadership position = things won't change until some major things happen from Canon's FF competition:

1) Nikon can re-focus it's business sufficiently to get volume levels in critical market segments to start undercutting Canon where it hurts (Rebel level rigs). Hard to see that coming from a company that seems too busy offering neat things for very specific people right now (105 f/1.4 now out, 28mm f/1.4 reportedly coming soon... why?) and poor investments being made elsewhere (compacts, CX mirrorless, etc.).

2) Sony starts caring about a host of user considerations (ergonomics, handling, grip-size, better menus, etc.) and piles up a staggering number of new first-party lenses at a number of price points. (I think this one might eventually happen someday, btw, but it will take some years to get there.)

3) Sony and Nikon merge into Voltron (somehow) and mesh/focus/streamline/execute like champs for a period of many years. Not seeing it.

4) Pentax = a dead man walking. Great tech, tons of value per dollar, unique/quirky design decisions, and horribly underweight to compete comprehensively in the long-term. (The Amiga of camera makers?)

5) Leica = staying exactly where they are. Premium / niche only.

- A

 

[K]

There's no reason Canon can't offer better AF and dual slot at the price it sells that body for.

So sorry that I'm hitting this forum with a reality check. Really hits a nerve with some users here when it is pointed out with very sound, logical and factual arguments what Canon's faults are.

I rather think you're the one in need of a reality check. There are plenty of reasons for Canon not to add the features you keep insisting they should. The main reason is that it's their choice, not yours. The fact that the 6D sold like f*cking hotcakes inspite of being 'crippled' is pretty good evidence they didn't need to give it the 1-series AF system, a 1/250 s Xsync, dual card slots, a popup flash, an articulating LCD, a coffee maker, a hotshoe-mounted philosopher's stone to transmute lead into gold, or any of the other things you wanted in the camera.

It's not hard to understand, for most people. Canon's goal is not your goal. Canon is not your friend, guy. They're not your buddy, pal. The one shared philosophy is that both you and Canon want more for less. The difference is that Canon holds all the cards here. Well...most of them. You can choose not to give them your business. But you haven't. Heard the phrase, 'put up or shut up'? Well, no need to shut up...Canon couldn't care less.

Reality: Canon is ILC market leader, has been so for >14 years, and sells more ILCs than any other manufacturer, many of whom include more 'features' on their cameras at a given price point.

Fantasy: Canon needs to do ______ because I say so, or else. Or else what? Exactly.

Reality. Check and mate.

All you did is regurgitate all the same old, tired, boring, debunked Canon fan-boy apologetics that I destroyed in an earlier post. Again, you read like a paid Canon rep. Let it go already. It's weak. You don't see anyone proclaiming the fuel in their tank is better because Exxon/Mobil is the biggest.

Truth is they are on top of the market. But that doesn't mean they are the best value, it only means more people are buying Canon. OMG!!! Did you ever realize that consumers are absolutely capable of purchasing lower value and sometimes even inferior products? Yes. It is true.

There's more to what sells than the specs. There's marketing. There's brand perception in the industry. Thus your straw man argument is gone.


I think a big part of why Canon has big support is their glass. And a big reason why their glass gets so much hype is from some very popular, but highly questionable comparison sites that do side by sides with Nikon. These are pro-Canon propaganda sites as the various examples of Nikon glass are not THAT bad compared to Canon.

Much the same way the Nikon sites talk about nothing but lame 5-stop exposure lifts and DR, as if that's all photography is.

Fair is fair, which is why I bring up both.

I believe many people make buying decisions based on the results of these fraudulent results on these sites. We all know there is an obsession with sharpness and resolution...this is what is behind much of the glass hype.

I suggest renting the gear and testing. If people did that, they'd realize that Canon glass superiority is truth - but not an advantage worth committing to a system and sacrificing on bodies. It's a little better, but not a lot.

 

[ahsanford]

Look, all fanaticism aside, the clear truth is that Canon cripples some cameras. No getting around that. 6D is low value. 6D2 is shaping up to be low-value also.

What is wrong with stating that?

Low feature-per-dollar ratio on the 6D? Sure.

But low value implies the EF portfolio, Canon ergonomics, color, and service do not exist, and that a camera is only of the value it's own spec sheet generates. In that, we disagree.

But yes, you can argue Canon could offer more for the dollar, certainly -- you'll get no argument from me on that. But to then assert that this is not fair, Canon should do more, 'this will end up haunting Canon', etc. is myopic, honestly. Canon leadership isn't hiding in a bunker in denial, cuddling its EF lenses and saying 'we'll survive this nuclear winter of competition'. Far from it.

- A

 

[K]

From the 7D3 thread to debunk the accusation that I'm some basher ...

Unlike all the crippling and nonsense in other lines, the 7D2 is very well specced.

All a 7D3 would need is ---

A new sensor, with the on-chip ADC for better DR. This is a given.
Touch Screen (doesn't even need to be tilt or articulating, as that compromises the rugged, pro build quality).

Other nice things might include -

1 more FPS just to show progress.
Newer better connectivity options.
An opportunity to finally implemented UHS-II or a faster card for faster buffer clearing.

But really, just a new sensor and touch screen would be enough to keep the 7D3 completely on par or ahead in its category. The 6D line on the other hand, lags far behind the competition and the 6D2 is unlikely to change that. So 7D owners be happy!

 

[chrysoberyl]

6D / 6D2 is crippled crap to try and upsell people to 5D4.

Oh, dear. I have been wallowing in denial when I thought I was enjoying my 6D!

 

[Loswr]

I'm a Canon user and prefer Canon

Good Lord, man...why? It's clear that Canon is personally screwing you over by crippling their cameras. They're screwing us all over. What would possess you to ever buy a product from such a company, knowing as you must that every time you buy a product from them, you send a clear, wallet-driven message that they're doing exactly the right thing?

Look, all fanaticism aside, the clear truth is that Canon cripples some cameras. No getting around that. 6D is low value. 6D2 is shaping up to be low-value also.

What is wrong with stating that?


***

You lash out against anyone who says anything against Canon which questions your ability to have a balanced perspective.

I'm much more balanced since I think like a consumer, not a Canon representative. I will state clearly that the 7D2 is a great value and a good camera. Sure, the only gripe is the old-tech sensor in it compare to the competition. But all the rest is excellent. The price is right too. Given it is APS-C, that weaker sensor is less of a factor since all crop is crap. Splitting hairs at that point.

5D4, decent value. Sure, the critics can find cameras that beat it at any spec. But there's no camera that does it ALL and pretty well. Jack of all trades, master of none.

80D is a fantastic enthusiast camera. Tons of features for the money. Priced right.

I've said this before on this forum. So your accusation that I'm a basher is worthless.

6D / 6D2 is crippled crap to try and upsell people to 5D4.

Nothing is wrong with you stating your opinion. But when you make blanket value judgments and expect them not to be challenged, that's naïve to the point of a handicap.

If the 6D was 'crippled crap' to try and upsell people to a 5-series camera, how come the 6D was such a popular camera? Well, it could be that people are just idiots who will buy any old piece of worthless plastic as long as it has the Canon logo on it. It says a lot about you that you think of people that way.

You are 'balanced' because you think like a consumer? Or perhaps, you're myopic and self-centered because you can only think like a consumer.

I am a consumer. I can think like one. Elsewhere on this forum, I've stated things I'd like from Canon, and things I think they've screwed up. But I can also understand these issues from Canon's side. You can stand on a cliff and void your bladder. If you don't understand that the wind doesn't care about you, you're going to get splattered. You can complain about that, but it's just more piss into the wind.

Why doesn't Canon do _________? Because they don't have to. Why does Canon do _________? Because they can.

 

[Loswr]

6D / 6D2 is crippled crap to try and upsell people to 5D4.

Oh, dear. I have been wallowing in denial when I thought I was enjoying my 6D!

Yeah, you poor sop. You've been hoodwinked by Canon, sold a pig in a poke. You bought a crippled piece of crap and you actually like it? How sad for you. Stop apologizing for Canon. Stop being happy with your 6D. Don't buy a 6DII, it'll suck even worse that your current turd-camera.

Sorry, I was channeling K there for a minute. It won't happen again.

 

[Ozarker]

A priest, a rabbi, and a duck walk into a bar...

 

[BeenThere]

This discussion is rather like supporting your local sports team no matter their record, or dissing the rival team, especially if they are doing well. Everyone knows how rational that can be.

 

[Don Haines]

A priest, a rabbi, and a duck walk into a bar...

And none of them shoot Sony.......

 

[Loswr]

This discussion is rather like supporting your local sports team no matter their record, or dissing the rival team, especially if they are doing well. Everyone knows how rational that can be.

It's rather like stating all the things a particular team is doing wrong, and predicting that team will lose all next season's games if they don't make the changes you recommend...when that team has been the world champion for the past 14 years and counting. Yeah, that's rational. :

 

[Don Haines]

What really gets me is when people start talking about crippling cameras and protecting the higher models.

The HUGE! flaw in that logic is that the vast bulk of sales and profits are with the lower end models..... and not just with Canon.... Same for Nikon, same for Sony, same for Olympus, etc, etc..... The lower models are refreshed more often.... new features usually appear first on the lower models... and most of the reason for that is BECAUSE THEY GET REFRESHED MORE OFTEN!!!!!

Remember dual pixel auto focus? Remember flicker detection? Remember video? Remember WiFi? Remember touchscreens? Remember Digic 5, 6, and 7? None of these made their debut in a 1 or 5 series camera....

People shell out the extra money for higher end cameras to get more speed and reliability, and the best AF system. New features? HA! NOT A CHANCE! Not until they have been thoroughly debugged on a lower end camera because on a high end camera, reliability trumps new features every time!

 

[ahsanford]

Remember dual pixel auto focus? Remember flicker detection? Remember video? Remember WiFi? Remember touchscreens? Remember Digic 5, 6, and 7? None of these made their debut in a 1 or 5 series camera....

People shell out the extra money for higher end cameras to get more speed and reliability, and the best AF system. New features? HA! NOT A CHANCE! Not until they have been thoroughly debugged on a lower end camera because on a high end camera, reliability trumps new features every time!

Sure, because the 1-series and 5-series never offered exclusive features first. Spot metering at any AF point... started with the Rebel line, did it? :

And cameras are ab-so-lutely nerfed in small but critical areas to protect the price of higher end models.

Consider: Where is the spot metering at any AF point on the 5D4? That's a feature we all enjoy on our cell phones today, let alone a purpose-built camera. Why was it capped at 7 fps when similarly priced 5DS rigs were given more MP x fps throughput? Does the shutter or mirror assembly magically cost 2x to make once you cross 'the perilous 8 fps barrier'?

Sure, you could flip the argument and say that we only got 11 AF points with the 6D because Canon had to strip something out to get the price down to the desired price point while still maintaining their desired margins. But I argue that what they chose to leave out of the 6D was carefully and deliberately chosen to not undermine the price of the 5D line.

Let's consider another way Canon could have brought a $2k FF rig to market in 2012. Let's say the 6D was instead a straight 5D3 in a cheaper plasticky body but with no video capabilities whatsoever. If Canon did that, a huge portion of the 5D3 market that had no interest in video would have opted for the cheaper product and 5D3 sales would plummet.

There is an art to what we don't get in a new rig so that some of us will pay more to get it.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

Remember dual pixel auto focus? Remember flicker detection? Remember video? Remember WiFi? Remember touchscreens? Remember Digic 5, 6, and 7? None of these made their debut in a 1 or 5 series camera....

People shell out the extra money for higher end cameras to get more speed and reliability, and the best AF system. New features? HA! NOT A CHANCE! Not until they have been thoroughly debugged on a lower end camera because on a high end camera, reliability trumps new features every time!

Sure, because the 1-series and 5-series never offered exclusive features first. Spot metering at any AF point... started with the Rebel line, did it? :

And cameras are ab-so-lutely nerfed in small but critical areas to protect the price of higher end models.

Consider: Where is the spot metering at any AF point on the 5D4? That's a feature we all enjoy on our cell phones today, let alone a purpose-built camera. Why was it capped at 7 fps when similarly priced 5DS rigs were given more MP x fps throughput? Does the shutter or mirror assembly magically cost 2x to make once you cross 'the perilous 8 fps barrier'?

Sure, you could flip the argument and say that we only got 11 AF points with the 6D because Canon had to strip something out to get the price down to the desired price point while still maintaining their desired margins. But I argue that what they chose to leave out of the 6D was carefully and deliberately chosen to not undermine the price of the 5D line.

Let's consider another way Canon could have brought a $2k FF rig to market in 2012. Let's say the 6D was instead a straight 5D3 in a cheaper plasticky body but with no video capabilities whatsoever. If Canon did that, a huge portion of the 5D3 market that had no interest in video would have opted for the cheaper product and 5D3 sales would plummet.

There is an art to what we don't get in a new rig so that some of us will pay more to get it.

- A

I think it goes without saying that they carefully choose which features to include or exclude, but I don't think that it is about protecting the higher end cameras, it is about enticing people away from the lower end cameras....

Remember, the bulk of profits and sales are Rebels.... no matter what they do with more advanced cameras, that will never change and the Rebels will remain the bulk of sales on profits.... So how do you entice people to upgrade from a Rebel to an 80D? What extra capacity will make it sell enough to be profitable? What beyond that will entice them to a 7D2? What will entice them to a 6D, or one of the various 5 series cameras? or all the way to a 1DX?

Canon seems to be the master of figuring this out. We can make all the noise we want to, but we have neither the data to properly understand what is happening now, nor do we have the data as to what is coming in the future..... but it is a safe bet that Canon already knows what features and specs will be included in cameras for at least the next five years...

It is not about crippling to protect the high end cameras, it is about adding features/capabilities to entice people up from lower levels.

 

[ahsanford]

It is not about crippling to protect the high end cameras, it is about adding features/capabilities to entice people up from lower levels.

I hear you, Don, but I think it's happening both ways, surely. It's not just to migrate fish up the feeding chain.

Consider my 5D4 7 fps example -- who is that enticing up? A 6D1 owner in 2016 who has blinders to the fact that a likely much-more-on-target-for-them 6D2 is coming? A 5D3 owner who needs a little something-something to feel good about upgrading to a 5D4? Doubt it on both counts. Given that the latest rumors called out a 6 fps 6D2 coming, 7 fps does not entice me one bit to climb up to a 5D4 if I was choosing between the two. To me, the 7 fps spec is a clear case of nerfing the 5D4.

Also in the shamefully obvious nerfing bucket: spot metering at any AF point, no headphone jack on the 6D while the 5D3 got one, the 6D AF setup, etc.

But, in fairness to your point, there are a boatload of lower lines getting sexy new stuff to pull people up as well: you mentioned DPAF and anti-flicker, but also tilty-flippy screens, -3 EV AF points, more f/8 AF points, top LCD, 1/8000 shutters, etc.

Shake the tree and see where the feature/spec-levels are and I think you'll see quite a blend of things deliberately withheld and sexy new stuff to get you to plunk down X% more money.

- A

 

[Don Haines]

Also in the shamefully obvious nerfing bucket: spot metering at any AF point, no headphone jack on the 6D while the 5D3 got one, the 6D AF setup, etc.

The 6D is the Rebel of FF cameras, so I can see it with a minimum specs setup and no headphone jack.... but I can certainly see the 6D2 having a Bluetooth headphone and significantly more AF points...... I just got back from a Kayak trip and due to potential for dropping/soaking, brought along my 60D as a sacrificial camera. 9AF points SUCKS! You might as well just have the centre point because it was more useful than the pathetic coverage (without metering!) of the other 8 points. Canon really missed the boat on that one.... but in all fairness, the AF system of the 60D provided great incentive to upgrade to a 7D2....

I agree on the spot metering on AF points. I don't understand why the 5 series cameras and the 7D2 don't have it. Perhaps, with a bit of the competition having it, will further down the line finally make Canon see the light.... but then again, if that's my only complaint then Canon has hit the nail on the head almost every time.

 

[Mikehit]

Sure, you could flip the argument and say that we only got 11 AF points with the 6D because Canon had to strip something out to get the price down to the desired price point while still maintaining their desired margins. But I argue that what they chose to leave out of the 6D was carefully and deliberately chosen to not undermine the price of the 5D line.

I agree with that. But consider the outcome - Canon's approach for all its flaws has resulted in a stable company that has products among the best in class across the board, that meet the requirements of the most demanding professionals as well as amateurs, with a first class after sales service. The alternative is to have a company chasing the spec sheet, with likely lower profits and when it comes to the old trope of 'quality, price, features - pick 2 from three' which one would you give up?

The fact is most people needed either a 6D or a 5D3 - they didn't need a cheap end 5D3. The success of any market research is shown by sales, and the success of the 6D and the 5D3 suggests they got it right. Your argument seems to be 'it may have been a success, but they could have done even better'. I recall an anecdote by Warren Buffet who explained his cautious approach to investing and people criticised him for getting out of soem stocks too early; they said he could have made millions more, to which his response is to the effect of 'maybe, but I am still in business'

There is also a case for saying that if they made the 5DIV and sold it at the price of a 7D2 they would sell so many they would clean the market - low profits but high volume. I wonder why no-one does that sort of thing. In any market.

 

[Loswr]

So, Canon should just include all features on all cameras, right? The 6DII must have a 61-pt AF system for K, AF point-linked spot metering for ahsanford, a 1/250 s Xsync for my friend Sarah, 8 fps for Dave in Des Moines, 24 MP for Angelo, 28 MP for Anne, 36 MP for Alvin, an articulating screen for Artie, a joystick for Jehoshaphat, a...well, I could go on and on, but why? The point is obvious – different people have different priorities. For every individual who wants 'just that one feature' there are hundreds who don't care about that feature and want something else. Canon picks the feature set they think will most entice buyers while maintaining profit and product differentiation.

While an individual knows what they want and perhaps what a few others want, Canon asks thousand of customers, along with many other data sources. Hint: AF point-linked spot metering probably isn't topping any lists.

Canon's goal isn't to make everyone happy, they want to sell cameras to make a profit. If people buy a 5DIV because the 6D is 'crippled', Canon wins. If people buy a 6D because it costs 40% of a 5DIV, Canon wins. If people buy a 5DIV because the 1D X II is crippled by the lack of in-camera HDR, Canon still wins.

 

[privatebydesign]

Neuro being the sad Canon apologist as always, we have already decided 8fps is an entirely artificial bullsh!t 'limit', all bodies should get 10fps as a minimum.

 

[Loswr]

Don't blame me because Dave in Des Moines wants 8 fps. If Canon is going to make it 10 fps, they must also include a customization feature so users can select their desired frame rate. Or else.