fullstop said:otoh IBIS not very likely with Canon
I think it’s just a matter of time. Maybe not the next released camera or two, but they will eventually implement it.
Upvote
0
fullstop said:otoh IBIS not very likely with Canon
fullstop said:Each iteration of their cameras since about 2008 [when they lost leadership in CMOS sensors] matches roughly the specs that previous gen product should already have had to be fully competitive in IQ, functionality and performance.
fullstop said:yes. touch-sensitive "vari-angle" LCDs were already invented and implemented in Canon EOS 650D//Rebel T4i announced June 8, 2012.
The EOS 650D also becomes the first SLR from any manufacturer to feature a touchscreen. This is of the capacitive (contact sensitive) rather than resistive (pressure sensitive) type, behaving like that of a typical smartphone. In Live View and Movie modes the screen can be used to specify the point of focus and (optionally) release the shutter. It also supports iPhone-like multi-touch and gestures.
But hell no, the 6D [announced after 650D on September 17, 2012] could of course not feature such an "advanced" feature. It had to be reserved for the otherwise useless 6D Mk. II years later. This is exactly the kind of marketing nerfing that is so irksome with Canon.
kiwiengr said:rjbray01 said:The reason now is different is because practically every potential camera buyer is already carrying an outstanding camera built into their mobile phone.
The camera sales market is shrinking : with increasingly complex camera functions being addressed by the phone capabilities.
I would expect fewer MILC sales to translate to fewer suppliers : survival of the fittest.
Rubbish... one has a good smart phone (S8)... one has an excellent DSLR (5D4). I don't use the camera to make phone calls.. and the reverse option applies.
Moving a camera design toward a smartphone camera design is a sure way to lose competition against smartphones.rjbray01 said:The reason now is different is because practically every potential camera buyer is already carrying an outstanding camera built into their mobile phone.
The camera sales market is shrinking : with increasingly complex camera functions being addressed by the phone capabilities.
I would expect fewer MILC sales to translate to fewer suppliers : survival of the fittest.
Canon is a conservative company. If you want to have state of the art, they are the wrong company to get your camera from. You would be far better off to sell all your gear and get Panasonic, after all, they are "slightly ahead of out time".....fullstop said:yes. touch-sensitive "vari-angle" LCDs were already invented and implemented in Canon EOS 650D//Rebel T4i announced June 8, 2012.
The EOS 650D also becomes the first SLR from any manufacturer to feature a touchscreen. This is of the capacitive (contact sensitive) rather than resistive (pressure sensitive) type, behaving like that of a typical smartphone. In Live View and Movie modes the screen can be used to specify the point of focus and (optionally) release the shutter. It also supports iPhone-like multi-touch and gestures.
But hell no, the 6D [announced after 650D on September 17, 2012] could of course not feature such an "advanced" feature. It had to be reserved for the otherwise useless 6D Mk. II years later. This is exactly the kind of marketing nerfing that is so irksome with Canon.
edoorn said:I'm not sure Canon can afford to release a lack lustre ff mirrorless. Sony has raised the bar to a new standard and the Nikon offerings (mind you; this is Nikon's first serious attempt at a mirrorless, if you ignore the 1 camera's) seem to be on par with that. Anything less and I'm quite sure a significant people interested in mirrorless FF will consider switching and lose confidence. So they need it to be a very good and worthy camera. They've had experience now with several M bodies so this should be no limitation.
I think there is a considerable difference in intent with phone photography.rjbray01 said:kiwiengr said:rjbray01 said:The reason now is different is because practically every potential camera buyer is already carrying an outstanding camera built into their mobile phone.
The camera sales market is shrinking : with increasingly complex camera functions being addressed by the phone capabilities.
I would expect fewer MILC sales to translate to fewer suppliers : survival of the fittest.
Rubbish... one has a good smart phone (S8)... one has an excellent DSLR (5D4). I don't use the camera to make phone calls.. and the reverse option applies.
that "reverse option" being "I don't use my phone to take pictures"
hmm ... not sure you are in the majority there
I don't think you're asking too much, but also I don't think that is in line with Canon's business model, so I don't think they will do it. I don't think Canon wants to be competing on specs or else they'd have to re-release gear very rapidly - i.e. Sony releases a new camera and now Canon has to respond right away? That's an expensive proposition with little benefit to Canon. Their current business model has put them in the lead, so I doubt they'd stray far from what they're already doing.bergstrom said:what worries em is the "at least one mirrorless camera will be announced". Can they not release the BIG one and focus all their attention on that and blow away the specs of the sony a7iii and be the camera that people can't stop talking about. Or am I just asking too much?
bergstrom said:what worries em is the "at least one mirrorless camera will be announced". Can they not release the BIG one and focus all their attention on that and blow away the specs of the sony a7iii and be the camera that people can't stop talking about. Or am I just asking too much?
amorse said:I think there is a considerable difference in intent with phone photography.rjbray01 said:kiwiengr said:rjbray01 said:The reason now is different is because practically every potential camera buyer is already carrying an outstanding camera built into their mobile phone.
The camera sales market is shrinking : with increasingly complex camera functions being addressed by the phone capabilities.
I would expect fewer MILC sales to translate to fewer suppliers : survival of the fittest.
Rubbish... one has a good smart phone (S8)... one has an excellent DSLR (5D4). I don't use the camera to make phone calls.. and the reverse option applies.
that "reverse option" being "I don't use my phone to take pictures"
hmm ... not sure you are in the majority there
I have a reasonably good smartphone and a 5D IV as my main camera. Personally, I never use my smartphone for artistic photography - I've just been far too spoiled by the low light performance of a proper DSLR. In my experience, most (not all) phone photos fall apart in low light and with any sort of magnification or pixel peeping. For now, I really only use my phone's camera to take the odd selfie with friends at events, or take pictures of my car at the airport so I know where I parked - anything where quality isn't what I'm looking for: only convenience.
I think this is why the compact market has diminished - a phone camera is very well suited to those uses, but as soon as there are specific quality demands a proper ILC is hard to beat. I hate to use my own anecdotal evidence, but I have seen quite a number of people who have purchased up-market ILCs because they got into photography using their phone, and then started seeking out some of the benefits provided by a more advanced camera. If anything, I would suspect that the camera phone market has largely killed the compact camera market but pushed remaining buyers up market into ILCs.
Sure, creative software and pre-packaged formulas for specific photo effects are now accessible to smartphone users to create an ILC-like result, but at its core this is contrary to the value of ILCs. ILCs allow the user to create whatever they can imagine (for those that are willing to learn how), while smartphone effects only replicate a finite number of pre-packaged things users might like to create. ILCs give you control to create anything, while smartphones give you a menu of things they can deliver. There is value in both propositions to be fair, but neither can replace the other currently.
nbaresejr said:My Best Guess for the FF specs.
30.4mp- new sensor with BIS (we have seen patents that canon is working on BIS sensors). Dynamic range needs to be about 1 stop better then the current 5d4. This would make it about equal to anything currently out there from Sony.
Digic 8 or 8+ processor
Excellent EVF
DPAF with the fastest AF performance of any Canon mirrorless camera to date (I would say by far)
3.0" Vari Angle LCD Screen
4k, no crop
Wifi, NFC, Bluetooth
5 Axis Image Stabilization (currently on M50)
10 FPS (minimum)-m50 does 9.5
Eye AF (currently on m50)
200+ AF points (m50 has 143)
Depending on how they are adapting the EF lenses to this camera, with specs like that it would be a homerun. I would pay $3000 for that camera.
rjbray01 said:amorse said:I think there is a considerable difference in intent with phone photography.rjbray01 said:kiwiengr said:rjbray01 said:The reason now is different is because practically every potential camera buyer is already carrying an outstanding camera built into their mobile phone.
The camera sales market is shrinking : with increasingly complex camera functions being addressed by the phone capabilities.
I would expect fewer MILC sales to translate to fewer suppliers : survival of the fittest.
Rubbish... one has a good smart phone (S8)... one has an excellent DSLR (5D4). I don't use the camera to make phone calls.. and the reverse option applies.
that "reverse option" being "I don't use my phone to take pictures"
hmm ... not sure you are in the majority there
I have a reasonably good smartphone and a 5D IV as my main camera. Personally, I never use my smartphone for artistic photography - I've just been far too spoiled by the low light performance of a proper DSLR. In my experience, most (not all) phone photos fall apart in low light and with any sort of magnification or pixel peeping. For now, I really only use my phone's camera to take the odd selfie with friends at events, or take pictures of my car at the airport so I know where I parked - anything where quality isn't what I'm looking for: only convenience.
I think this is why the compact market has diminished - a phone camera is very well suited to those uses, but as soon as there are specific quality demands a proper ILC is hard to beat. I hate to use my own anecdotal evidence, but I have seen quite a number of people who have purchased up-market ILCs because they got into photography using their phone, and then started seeking out some of the benefits provided by a more advanced camera. If anything, I would suspect that the camera phone market has largely killed the compact camera market but pushed remaining buyers up market into ILCs.
Sure, creative software and pre-packaged formulas for specific photo effects are now accessible to smartphone users to create an ILC-like result, but at its core this is contrary to the value of ILCs. ILCs allow the user to create whatever they can imagine (for those that are willing to learn how), while smartphone effects only replicate a finite number of pre-packaged things users might like to create. ILCs give you control to create anything, while smartphones give you a menu of things they can deliver. There is value in both propositions to be fair, but neither can replace the other currently.
It might not be much longer until mobile phones contain arrays of lenses, which will do for their cameras what arrays of radio telescopes did for astronomy ...
https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/research-news/optical-phased-array-replaces-camera-lens-2017-06/
To quote the article "Once scaled up, this technology can make lenses and thick cameras obsolete."
rjbray01 said:amorse said:I think there is a considerable difference in intent with phone photography.
I have a reasonably good smartphone and a 5D IV as my main camera. Personally, I never use my smartphone for artistic photography - I've just been far too spoiled by the low light performance of a proper DSLR. In my experience, most (not all) phone photos fall apart in low light and with any sort of magnification or pixel peeping. For now, I really only use my phone's camera to take the odd selfie with friends at events, or take pictures of my car at the airport so I know where I parked - anything where quality isn't what I'm looking for: only convenience.
I think this is why the compact market has diminished - a phone camera is very well suited to those uses, but as soon as there are specific quality demands a proper ILC is hard to beat. I hate to use my own anecdotal evidence, but I have seen quite a number of people who have purchased up-market ILCs because they got into photography using their phone, and then started seeking out some of the benefits provided by a more advanced camera. If anything, I would suspect that the camera phone market has largely killed the compact camera market but pushed remaining buyers up market into ILCs.
Sure, creative software and pre-packaged formulas for specific photo effects are now accessible to smartphone users to create an ILC-like result, but at its core this is contrary to the value of ILCs. ILCs allow the user to create whatever they can imagine (for those that are willing to learn how), while smartphone effects only replicate a finite number of pre-packaged things users might like to create. ILCs give you control to create anything, while smartphones give you a menu of things they can deliver. There is value in both propositions to be fair, but neither can replace the other currently.
It might not be much longer until mobile phones contain arrays of lenses, which will do for their cameras what arrays of radio telescopes did for astronomy ...
https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/research-news/optical-phased-array-replaces-camera-lens-2017-06/
To quote the article "Once scaled up, this technology can make lenses and thick cameras obsolete."
stochasticmotions said:The bigger dark horse in the race is Nikon, they have not yet shown on sensor autofocus that is anywhere close to Canon or Sony for video or tracking. Nikon's latest SLRs are excellent but they are a mystery as to where they will come into this market this time.
ahsanford said:stochasticmotions said:The bigger dark horse in the race is Nikon, they have not yet shown on sensor autofocus that is anywhere close to Canon or Sony for video or tracking. Nikon's latest SLRs are excellent but they are a mystery as to where they will come into this market this time.
Nikon also has the Ghost of Tiny Mount Diameter's Past past to contend with. They couldn't support autofocusing f/1.2 lenses as Canon did, and Canon folks constantly reminded them of that. So I'm not surprised at all that Nikonians are pride-wise geeked about the prospect of these f/0.95 lenses that have been rumored -- I surely wouldn't want to have to carry those lenses, though!
rrcphoto said:ahsanford said:stochasticmotions said:The bigger dark horse in the race is Nikon, they have not yet shown on sensor autofocus that is anywhere close to Canon or Sony for video or tracking. Nikon's latest SLRs are excellent but they are a mystery as to where they will come into this market this time.
Nikon also has the Ghost of Tiny Mount Diameter's Past past to contend with. They couldn't support autofocusing f/1.2 lenses as Canon did, and Canon folks constantly reminded them of that. So I'm not surprised at all that Nikonians are pride-wise geeked about the prospect of these f/0.95 lenses that have been rumored -- I surely wouldn't want to have to carry those lenses, though!
the 52 / .9 is 10 inches long.