Best & Worst Releases From Canon in 2015

[Lee Jay]

Worst releases from Canon in 2014: all their cameras with out-dated sensor designs, leading to slow or incapable on-sensor AF, lack of 4k video capability and non-competitive high and/or low ISO performance.

Perhaps Canon improve in all these areas in 2015. I won't hold up my hopes 'cos I've been disappointed too many times already.

Can I borrow your time machine?

 

[StudentOfLight]

For me the 100-400L II is a 2014 lens so is disqualified.

50STM is an old optical design in a new package with maybe some new coatings. Good value but so-so performance.

The 5Ds/~R are good tools for certain jobs but fall short of what we know is possible. In these two cameras Canon had the opportunity to throw down the technological gauntlet but unfortunately chose not to.

The 35L II is expensive but optical performance, technology and build quality are a new benchmark for the 35mm focal length.

The EOS M3 ... In my mind BMW lawyers were considering legal action against Canon for tarnishing the prestigious M3 brand which BMW has been cultivating for so many years.

XC10 - this waste of money, time and human resources makes my blood boil. If all that R&D was instead diverted into on-sensor ADC for the 5Ds/-R ... Why Canon, Why?!?!?!??!?!

 

[AvTvM]

For me the 100-400L II is a 2014 lens so is disqualified.

50STM is an old optical design in a new package with maybe some new coatings. Good value but so-so performance.

The 5Ds/~R are good tools for certain jobs but fall short of what we know is possible. In these two cameras Canon had the opportunity to throw down the technological gauntlet but unfortunately chose not to.

The 35L II is expensive but optical performance, technology and build quality are a new benchmark for the 35mm focal length.

The EOS M3 ... In my mind BMW lawyers were considering legal action against Canon for tarnishing the prestigious M3 brand which BMW has been cultivating for so many years.

XC10 - this waste of money, time and human resources makes my blood boil. If all that R&D was instead diverted into on-sensor ADC for the 5Ds/-R ... Why Canon, Why?!?!?!??!?!

+100

Especially like the beamer M3 bit!

 

[StudentOfLight]

For me the 100-400L II is a 2014 lens so is disqualified.

50STM is an old optical design in a new package with maybe some new coatings. Good value but so-so performance.

The 5Ds/~R are good tools for certain jobs but fall short of what we know is possible. In these two cameras Canon had the opportunity to throw down the technological gauntlet but unfortunately chose not to.

The 35L II is expensive but optical performance, technology and build quality are a new benchmark for the 35mm focal length.

The EOS M3 ... In my mind BMW lawyers were considering legal action against Canon for tarnishing the prestigious M3 brand which BMW has been cultivating for so many years.

XC10 - this waste of money, time and human resources makes my blood boil. If all that R&D was instead diverted into on-sensor ADC for the 5Ds/-R ... Why Canon, Why?!?!?!??!?!

+100

Especially like the beamer M3 bit!

Forgot to mention the:
11-24mm f/4 L. Pretty astonishing lens but it unfortunately has some optical flaws.
760D/T6s and 750D/T6i are decent performers and are pretty competitive except with DR.

To summarize, in my opinion Canon's best for 2015 is the outstanding Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM.
Canon's worst product for 2015 is undoubtedly the XC10. How did it ever see the light of day?

 

[JoFT]

I decided I’d weigh in on what I felt were Canon’s best and worst products of 2015. I didn’t find any of the DSLR releases to be all that interesting this year. While I like the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R, I just haven’t found a use personally for either of them. I felt 2015 was a development year for Canon as far as DSLRs and mirrorless cameras go and we should expect some big things in 2016,</p><p><!--more--></p><h4><strong>Best Product Release by Canon in 2015</strong></h4><p><strong>Winner: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1143786-REG/canon_0570c002_ef_50mm_f_1_8_stm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM</a></strong>Canon released a lot of great new L and DO lenses in 2015, but my pick for the best of 2015 is the brand new “nifty fifty”. Canon improved just about everything on the new version of this lens and did something amazing, they didn’t raise the price over the lens it replaced.</p><p>Improvements include 7 aperture blades instead of 5, a metal mount, STM AF motor, faster AF, improved build quality, so it might actually survive a fall. It stops down to f/22 instead f/16 on the lens it replaces.</p><p>Just because something is “entry level” doesn’t mean it can’t also be great and this is one great product release by Canon.</p><p><strong>Runner-Up: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1180801-REG/canon_9523b002_35mm_f_1_4l_ii_usm.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II</a></strong>There were a lot of great lenses to choose from this year, the EF 11-24mm f/4L is one of a kind, the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II is a nearly perfect update the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II proves Canon is still behind its diffractive optics development.</p><p>I have to give the runner-up award to the EF 35mm f/1.4L II though, while the other L and DO releases were great, this lens has a bigger mass appeal, which is why I chose it. Canon once again improved everything about the previous version of a lens model. Optical quality and build quality are again class leading and you cannot overlook having a native Canon lens for accurate autofocus when you need it most. Yes, the lens is expensive, but after the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/teardown-canon-ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-by-lensrentals-com/" target="_blank">recent teardown we saw of the new lens</a>, it looks to be justified.</p><p>Canon continues to be the best and most advanced lens maker in the world and it’s likely the big reason they retain their marketshare in the DSLR space.</p><h4>Worst Product Release by Canon in 2015</h4><p><strong>Winner (Loser): <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1134581-REG/canon_0565c013_xc10.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon XC10</a></strong>I don’t think anyone has any idea what Canon was thinking with this oddball camera. Canon’s marketing claims it’s a product for everyone including still shooters, videographers & photojournalists.</p><p>What usually happens when you try to make something for everyone? You end up making something for no one. Which is exactly what Canon did.</p><p><strong>Runner-Up: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1180765-REG/canon_9694b001_eos_m3_mirrorless_digital.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EOS M3</a></strong>I don’t care if you’ve improved on the EOS M and the EOS M2, all you’re doing is updating a product that is flawed to something that is still flawed. The EOS M system is still way behind mirrorless leaders Sony, Fujifilm & Olympus, and that has to change soon. Canon is promising that it will, but we’ll take the wait and see approach.</p><p>Sound off in the forum with your own best and worst list.</p>

For me the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 lens was THE (!!!) most exciting experience in 2015. I shoot Canon since ever (1979... starting with the AE-1...) But recently I realized the asset of the nifty-fifty in the Canon ecosystem. It gives the echo Canonista a very cheap lens with a great performance. Even if it is just the cheapest EOS 1200D or Rebel: With this great lens everybody can do Pro like photos!!!


I love to use it on the 5D MkIII http://bit.ly/1NtFALq[/size] even more than on the 7DMkII... [/size]http://bit.ly/1OCuFi5




And one other topic: My copy really outperforms the 50mm f1.4.... In every regard!!!

 

[Tinky]

XC10 - this waste of money, time and human resources makes my blood boil. If all that R&D was instead diverted into on-sensor ADC for the 5Ds/-R ... Why Canon, Why?!?!?!??!?!

The end product was a waste of time. Even if it had been slightly bigger and taken 2.5 SSDs.. maybe some merit..
CFast killed it absolutely over it's other shortcomings.

BUT it's not the case that Stills shooters suffer for investment in video. Canon has made movie cameras from standard 8 to super 8, through 8mm Hi8 and DV, to HDV, EOS and XF. The XC10 hasn't cost stills shooters anything. I don't get why folks perpertuate this needless dichotomy.

If anything, movie users have enouraged development of the EOS line, and certainly the additional sales can't hurt.

The XC10 is a major disappointment, I just don't see what bearing it has on stills. I gather the new on sensor technologies were first developed and marketed on primarily stills bodies such as the EOS M1, 700D and 70D, and then made it's way into video cameras like the C100 modifcation and then the XC10.

If anything, us video guys should be saying, pull your finger out canon and stop wasting time with stills cameras.

But that would be self-defeatest ignorant and silly.

 

[ecqns]

speaking of Canon disappointments - whatever happened to the 2 new TS-E lenses rumored to be released?
haven't heard much about them at all in the last few months.

 

[jolyonralph]

The EOS M10 deserves to be on the list, the M3 doesn't.

 

[AvTvM]

The EOS M10 deserves to be on the list, the M3 doesn't.

M10 is only a poor joke. M3 is not on the list for what it is. It is on the list for what it could and should have been. It's behind the 3 year old Sony A6000 in every way - from sensor to AF performance. Thats why Canon has deserved the entry on the fail list for the M3. It is also the reason why i refuse to buy a M3.

 

[Lee Jay]

The EOS M10 deserves to be on the list, the M3 doesn't.

M10 is only a poor joke. M3 is not on the list for what it is. It is on the list for what it could and should have been. It's behind the 3 year old Sony A6000 in every way - from sensor to AF performance. Thats why Canon has deserved the entry on the fail list for the M3. It is also the reason why i refuse to buy a M3.

Have you used an A6000? The viewfinder is horrid and the ergonomics are a really sad joke like the thing was designed for a 3-year-old by a moron.

If someone gave me one, I'd wedge it under a door when i needed to prop it open.

 

[privatebydesign]

First of all, you said "The 8-15L on crop is wider than the 11-24 (8mm-equivalent rectilinear when cropped to 3:2...." which is not true, the rectilinear conversion of an 8mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera is 12.8mm on a ff camera,

It is true.

The vertical angle of view of the 11-24 on full-frame, at 11mm, is 95 degrees.
The vertical angle of view of the 8-15 on crop, at 8mm, is 112 degrees.

Thus, when cropped to 3:2, the 8-15 on crop at 8mm is much wider (HFOV = 148 degrees) than the 11-24 is on full frame (HFOV = 117 degrees).

The projections are different thus the angles-of-view at the same focal lengths are different. Check yourself. Here are the formulas:

Fisheye: 4*arcsin(sensor size/(focal length*4))
Rectilinear: 2*arctan(sensor size/(focal length*2))

As for using 1% of the native image circle diameter, if you are cropping down to such small percentages of your crop camera image, again, you are doing something I couldn't, good luck to you as we are obviously talking about different levels of detail and quality.

Well, how do you get a picture at 2,800mm equivalent, hand held, while standing on the side of a mountain, of an A-380 at 40,000 feet 14 miles away?

The 8-15 on a crop does have a wider fov than the 11-24 on a ff, but that wasn't how you worded your first comment and isn't what I was saying was wrong. The 8-15 on crop is not a rectilinear projection, and you said "8mm-equivalent rectilinear" the 8-15 does not give you 148º at 8mm on a crop camera when remapped to rectilinear, that is what you said and I said was incorrect.

When remapped to rectilinear the 8mm fisheye on a crop camera gives an equivalent of a 12.8mm rectilinear lens on a FF camera, just look at the three images I posted earlier to see how much fov you lose in a fisheye to rectilinear remap.

As for your A-380 shot, as I said, we are talking about different levels of detail and quality, there is nothing wrong with your shot, but I wouldn't take it show it or use it as any kind of example of anything.

This is what I would consider a worthwhile in flight A-380 shot.

 

[Lee Jay]

The 8-15 on a crop does have a wider fov than the 11-24 on a ff, but that wasn't how you worded your first comment and isn't what I was saying was wrong. The 8-15 on crop is not a rectilinear projection, and you said "8mm-equivalent rectilinear" the 8-15 does not give you 148º at 8mm on a crop camera when remapped to rectilinear, that is what you said and I said was incorrect.

When remapped to rectilinear the 8mm fisheye on a crop camera gives an equivalent of a 12.8mm rectilinear lens on a FF camera,

No, you are wrong.

When the 8-15 is shot on a crop camera, fully defished at 8mm and cropped to 3:2, the equivalent field of view is that of an 8.12mm rectilinear lens on a full-frame camera. And it looks ridiculous.

At 9.3mm, with the same conditions, its FOV is that of an 11mm rectilinear lens.

Here's the full chart for 8-15 on crop, fully defished and cropped to 3:2.

8 8.12
9 10.34
10 12.41
11 14.37
12 16.26
13 18.11
14 19.91
15 21.69

The entire point of my A-380 shot is to get a shot of contrail production near the plane.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

My 35mm f/1.4L II review is now live if you want to take a look. I will be following up with a Canon Rumors review in the next few weeks, but for those considering the lens:

http://bit.ly/1Py0AOA

 

[StrawberryF]

For lens either the 100-400II or 11-24. The nifty fifty does not count it for me. Price may be right but so what. A me too lens at a low price point.