Canon Announces PowerShot V10. Woohoo.

[Chiphadzuwa]

So Nikon announces the Z8, a baby flagship at about 2/3rds the price of the Z9 and nearly the exact same specs. That's groundbreaking and game-changing: (nearly) all the capabilities of their flagship camera in a less-expensive body. Incredible!

Meanwhile, 'my' Canon corporation can only come up with a silly little entry-level thingy called a PowerShot V10. Woohoo. That'll show Nikon for sure. They're shivering in their boots now, baby.

I'm thinkin' mebbe I should move over to the Dark Side.

 

[davidespinosa]

I'm thinkin' mebbe I should move over to the Dark Side.

Do you like the Z8 better than the R8 or R6ii ?

 

[neuroanatomist]

So Nikon announces the Z8, a baby flagship at about 2/3rds the price of the Z9 and nearly the exact same specs. That's groundbreaking and game-changing: (nearly) all the capabilities of their flagship camera in a less-expensive body. Incredible!

Meanwhile, 'my' Canon corporation can only come up with a silly little entry-level thingy called a PowerShot V10. Woohoo. That'll show Nikon for sure. They're shivering in their boots now, baby.

I'm thinkin' mebbe I should move over to the Dark Side.

Switching systems is expensive. I hope your earning potential is higher than your disingenuous post suggests.

 

[danfaz]

I'm thinkin' mebbe I should move over to the Dark Side.

And when Canon releases the next great thing after you've switched?

 

[Chiphadzuwa]

Do you like the Z8 better than the R8 or R6ii ?

What I like is Nikon's ongoing attention to the prosumer market for lenses. A great camera body that meets my needs for wildlife photography simply gets me into the lenses. I like characteristics of many camera bodies; but there are only a few characteristics about lenses that concern me as much as their cost. And right now, Canon ain't cuttin' it for me.

 

[Chiphadzuwa]

And when Canon releases the next great thing after you've switched?

I don't much care about next great things. I care about a particular niche of lenses and body capabilities. If I can get it from Canon, I'm good. If I have to switch to Nikon or somebody else, so be it. I've got time enough to make one switch -- or not -- and that's all I need.

 

[Chiphadzuwa]

Switching systems is expensive. I hope your earning potential is higher than your disingenuous post suggests.

Well, that's the point of all this, isn't it? My earning potential is nil anymore -- I'm retired. I can afford a new camera body at some point but Canon's long pro primes are way beyond my reach. Nikon is paying attention to a market segment that I live in, for both bodies and lenses. Canon doesn't seem to be doing that anymore. I'm watching Canon a while longer, but I really care a lot more about matching a capable body to the lenses I need than I do about brands. (And I wonder why you chose to make your comment personal by accusing somebody of being 'disingenuous.' Play nice please.)

 

[Kit.]

but there are only a few characteristics about lenses that concern me as much as their cost. And right now, Canon ain't cuttin' it for me.

Which lenses do you feel missing?

 

[neuroanatomist]

(And I wonder why you chose to make your comment personal by accusing somebody of being 'disingenuous.' Play nice please.)

Your whole premise is disingenuous. ‘Nikon announces the Z8 and Canon can only manage to come up with a dinky little vlogging camera?’ Your implication that the two announcements have anything to do with one another, or are targeting similar markets, is asinine. One could as easily have commented that with the Z8 Nikon finally has a body that can compete with the R5, and it only took them three years. At least that would be a cogent argument, even if untrue.

If you think Nikon is making products better suited to you, you should buy them if you can afford to do so. If you can’t, and you’re stuck with Canon and just want to bitch about it, that’s fine too.

But don’t make it about the PowerShot V10. The PowerShot moniker is associated with point-and-shoot cameras (which are actually making a comeback), and the V10 a product clearly aimed at a target audience distinct from the target market for the FF bodies and prosumer lenses that interest you…an audience younger than either of us. If you don’t ‘get it’ then that audience might say, “Ok, boomer.” But I believe you do understand the V10 and Z8 are aimed at different markets, and that’s exactly what makes your post disingenuous.

In the unlikely event that you somehow do actually believe the PowerShot V10 announcement is really Canon’s ‘answer’ to Nikon’s Z8 announcement as your post suggests, the appropriate words to describe you would make disingenuous sound downright flattering.

 

[Chiphadzuwa]

Your whole premise is disingenuous. ‘Nikon announces the Z8 and Canon can only manage to come up with a dinky little vlogging camera?’ Your implication that the two announcements have anything to do with one another, or are targeting similar markets, is asinine. One could as easily have commented that with the Z8 Nikon finally has a body that can compete with the R5, and it only took them three years. At least that would be a cogent argument, even if untrue.

If you think Nikon is making products better suited to you, you should buy them if you can afford to do so. If you can’t, and you’re stuck with Canon and just want to bitch about it, that’s fine too.

But don’t make it about the PowerShot V10. The PowerShot moniker is associated with point-and-shoot cameras (which are actually making a comeback), and the V10 a product clearly aimed at a target audience distinct from the target market for the FF bodies and prosumer lenses that interest you…an audience younger than either of us. If you don’t ‘get it’ then that audience might say, “Ok, boomer.” But I believe you do understand the V10 and Z8 are aimed at different markets, and that’s exactly what makes your post disingenuous.

In the unlikely event that you somehow do actually believe the PowerShot V10 announcement is really Canon’s ‘answer’ to Nikon’s Z8 announcement as your post suggests, the appropriate words to describe you would make disingenuous sound downright flattering.

Dear Neuro, thank you for giving me permission to bitch. I hadn't realized you were running the blog site. You're really a very special neuroanatomist. Nice meeting you, bye-bye.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm thinkin' mebbe I should move over to the Dark Side.

Nice meeting you, bye-bye.

You're leaving? Well, don't let the blast doors hit you in the posterior on the way out. Apparently DPR's forums are still up and running, you should fit in well there. But you must be cautious.

 

[unfocused]

Dear Neuro, thank you for giving me permission to bitch. I hadn't realized you were running the blog site. You're really a very special neuroanatomist. Nice meeting you, bye-bye.

I hate to tell you this, but the comments from @neuroanatomist are pretty restrained for him.

Let's recap. You started a snarky threat with the sole purpose of conflating Canon's release of a Power Shot camera with Nikon' release of an R5 competitor. That's kind of asking for trouble.

You used the old saw that Canon's failure to give you something you want (which you are pretty vague on what that might be) is prompting you to move to the "dark side." We've heard this before and frankly, no one cares. Nikon is not the "dark side" it's just another camera company and on this site, virtually every long time participant will tell you that if you find another brand that better suits your needs, you should go for it.

You said your real complaint with Canon isn't even about camera bodies, but about lenses. Yet when @Kit. asked you a legitimate question about what lenses you were referring to, you didn't bother to answer.

So, from where I'm sitting, this all seems like a bunch of baloney. If you want to discuss the comparative lens selections of Canon and Nikon, there are lots of people willing to have that discussion. And, there are plenty of people on this forum who will agree with you, as well as plenty of others that won't. So if you want a rational discussion, it's available to you. If you just want to whine, well Goal Accomplished.

 

[Chiphadzuwa]

I hate to tell you this, but the comments from @neuroanatomist are pretty restrained for him.

Let's recap. You started a snarky threat with the sole purpose of conflating Canon's release of a Power Shot camera with Nikon' release of an R5 competitor. That's kind of asking for trouble.

You used the old saw that Canon's failure to give you something you want (which you are pretty vague on what that might be) is prompting you to move to the "dark side." We've heard this before and frankly, no one cares. Nikon is not the "dark side" it's just another camera company and on this site, virtually every long time participant will tell you that if you find another brand that better suits your needs, you should go for it.

You said your real complaint with Canon isn't even about camera bodies, but about lenses. Yet when @Kit. asked you a legitimate question about what lenses you were referring to, you didn't bother to answer.

So, from where I'm sitting, this all seems like a bunch of baloney. If you want to discuss the comparative lens selections of Canon and Nikon, there are lots of people willing to have that discussion. And, there are plenty of people on this forum who will agree with you, as well as plenty of others that won't. So if you want a rational discussion, it's available to you. If you just want to whine, well Goal Accomplished.

Ouch, ooch, ouch! I give! Uncle! No more, I promise! I had no idea things were so serious around here!

 

[neuroanatomist]

He starts with conflation and a threat about going to the Dark Side, gets a flak Canon fired at him along with a Mos Eisley meme and cries ‘Uncle Owen’ like Luke because this place is 'too serious'. Yeah, that's the problem.

 

[Chiphadzuwa]

Which lenses do you feel missing?

Hello, Kit. Thank you for asking. I'm really just in the market for a long tele prime. My Canon 500 f/4 Mk I is a beautiful old lens and of course performs superbly. But it's long obsolete now (out of Canon's support window), getting too heavy for me; getting over-large for international wilderness travel in these times of the airline baggage squeeze; and the Mk I can't live up to the fps capabilities of R5, R3, or R6. And, as I've said elsewhere, Canon's current list of pro-grade replacements are unaffordable for me. It seems I have a few less-than-ideal options for replacement. I can buy used, but the f/4 MK II will be off Canon's support list in '29. Or I can buy Canon's RF 100-500 but give up a lot on max aperture (and I already own the 100-400 Mk II, which I love). Or I can buy Sigma or Tamron and accept some reduced IQ. Or I can move to Nikon, where there are a few prosumer-grade lenses in a more reasonable (for me) price range at the cost of some speed, but not much in the way of IQ -- and probably better overall lens quality than Sigma or Tamron. Like as not I'll just have to bite the bullet and pay more for a used Mk II than I can really afford. Time will tell.

Of course, moving to a Nikon lens would require me to move to a Nikon body, too -- and as others have pointed out, it gets expensive to migrate to whole other systems. I may end up having to do that (once) if it's the most practical way for me to replace my 500 Mk I, but I'm more inclined to think that I'd stick with my Canon kit for general nature photography (I do still love my other L series lenses as well as my 5D IV), and just move to Nikon for wildlife gear (if at all). I'd really rather stick with Canon. So, for now, I'm just waiting to see what Canon does next with long lenses. And hoping that they'll pay more attention to the market segment that includes me, in time for me to make a purchase before I leave on my next overseas trip (I've got a while still). And, as others have said, in the meantime, I'm just whining. But I'll stop whining now, because folks here are a lot more serious than I wanna be about all this.

Thank you again for asking your question. It was a nice way to engage in conversation.

 

[EricN]

If you don't have an R camera yet, I can see getting a z8 and 500mm f5.6 and keeping you 5D iv and lenses

 

[Chiphadzuwa]

If you don't have an R camera yet, I can see getting a z8 and 500mm f5.6 and keeping you 5D iv and lenses

Hi EricN, yeah, it makes sense that way. Even still, my preference would be to move forward with R series bodies -- but only if I can meet my "needs" with a Canon prime tele. In fact, my move into mirrorless awaits a decision on whether to move to Nikon for my next tele, or stick with Canon. Thank you for your comment. And, if you or anyone else has any suggestions, I'd welcome them.

 

[takesome1]

and the Mk I can't live up to the fps capabilities of R5, R3, or R6.

That makes no sense.

 

[takesome1]

I'm thinkin' mebbe I should move over to the Dark Side.

If you are going to the "Dark Side", the R3 is very good in low light.

For that matter though, how can you be sure you are not on the "Dark Side" now?

 

[Chiphadzuwa]

That makes no sense.

Hi takesome1, I first learned about this from a friend who moved from his 1DX to an R5 and found that his own EF 500 f/4 Mk I can blast away at the full 20 fps in electronic mode, but can't reach even close to the 12 fps in mechanical mode. He reports that he seems to get about 6-7 fps in mechanical mode. I don't doubt the man at all -- he's a pro and makes his living in wildlife photography -- but I wanted to know more. So I downloaded Canon's Advanced User Manual for the R5, and sure enough: in the Reference Section, pg. 896-897, is a list of which EF lenses do support 12 fps in mechanical mode. And my good old 500 Mk I is not listed. Support begins with the Mk II. I'm sure Canon has their reason for it; I just don't know what it is.