Canon needs to respond with SOMETHING

[traingineer]

I'd love an interchangeable sensor camera someday

[I know, I know it exists in the MF territory- I'm talking about dSLRs. Although at this time it is counter-productive from a marketing standpoint]

I believe this is what you are looking for.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I'd love an interchangeable sensor camera someday

[I know, I know it exists in the MF territory- I'm talking about dSLRs. Although at this time it is counter-productive from a marketing standpoint]

I believe this is what you are looking for.

 

[RGF]

Looks to have the features I want. For that price point, who cares about waiting another five years for a crippled 7dmk2.

a body is not a system. What about lenses, flashes, migration path - what if sony decides that they can not compete in the dSLR market - could happen. Then what?

 

[atkinsr]

Yes, there is a LOT more to a camera than this, but...

DxOMark: 1Dx vs A6000.

Seriously, do people at Canon not feel embarassed? I look at the beautiful pictures I take with my $400 Pentax K-30 (with $100 50mm 1.8) and the scores for that tiny Sony A6000, and wonder why I just dropped $6k for this 5Dm3, flash, and 2 lenses.

I love this Canon, but have to admit to a slight bit of mumbling when full frame Nikon owners and anyone with a Sony asks what I'm shooting.

 

[jrista]

I'd love an interchangeable sensor camera someday

[I know, I know it exists in the MF territory- I'm talking about dSLRs. Although at this time it is counter-productive from a marketing standpoint]

I believe this is what you are looking for.

YIKES!!

 

[Lawliet]

a body is not a system. What about lenses, flashes, migration path

Factor in 3rd party devices - eg. Tamrons 24-70/70-200, an Odin and a A7(7/r) are about as much as a 5D3 kit. Or go for Sigmas new primes, perhaps an adapter for lenses you already own.
Basically you can get the equipment to do almost any job for the price of just the Canon body. This makes migration, even system stability a rather moot point as you don't loose money even in the case of a complete change. Anything less is your gain. Just from a utility maximizing perspective.

 

[sagittariansrock]

a body is not a system. What about lenses, flashes, migration path

Factor in 3rd party devices - eg. Tamrons 24-70/70-200, an Odin and a A7(7/r) are about as much as a 5D3 kit. Or go for Sigmas new primes, perhaps an adapter for lenses you already own.
Basically you can get the equipment to do almost any job for the price of just the Canon body. This makes migration, even system stability a rather moot point as you don't loose money even in the case of a complete change. Anything less is your gain. Just from a utility maximizing perspective.

I didn't know Tamron and Sigma make lenses for the Sony E-mount. Now, if you are talking about an adapter (read: bulk), then what is the point of getting an A7?
I don't know if designing one camera after another thinking third party manufacturers will cover the lens end (pun unintended) is a sound business strategy.

The A7/r can be someone's second or third body, and definitely is (e.g., Dylan). But I doubt any high-end photographer will invest entirely in the A7/r. That is losing a big market share, right there.

 

[EchoLocation]

Sony always has lots of crazy specs, I'm sure Canon isn't too worried about it.
Personally, the thing that is most interesting to me about this camera is the kit lens. A 16-50 2.8 sounds a ton better than any of the kit lenses offered with the 7D.

 

[azizjhn]

Sony always create a huge buzz about non usable product see that what I am talking about (http://youtu.be/8AyVh1_vWYQ) ;D

 

[danski0224]

I have purchased Sony consumer electronic items in the past.

If you look up "hit or miss" in the dictionary, you may very well see a Sony logo.

With the exception of CRT televisions, product longevity has been an issue in my limited experience.

I haven't purchased a Sony item in many years- the last one for me was a Dell branded Trinitron monitor. Still works, but no longer used. Other consumer electronic items always seemed to fail soon after the warranty elapsed.

A Sony camera far exceeds the cost of any single item I have purchased with the Sony name, and truthfully, I'm not about to try one today- unless one is given to me.

The few people I know with either a Canon DSLR or a point and shoot of any brand barely use the features available. The person I know with the basic Canon still has the kit lens and no external flash, despite having used a couple of Canon lenses I own and an external flash *and* seeing a marked improvement in images. I suspect that describes plenty of camera kit owners.

People crying for "Canon to respond" must be such a small segment of a small market slice. I really can't envision these cries even registering on the Canon radar screen.

Professionals that make money with images must also use the Canon CPS system. Does Sony have an equivalent?

Even a million people tossing their "outdated Canon's" into the trash and buying a Sony replacement are a small percentage of Canon users. Where are the Sony lenses? Oh, that's right...

I'm not saying that the Sony system is bad, but the market scales are not even close to being in the same league.

I bet Canon has something in the skunkworks. The question is what will it cost.

http://store.sony.com/sony-alpha-77-m2-dslr-zid27-ILCA77M2/cat-27-catid-All-Alpha-77-Cameras

Sony just release what appears to be an awesome camera, especially for the price. I am committed to Canon myself, but I think some people are starting to think about switching because these others like Sony are upping the quality of their products.

Canon doesn't have anything close to the 24mp, 79 AF points and 12 FPS...especially under $1500.

Curious to see what everyone else's thoughts are on this new Sony and where you think Canon falls within the competition.

 

[Don Haines]

Sony is like a dog chasing a car... it is amusing to watch, but it's never going to catch it..... and even if it did, what's it going to do?

I stay with Canon because I like their lenses. I stay with Canon because I like their ergonomics. I stay with Canon because I like their flashes. I stay with Canon because the camera works day in and day out with no surprises. I stay with Canon because unlike companies like Olympus and 4/3, (NOT micro 4/3), you can depend on them staying in the game for the long run. I bought into a system, not the component of the day.

You don't respond to the competition by releasing a new camera.... a new camera takes several years to put to market... Canon probably started work on the 7D2 before the launch of the 7D... The 5D5 is probably started as a project.... what comes next will be what comes next in the timeframe planned and the latest release by X or Y will not affect the schedule one bit because Canon already knows what the completion is doing.

Is there anyone here who does not think that the people at Canon know far more about what is coming down the pipes from Sony and Nikon than we do? Ever hear of industrial espionage? They have a team devoted to gathering info on the competition, while we are grasping at straws and going hyper over source-less rumours...

So like the car being chased by a dog, Canon might slow down or swerve to keep from getting a Chihuahua stuck in the tire tread, but it's going where it was planning to and the yapping dog is just noise.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Yes, there is a LOT more to a camera than this, but...

DxOMark: 1Dx vs A6000.

Seriously, do people at Canon not feel embarassed? I look at the beautiful pictures I take with my $400 Pentax K-30 (with $100 50mm 1.8) and the scores for that tiny Sony A6000, and wonder why I just dropped $6k for this 5Dm3, flash, and 2 lenses.

I love this Canon, but have to admit to a slight bit of mumbling when full frame Nikon owners and anyone with a Sony asks what I'm shooting.

I strongly suggest selling your 5DIII kit and getting the A6000 ASAP. You'll be able to fund a vacation with the money you save, especially considering the more expensive camera gives you nothing but embarrassment.
Me, I've taped up my camera and lens with gaffer's tape. I don't advertise what I use, and hope someday my images will speak for themselves.

 

[Lawliet]

I didn't know Tamron and Sigma make lenses for the Sony E-mount. Now, if you are talking about an adapter (read: bulk), then what is the point of getting an A7?

Well, the battery grip is mandatory anyway, just to make it big enough to hold for exended times, or that the additional bulk compared to some Moves plus their heads/LSTs is nonexistent...
The point is obviously to get more sellable images, preferable for the same or less production costs, partially because of the sensor, partially because of things Canon just could throw into a firmware update, plus a bit of this and that.

I don't know if designing one camera after another thinking third party manufacturers will cover the lens end (pun unintended) is a sound business strategy.

They're actually releasing native lenses quite rapidly. About as fast as the overhead of changing production lines for different models would likely permit.
From the users perspective - what gives me the most sellable image? ATM files from the A7r net me the most money...

The A7/r can be someone's second or third body, and definitely is (e.g., Dylan). But I doubt any high-end photographer will invest entirely in the A7/r. That is losing a big market share, right there.

Considering that(aside from brand ambassadors) I don't know a single high end photographer who is invested entirely in a single brand...

 

[Loswr]

Yes, there is a LOT more to a camera than this, but...

DxOMark: 1Dx vs A6000.

Seriously, do people at Canon not feel embarassed? I look at the beautiful pictures I take with my $400 Pentax K-30 (with $100 50mm 1.8) and the scores for that tiny Sony A6000, and wonder why I just dropped $6k for this 5Dm3, flash, and 2 lenses.

I love this Canon, but have to admit to a slight bit of mumbling when full frame Nikon owners and anyone with a Sony asks what I'm shooting.

Nice to know that the idea that camera = sensor is alive and well. If you really dropped $6K on new Canon gear and are embarassed, I'm sorry for you.

If people are judging you by the gear you use and not the images you produce, and you care about their judgement, again, I'm sorry for you.

If you spent $6K on something without knowing why, seek help.

Regarding DxOMark's Biased Scores (abbreviated BS), be sure you understand what they mean. First off, they score the sensor only, not the camera. Also, for example, the 1D X has better dynamic range than the A6000 starting at ISO 400, close to 2 stops better DR at higher ISOs. But DxOMark's Score considers only ISO 100. If all you do is shoot landscapes from a tripod at ISO 100, DxOMark's Sensor Scores may be relevant for you, and in that case you should have bought a Nikon D800E and 14-24 lens and called it a day.

 

[DRR]

I agree that old cameras were essentially a box that held the film and that the digital camera is much more than that. That was not my point. My point was - and is - that the changes in each new generation of camera are comparatively small, in my opinion. As an average hobbyist, the pictures I take with my original rebel and those I took with a 60D I rented - and even the 6D I now own - are just about the same in IQ when viewed on a computer screen or printed 4 x 6 size (and perhaps even slightly larger). Of course, the marketing of each new camera will tell how much improved they are - and the consumer wants to believe it, too - so that they feel great about their new purchase. Twice I upgraded over the years and each time the camera was returned because the pictures I was taking with the original rebel were just as good. In fact, my percentage of accurately exposed pics is still probably higher with the original rebel than my 6D. I returned the first 2 6Ds I purchased because of exposure issues (one under exposed, the other over exposed!) until I found one that was accurate.

Granted, for those taking pics in low light, huge strides have been made in high ISO performance. Other than that, the IQ in the first digital cameras has held up surprisingly well, in my opinion.

(emphasis mine)

I do not disagree - up to a point though. Recently, there was an article posted on the photo blogs that put an iPhone 5 camera up against a Hasselblad. The shot was of a whiskey glass with some ice. The iPhone 5 held its own incredibly well! It would be simple to say that the Hasselblad offers only an incremental image quality increase over the iphone, right?

Of course not - just as in your Original Rebel vs 60D example, so much depends on the situation you shoot in. In a controlled setting, in a studio, tabletop, with lights and strobes and whatever else you need, you are correct, there is hardly going to be a difference at all between the Rebel and the 60D, or the Rebel and a 1DX or a Hasselblad or whatever.

You say "the IQ in the first digital cameras has held up surprisingly well" and that is true, up to a point. In controlled settings the IQ is rather comparable. My point however, was that advances in sensor and camera tech have enabled the range of possibilities to increase, tenfold. "the IQ in the first digital cameras has held up surprisingly well" would not be a statement that holds up in low light situations, or tracking action, or extreme cropping situations either.

So I agree with you up to a point. While you can easily point to an image or a setup where the IQ for the Rebel and a modern camera is not very different, I can also easily point to ten images that were taken with a modern camera, that simply would not be possible with a Rebel. I am not knocking old tech, it has always served me well, but I do appreciate and welcome new advances!

 

[mackguyver]

Now I see that we're saying image quality (IQ) is what matters most. If that were true, most people would be pretty happy with a iPhone or Rebel. The other thing to consider is capability. People, myself included, don't buy a 1D X for the image quality alone. We buy it because you can't take super telephoto pictures of fast moving objects at 12FPS in near darkness with nearly any other camera. There are many cameras that have the same or better IQ (take a trip to DxOMark... ) but other than the D4(S), you're not going to find much out there than can give you that capability. Watching the Sochi coverage, I don't remember seeing much other than 1D _s and D3/D4s on the sidelines. For anyone who wants to sell their work, it's all about getting the shot that the majority of other people are not able to get. Part of that is the photographer's eye/creativity/preparations, but the other part is the capability of their equipment.

 

[sdsr]

Canon doesn't just "needs to respond with SOMETHING".
Canon needs to hit a home run with their next product.

[....]

And no, the 5dm3 was not a home run. Maybe a single. Every other manufacturer for the level I consider has surpassed Canon in both lenses and cameras.

If it doesn't "hit a home run with its next product", then what, exactly? You won't buy it? I won't buy it? Posters at Canonrumors will complain loudly? The cameras and lenses that keep Canon's camera department going stronger than anyone else's (in terms of market share) haven't been "home runs" in years and probably don't interest most posters here in the least, but they still sell well. And I don't think it's true that every other manufacturer has surpassed Canon in both lenses and cameras - this or that body may do something better, this or that lens may be better than its Canon equivalent, but overall? I don't think so, for all that I'm very fond of my Olympus OM-D and Sony A7r. But if you think so, why does it matter if Canon doesn't satisfy your desires? It's far easier to jump ship than some people around here seem to think (but even more fun to be promiscuous if you can afford it and sample more than one brand at a time).

 

[gsealy]

I think you have to align yourself with a manufacturer and stay with it. It's too expensive and time consuming to change when the next 'best of market' product is released. For me Canon is the whole package in terms of quality of products, camera software, lens, support, and stability. They might not always be on the cutting edge, but we do know that they will competitive. They can't afford not to be.

 

[sdsr]

Yes, I want a higher MP camera. Yes, I want more DR. Yes, I want better manual focus ability. Yes I want improved AF and yes I want a lot more. But having seen the sharpness, resolution, color and everything else I get from what I have, I wonder if anyone (other than the pixel peepers at CR ) will be able to see/tell if I got the new 14 f-stop sensor, with 45MP and ... all the rest of it.

I think your (perfectly reasonable) comment invites two opposite lines of response, both of them right. If you don't pixel peep (I sometimes wonder if those who disapprove do so because they don't like what they see when they do...), just how much better do images taken with the new Sigma's images look than those taken with other 50mm lenses? Depending on how you view them, perhaps not much - maybe not at all. But if you do like pixel peeping (I do, when I like what I see - perhaps there's some AA equivalent: "Hi, my name is X and I like to pixelpeep..."), you will be able to see a difference when you switch sensors (I certainly see a difference when I attach my favorite Canon lenses, such as the 100L, to my Sony A7r, for instance). Whether the differences are significant, and whether they matter, depends entirely on who's looking.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Yes, I want a higher MP camera. Yes, I want more DR. Yes, I want better manual focus ability. Yes I want improved AF and yes I want a lot more. But having seen the sharpness, resolution, color and everything else I get from what I have, I wonder if anyone (other than the pixel peepers at CR ) will be able to see/tell if I got the new 14 f-stop sensor, with 45MP and ... all the rest of it.

I think your (perfectly reasonable) comment invites two opposite lines of response, both of them right. If you don't pixel peep (I sometimes wonder if those who disapprove do so because they don't like what they see when they do...), just how much better do images taken with the new Sigma's images look than those taken with other 50mm lenses? Depending on how you view them, perhaps not much - maybe not at all. But if you do like pixel peeping (I do, when I like what I see - perhaps there's some AA equivalent: "Hi, my name is X and I like to pixelpeep..."), you will be able to see a difference when you switch sensors (I certainly see a difference when I attach my favorite Canon lenses, such as the 100L, to my Sony A7r, for instance). Whether the differences are significant, and whether they matter, depends entirely on who's looking.

Can you share your results so we can objectively look at them? (your 100L on the A7r and a Canon dSLR?)

Personally, I feel those who disapprove of pixel peeping indeed do not like what they see when they do- a beautiful image in subject and composition can suddenly be rendered worthless when you start to pay more attention to the minutiae. I think pixel peeping is a good way to waste a good thing.
Let's face it, if your image looks great when fitted to a desktop LCD monitor and you don't plan on an enormous print, what are you gaining by the extra resolution at 100%? What does pixel peeping provide other than vanity? (I regularly pixel peep for my research, but then I am trying to find tiny fluorescent neurons among a ton of luminous gunk)