Canon registered two new ILC bodies

[LogicExtremist]

Fixed focus is probably the only way to sensibly measure things. For instance, on my 7D2 I could AF fully and get 10fps. I checked a few times, tracking kingfishers and swif. Why did I check? At the time a well known photographer and maker of flash diffusers was adamant the 7D2 could not achieve 10fps. My testing was wide open with the 100-400II. Had I used a really old EF lens with its Noisy motor then I am sure my frame rate would have dropped. There are so many lenses, lots of setup variables and also different environmental conditions that the spreadsheet to list it all would be huge, as would the time taken to test every combination. So fps has to be measured with as few variables as possible or the user would end up really struggling with the data.

Agreed, measuring FPS from a fixed focus is an efficient way to standardise the testing, because it's almost impossible to standardise a moving subject for testing purposes.

The real point of concern is the discrepancy between real technical specs and the more malleable marketing specs, which usually omit critical information or qualifiers. Usually, camera companies are more discerning and accurate with the numbers when it comes to cameras built for high burst rates, such as the ID nad 7D series, but are a bit more 'creative' with those specifications on lower models that aren't used for specifically that purpose, probably because no general consumer is going to complain too much I guess.

 

[Mikehit]

Agreed, measuring FPS from a fixed focus is an efficient way to standardise the testing, because it's almost impossible to standardise a moving subject for testing purposes.

The real point of concern is the discrepancy between real technical specs and the more malleable marketing specs, which usually omit critical information or qualifiers. Usually, camera companies are more discerning and accurate with the numbers when it comes to cameras built for high burst rates, such as the ID nad 7D series, but are a bit more 'creative' with those specifications on lower models that aren't used for specifically that purpose, probably because no general consumer is going to complain too much I guess.

So what is your solution? Instead of complaining, give us an example of what they should be saying, considering their camera is capable of achieving those specs.
How are they any different to the other manufacturers (especially Sony).

 

[LogicExtremist]

So what is your solution? Instead of complaining, give us an example of what they should be saying, considering their camera is capable of achieving those specs.
How are they any different to the other manufacturers (especially Sony).

I already have proposed a solution in the original comment by explaining the difference between real-world technical specs, which are qualified as necessary to truly indicate what performance a buyer can realistically expects, vs throwaway 'advertising specs' which are inaccurate. Obviously, more or the former, less of the latter.

Not sure what Sony does with their advertising, only have one of their compact cameras and it delivered on advertised specs, but if others are doing the wrong thing, that doesn't make it right to do the same. That's known as the 'bandwagon' logical fallacy of 'everyone is doing it', the problem is that the popularity of something does not logically validate it as right.

 

[Mikehit]

I already have proposed a solution in the original comment by explaining the difference between real-world technical specs, which are qualified as necessary to truly indicate what performance a buyer can realistically expects, vs throwaway 'advertising specs' which are inaccurate. Obviously, more or the former, less of the latter.

So what conditions should they use as their 'real world'? A fast moving subject where the AF is working harder? darker conditions where the AF takes longer to lock on? How dark/bright? A half-full battery or a third-full battery? A 600mm tele with 2x converter or a 50mm plastic fantastic or a 24-105 f4?
You have the same problem with CIPA battery life - are you shooting with all functions turned on? short bursts? long bursts? tracking?
It would be impossible to give 'real world' situations for all customers in all genres.

I have sympathy with your comments with your comments but dong what is required is near impossible.

 

[Michael Clark]

Canon left the 5D s in the lineup long after they dropped the 5DIII (which is the body they used). Was that because it took them that long to recover the costs and make a profit?

The 5Ds and 5Ds R weren't just a high resolution sensor put into a 5D Mark III body. They had some things that the 5D Mark III did not which then showed up in the 5D Mark IV.

Flicker reduction, for example. Also DiG!C 6 (mark III had DiG!C 5).