Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]

[tron]

Big splash could be the sound of a new big zoom waterproof camera dropping into the water ;D

 

[jdramirez]

I really cannot imagine shooting in anything other than full RAW. Maybe I'm different than some because I do print large on occasion but I'd rather carry cards than switch modes during a shoot. I now wait to be schooled by those who tell me I'm missing the point. I can take it.

If I get a bump in fps speed... maybe... if not, no thanks. Give me a bigger rock so I can make my sculpture rather than a smaller rock that I have to fit my vision into.

 

[Lee Jay]

I use my Tamron at f/8 (stopped down 2/3 stop), and the results are very good. At least as good as what I get with the 100-400, but subjectively better in many cases because of the additional pixels on-target. I am not sure that a 100-400 with a 1.4 TC will beat it. There would have to be some major improvements over the current 100-400 + TC performance for this to be a viable option. As far as IS, Tamron's VC (vibration control) is excellent. I do agree that Canon focusing will likely be faster and it that the Canon will be lighter. But if I have to spend at least twice as much for the lens, plus more for a decent TC, it just doesn't add up, for me. I suspect that the same will be true for many birders on a budget. There will be, however, great deals on used samples of the current 100-400 regardless.

I think even the current 100-400L with 1.4x is quite good optically, at least in the center. I've used mine for moon shots with stacked 1.4x TCs and it's still very good optically even with the 18MP crop sensor behind it.

So, to me, the question is, are you willing to pay double for a lens that's smaller and lighter, has better handling, has better AF, and can get to the 100-150mm range versus the Tamron, if the optical quality is better over the 150-400 range and just as good over the 400+ range at f/8? I think many - myself included - would be willing to do that. In fact, this possibility is the very reason I have not bought the Tamron. If the Tamron were as good at 600mm wide open as it is at 400mm wide open, that would be another story. But it's not.

 

[Don Haines]

I use my Tamron at f/8 (stopped down 2/3 stop), and the results are very good. At least as good as what I get with the 100-400, but subjectively better in many cases because of the additional pixels on-target. I am not sure that a 100-400 with a 1.4 TC will beat it. There would have to be some major improvements over the current 100-400 + TC performance for this to be a viable option. As far as IS, Tamron's VC (vibration control) is excellent. I do agree that Canon focusing will likely be faster and it that the Canon will be lighter. But if I have to spend at least twice as much for the lens, plus more for a decent TC, it just doesn't add up, for me. I suspect that the same will be true for many birders on a budget. There will be, however, great deals on used samples of the current 100-400 regardless.

I think even the current 100-400L with 1.4x is quite good optically, at least in the center. I've used mine for moon shots with stacked 1.4x TCs and it's still very good optically even with the 18MP crop sensor behind it.

So, to me, the question is, are you willing to pay double for a lens that's smaller and lighter, has better handling, has better AF, and can get to the 100-150mm range versus the Tamron, if the optical quality is better over the 150-400 range and just as good over the 400+ range at f/8? I think many - myself included - would be willing to do that. In fact, this possibility is the very reason I have not bought the Tamron. If the Tamron were as good at 600mm wide open as it is at 400mm wide open, that would be another story. But it's not.

As a happy owner of the Tamron, let me say this:

I agree! Over the 150-400 range, the Tamron as a bit better than the 100-400 and obviously, from 400 to 600 there is no comparison. When I bought it I did not believe that an updated 100-400 would be coming out any time soon and so I bought and have enjoyed many many great pictures that I would not have got without it.

The current 100-400 is substandard for IQ in the Canon lens lineup. If the improvements in quality are anything like the quality we see in the 70-200's, then the new one will be a kick-ass lens with IQ and AF that blows the Tamron away in the 150-400 range and quite possibly will out-resolve the Tamron at 600mm WITHOUT a teleconverter.

 

[Marauder]

A new 100-400L was what I was waiting for, but no longer. I suspect that if it is ever actually produced it will cost at least more than twice the $1069 price tag of the Tamron, and it will still stop at 400mm.

I think it will stop at 560mm, with a 1.4x TC attached, and likely be better at 560mm f/8 than the Tamron is at 600mm f/8. From what I've seen of tests, the Tamron really needs to be stopped down to f/8 at 600mm or there isn't much advantage over what you get at 400mm from the same lens.

So, it'll be 100-400/4.5-5.6 and 140-560/5.6-8 versus 150-600/5-8. And I'll bet the Canon will focus faster, be smaller and lighter, and have better handling and IS. And at twice the cost, of course.

But, we'll see if it happens or not soon enough.

I use my Tamron at f/8 (stopped down 2/3 stop), and the results are very good. At least as good as what I get with the 100-400, but subjectively better in many cases because of the additional pixels on-target. I am not sure that a 100-400 with a 1.4 TC will beat it. There would have to be some major improvements over the current 100-400 + TC performance for this to be a viable option. As far as IS, Tamron's VC (vibration control) is excellent. I do agree that Canon focusing will likely be faster and it that the Canon will be lighter. But if I have to spend at least twice as much for the lens, plus more for a decent TC, it just doesn't add up, for me. I suspect that the same will be true for many birders on a budget. There will be, however, great deals on used samples of the current 100-400 regardless.

Just wondering, how do you find Servo AF accuracy (and speed) with the Tamron?

 

[Haydn1971]

Big ?

4k comes to the C100/C300, or

8k comes to 1D-C MkII / C500 ?

 

[mackguyver]

I'll have a good laugh if they roll out a new Rebel and a 18-300 f/4.5-5.6 STM lens

Okay, my wallet will laugh, but I'll cry with the rest of you :'(

 

[AJ]

The single most interesting thing is going to be the sensor in the new camera.

I disagree. I think the 7D2 will be all about 4k video. There will be new digic chip(s) to make that happen.

 

[JonAustin]

I don't like to print less than 300PPI.
And prefer even 540PPI if I can get it.

I don't know what kind of printer you're using, but I've tested output at every resolution from 100 to 600 ppi, and without a magnifying glass, I don't see any perceptible difference

They already been de-Bayered into a weird format with some info even beyond just resolution lost and you are stuck with their quick and dirty de-bayer and scale.

Whatever. The images still look great.

 

[rame5hra0]

According to Thom Hogan, the sensor is unlikely to all that revolutionary, but merely a reworking of dual pixel technology with improvements mainly in autofocus. Not so much in IQ. :
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-photokina-prognosis.html
"I think that’s likely more dual-pixel focus ability, only better integrated into the calculation engines this time. In other words, I expect the sensor change is mostly about focus performance, especially with video and Live View".

 

[JonAustin]

... I'd really like to see lossy and reduced DNG as a raw option in Canon cameras. While they are still de-Bayer'd, they are much, much better than Canon's mraw and sraw, for multiple reasons.

I'd like to hear more!

 

[pknight]

I think even the current 100-400L with 1.4x is quite good optically, at least in the center. I've used mine for moon shots with stacked 1.4x TCs and it's still very good optically even with the 18MP crop sensor behind it.

So, to me, the question is, are you willing to pay double for a lens that's smaller and lighter, has better handling, has better AF, and can get to the 100-150mm range versus the Tamron, if the optical quality is better over the 150-400 range and just as good over the 400+ range at f/8? I think many - myself included - would be willing to do that. In fact, this possibility is the very reason I have not bought the Tamron. If the Tamron were as good at 600mm wide open as it is at 400mm wide open, that would be another story. But it's not.

Well, the existence of the Canon lens you describe is, at this time, pure fantasy. We don't know what the new lenses are going to be, nor what they are going to cost. I suspect that if there is a new 100-400, it will be closer to $3000 than $2000. I have seen what my Tamron can do at 600mm, and for me any marginal improvement in IQ would not be worth the cost, even at $2000. Of course, your preference is perfectly valid for you, and I respect it.

 

[pknight]

Just wondering, how do you find Servo AF accuracy (and speed) with the Tamron?

I may be a bit slower. There were some AI Servo problems with early samples (achieving focus, not maintaining focus) that have apparently been addressed by firmware updates in later samples. Compared to the 100-400 I do not see any evidence of decreased accuracy. The 100-400 is no gem in that regard, in my experience.

 

[Marauder]

Just wondering, how do you find Servo AF accuracy (and speed) with the Tamron?

I may be a bit slower. There were some AI Servo problems with early samples (achieving focus, not maintaining focus) that have apparently been addressed by firmware updates in later samples. Compared to the 100-400 I do not see any evidence of decreased accuracy. The 100-400 is no gem in that regard, in my experience.

Quite right. I use the 100-400 and the 7D and AF is generally good, but not always. I'm glad to hear they've addressed the AF accuracy issue as it's the one thing that worried me regarding the Tamron as a possible addition to my kit. Thanks for taking the time to answer!

 

[ahsanford]

Canon made revolution few years ago. Currently it is a stagnant company, which still focuses significant aattention to dying P&S market. Product cycle for semi-pro and pro products is very long and shows that Canon does not sufficiently invest in R&D as other companies. Canon started loosing in the following areas:

1) Mirrorless market - they loose to Fuji, Olympus, Sony;
2) Sensor technology - loosing to Sony;
3) Lenses - starting to loose to Sigma and Tamron as these 2 companies started producing high quality lenses, which match or in some cases exceed qulity of Canon lenses (e.g. Sigma 50 mm 1.4 Art, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC) for affordable price.

Losing is a tough way to put it. Being #1 means you have many mouths to feed -- not just enthusiasts and pros in a forum. I'm truly curious to see what chunk of Canon's business folks like us in this forum (and like-minded shooters not in this forum) actually represent to them. 5%? 10%?

Also, advances in one small segment of the photography world does not make Fuji, Olympus, Sony, Sigma and Tamron the 'team to beat'. It means that they have had success in one small segment of the photography world. That's all.

And lest we forget, the company arguably most revered (of late) for its innovation and 'firsts in the industry' -- Sony -- can't seem to understand photographers well enough to produce a top-to-bottom well thought out camera that is free of non-trivial flaws. They seem predisposed to come up with something cool and useful (that I might want!), shoot it out to the market half-cocked, and under-deliver. What's worse is that they don't seem to learn from this, and they just shoot out another version in record time with similarly iffy results.

So it's more than who is on a roll or has the best team or most innovative pipeline -- I want the company that most consistently satisfies its customers. Bleeding edge innovation isn't my driver. Saying I have one more stop of dynamic range than my friend with a Nikon isn't my driver. Believing I have the best camera that has ever been made isn't my driver. I want a camera/system that does exactly what I want it to do. Canon may be slow, but they have never let me down with what they have delivered.

- A

 

[Ale]

According to Thom Hogan, the sensor is unlikely to all that revolutionary, but merely a reworking of dual pixel technology with improvements mainly in autofocus. Not so much in IQ. :
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-photokina-prognosis.html
"I think that’s likely more dual-pixel focus ability, only better integrated into the calculation engines this time. In other words, I expect the sensor change is mostly about focus performance, especially with video and Live View".

I wonder if we'll see some new application for dual-pixel focus, e.g. some kind of (semi-)automated micro-adjustment.

 

[Don Haines]

Canon made revolution few years ago. Currently it is a stagnant company, which still focuses significant aattention to dying P&S market. Product cycle for semi-pro and pro products is very long and shows that Canon does not sufficiently invest in R&D as other companies. Canon started loosing in the following areas:

1) Mirrorless market - they loose to Fuji, Olympus, Sony;
2) Sensor technology - loosing to Sony;
3) Lenses - starting to loose to Sigma and Tamron as these 2 companies started producing high quality lenses, which match or in some cases exceed qulity of Canon lenses (e.g. Sigma 50 mm 1.4 Art, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC) for affordable price.

Losing is a tough way to put it. Being #1 means you have many mouths to feed -- not just enthusiasts and pros in a forum. I'm truly curious to see what chunk of Canon's business folks like us in this forum (and like-minded shooters not in this forum) actually represent to them.

Also, advances in one small segment of the photography world does not make Fuji, Olympus, Sony, Sigma and Tamron the 'team to beat'. It means that they have had success in one small segment of the photography world. That's all.

And lest we forget, the company arguably most revered for its innovation and 'firsts in the industry' -- Sony -- can't seem to understand photographers well enough to produce a top-to-bottom well thought out camera that is free of non-trivial flaws. They seem predisposed to come up with something cool and useful (that I might want!), shoot it out to the market half-cocked, and under-deliver. What's worse is that they don't seem to learn from this, and they just shoot out another version in record time with similarly iffy results.

So it's more than who is on a roll or has the best team or most innovative pipeline -- I want the company that most consistently satisfies its customers. Bleeding edge innovation isn't my driver. I want a camera/system that does exactly what I want it to do. Canon may be slow, but they have never let me down with what they have delivered.

- A

When I jumped ship from Olympus to Canon, the choice was Canon or Nikon. Canon had the lenses that I liked and when it came to the user interface, there was no comparison...Canon let me do what I wanted easily, Nikon had me diving into menus... I went Canon

As things stand today, for my purposes everything about the Canons is superior to the Nikon and Sony offerings except for the sensors and I expect the gap to narrow drastically or even disappear soon.

Look at the clues...

Clue #1: Canon sensors are inferior to Nikon/Sony. Everyone knows that. You can bet that the people at Canon know that too.
Clue #2: Canon executives have hinted that something big or revolutionary is coming.
Clue #3: The 7D2 has been delayed for "production reasons".. We know it isn't just making another copy of the 70D sensor with a few more or less pixels.. it has to be something else.
Clue #4: The delay is NOT DPAF. It is here and in production in the 70D. Being a lower cost camera and stocked and sold in general consumer stores, it is a safe bet that 70D sales will exceed that of the 7D2 AND the entire FF lineup. A bit more for a 7D2 will not matter.
Clue #5: Canon has sensor fabrication facilities that work on much finer lithography than the APS-C and FF sensors of today. Pick up a Canon P/S camera for proof....
Clue #6: P/S sales are declining and this means extra capacity is opening up on those finer lithography production lines...
Clue #7: We know that by going to row or column A/D on the sensor that they could drastically drop noise and increase the DR of their sensors. You can bet that Canon knows this too.

My bet is that the delays in 7D2 production are due to moving the A/D onto sensors with finer lithography. This has to happen at some point and now is the logical time. I would expect a rapid refresh of the FF lineup after this.

 

[Skulker]

Just wondering, how do you find Servo AF accuracy (and speed) with the Tamron?

I may be a bit slower. There were some AI Servo problems with early samples (achieving focus, not maintaining focus) that have apparently been addressed by firmware updates in later samples. Compared to the 100-400 I do not see any evidence of decreased accuracy. The 100-400 is no gem in that regard, in my experience.

Quite right. I use the 100-400 and the 7D and AF is generally good, but not always. I'm glad to hear they've addressed the AF accuracy issue as it's the one thing that worried me regarding the Tamron as a possible addition to my kit. Thanks for taking the time to answer!

The bad press that the 100-400 gets puzzles me a bit. I've had one for years First I used it on a 30D now its on a 1Dx. While I'd be the last to say its one of the best, I do own a 300 F2.8, I still find I can get good images with it and use it a fair bit. The top images was taken years 8(?) ago with the 30D the lower one last weekend with the 1Dx. The lens has been used and abused including being dropped on occasion and sometimes got quite wet.

I will be quite happy to consider a 100-400 MK2 if it should appear. Until then the Mk1 will be in use.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Canon made revolution few years ago. Currently it is a stagnant company, which still focuses significant aattention to dying P&S market. Product cycle for semi-pro and pro products is very long and shows that Canon does not sufficiently invest in R&D as other companies. Canon started loosing in the following areas:

1) Mirrorless market - they loose to Fuji, Olympus, Sony;
2) Sensor technology - loosing to Sony;
3) Lenses - starting to loose to Sigma and Tamron as these 2 companies started producing high quality lenses, which match or in some cases exceed qulity of Canon lenses (e.g. Sigma 50 mm 1.4 Art, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC) for affordable price.

Losing is a tough way to put it. Being #1 means you have many mouths to feed -- not just enthusiasts and pros in a forum. I'm truly curious to see what chunk of Canon's business folks like us in this forum (and like-minded shooters not in this forum) actually represent to them. 5%? 10%?

Also, advances in one small segment of the photography world does not make Fuji, Olympus, Sony, Sigma and Tamron the 'team to beat'. It means that they have had success in one small segment of the photography world. That's all.

And lest we forget, the company arguably most revered (of late) for its innovation and 'firsts in the industry' -- Sony -- can't seem to understand photographers well enough to produce a top-to-bottom well thought out camera that is free of non-trivial flaws. They seem predisposed to come up with something cool and useful (that I might want!), shoot it out to the market half-cocked, and under-deliver. What's worse is that they don't seem to learn from this, and they just shoot out another version in record time with similarly iffy results.

So it's more than who is on a roll or has the best team or most innovative pipeline -- I want the company that most consistently satisfies its customers. Bleeding edge innovation isn't my driver. Saying I have one more stop of dynamic range than my friend with a Nikon isn't my driver. Believing I have the best camera that has ever been made isn't my driver. I want a camera/system that does exactly what I want it to do. Canon may be slow, but they have never let me down with what they have delivered.

- A

-10 for use of sound logic....you know that has no place here!!!! lol

 

[jrista]

Canon made revolution few years ago. Currently it is a stagnant company, which still focuses significant aattention to dying P&S market. Product cycle for semi-pro and pro products is very long and shows that Canon does not sufficiently invest in R&D as other companies. Canon started loosing in the following areas:

1) Mirrorless market - they loose to Fuji, Olympus, Sony;
2) Sensor technology - loosing to Sony;
3) Lenses - starting to loose to Sigma and Tamron as these 2 companies started producing high quality lenses, which match or in some cases exceed qulity of Canon lenses (e.g. Sigma 50 mm 1.4 Art, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC) for affordable price.

Losing is a tough way to put it. Being #1 means you have many mouths to feed -- not just enthusiasts and pros in a forum. I'm truly curious to see what chunk of Canon's business folks like us in this forum (and like-minded shooters not in this forum) actually represent to them.

Also, advances in one small segment of the photography world does not make Fuji, Olympus, Sony, Sigma and Tamron the 'team to beat'. It means that they have had success in one small segment of the photography world. That's all.

And lest we forget, the company arguably most revered for its innovation and 'firsts in the industry' -- Sony -- can't seem to understand photographers well enough to produce a top-to-bottom well thought out camera that is free of non-trivial flaws. They seem predisposed to come up with something cool and useful (that I might want!), shoot it out to the market half-cocked, and under-deliver. What's worse is that they don't seem to learn from this, and they just shoot out another version in record time with similarly iffy results.

So it's more than who is on a roll or has the best team or most innovative pipeline -- I want the company that most consistently satisfies its customers. Bleeding edge innovation isn't my driver. I want a camera/system that does exactly what I want it to do. Canon may be slow, but they have never let me down with what they have delivered.

- A

When I jumped ship from Olympus to Canon, the choice was Canon or Nikon. Canon had the lenses that I liked and when it came to the user interface, there was no comparison...Canon let me do what I wanted easily, Nikon had me diving into menus... I went Canon

As things stand today, for my purposes everything about the Canons is superior to the Nikon and Sony offerings except for the sensors and I expect the gap to narrow drastically or even disappear soon.

Look at the clues...

Clue #1: Canon sensors are inferior to Nikon/Sony. Everyone knows that. You can bet that the people at Canon know that too.
Clue #2: Canon executives have hinted that something big or revolutionary is coming.
Clue #3: The 7D2 has been delayed for "production reasons".. We know it isn't just making another copy of the 70D sensor with a few more or less pixels.. it has to be something else.
Clue #4: The delay is NOT DPAF. It is here and in production in the 70D. Being a lower cost camera and stocked and sold in general consumer stores, it is a safe bet that 70D sales will exceed that of the 7D2 AND the entire FF lineup. A bit more for a 7D2 will not matter.
Clue #5: Canon has sensor fabrication facilities that work on much finer lithography than the APS-C and FF sensors of today. Pick up a Canon P/S camera for proof....
Clue #6: P/S sales are declining and this means extra capacity is opening up on those finer lithography production lines...
Clue #7: We know that by going to row or column A/D on the sensor that they could drastically drop noise and increase the DR of their sensors. You can bet that Canon knows this too.

My bet is that the delays in 7D2 production are due to moving the A/D onto sensors with finer lithography. This has to happen at some point and now is the logical time. I would expect a rapid refresh of the FF lineup after this.

+100

Excellent analysis. I think you've really zeroed in on something here, and tied together a lot of the various bits and pieces of rumors and news from Canon. (Particularly the bit about declining load on their fabs that use a smaller lithography process due to declining P&S sales...I'd never thought of that!) I think it paints a pretty hopeful picture about Canon's sensor future.

(BTW, on a side technical note...there won't ever be row-parallel ADC. Rows are activated, then all the columns for the active row are read. Then the next row is activated and the process repeated down the vertical height of the sensor. That's how sensors, both CCD and CMOS, have been designed for decades. So they will either go with CP-ADC, or they will keep the ADC off die...there wouldn't ever be a RP-ADC though.)